July 2015 budget

[El Presidente]

Nice.

It's not exactly easy to predict something that depends on so many factors, including the global economy.

But budgets are always about moving things around in line with the current government's policies, so even when debt needs paying there will often be some tax cuts that are paid for by changes elsewhere. Haven't they said that this particular tax cut will come from taxes on pension savings of people earning over £150k? So it's taking from the very wealthy and giving to the slightly less wealthy.

But that's a soundbite and taxes don't work like that. Tax receipts go into a central pool, and are not ringfenced for other tax cuts.

If George Osborne had said the money had come from reducing benefits for autistic people to pay for tax cuts for the slightly less wealthy people would be up in arms. So he said something that sounded more palatable.

 

[Hampster Gull]

It's about the transfer of wealth into profits and rent. I love the utter drivel of right-wingers who believe you incentive working people by making them poorer and the wealthy by making them wealthier.

Profits incentivise people to create wealth and jobs, its what industrialised countries do and it enables people to have jobs. BTL owners are hit pretty badly in this budget. You dont incentivise working people by making them poorer, you incentivise them working people by making them less reliant on other people, i mean the state

 

[Hampster Gull]

I know they don't settle their own pay (Labour's PS Act of 2009). My point is I think 67k is too much. There is of course nothing to stop them dispensing with the PSA.

Not enough for me. Equivalents paid more in USA, Canada, Australia, Japan and Germany as just a small sample

 

[beorhthelm]

No. It is not a lifestyle OR an investment. It is education.

its all three, if you do it right.

 

[El Presidente]

Because student loans get written off after 30 years, and if you earn less than 20k(could be more, could be less, I'm not sure) after graduating you don't have to pay anything back.

Or it could be that student loans come from the student loans company. These loans are guaranteed by the government, but as they are paid by a quango rather that from the DoE they do not count towards government debt.

Grants come directly from the government and therefore do count towards the debt.

Currently it is estimated that 45% of student loans will not be repaid, which works out at £90 billion, but because they do not have to be written off for 30 years they won't appear on the government books until then.

This will allow George Osborne to claim to be bringing down the debt when in reality he is merely shifting it off balance sheet, as has happened with PFI under both Gordon Brown and Osborne himself.

Both the current regime, the coalition and Labour are manipulators of the true extent of public finances.

 

[Steve.S]

Profits incentivise people to create wealth and jobs, its what industrialised countries do and it enables people to have jobs. BTL owners are hit pretty badly in this budget. You dont incentivise working people by making them poorer, you incentivise them working people by making them less reliant on other people, i mean the state

In order to do that, they need a living wage and clearly have not been getting one for years. The government have made a step in the right direction today by introducing a living wage, however it's another 5 years down the line. However they want to reduce tax credits asap, it has to go hand in hand, take away what the state provides and make sure the employer provides a decent wage. Aside from that productivity is what is needed and unfortunately there is no sign of that growing or any ideas in the budget to address it.

 

[Triggaaar]

But that's a soundbite and taxes don't work like that. Tax receipts go into a central pool, and are not ringfenced for other tax cuts.

Of course it's a central pool, but when any party think of a change to tax they think of it in relation to other changes. If they want to make a change they think about how much it's going to cost/bring in, and they think about what other changes they can make to balance it. If one of the tories aims was to reduce IHT, and they worked out how much it would cost, they would then look at ways of raising the money to pay for it, and they've come up with the change I've mentioned. So it does work like that, regardless of the central pool.

If George Osborne had said the money had come from reducing benefits for autistic people to pay for tax cuts for the slightly less wealthy people would be up in arms. So he said something that sounded more palatable.

That would suggest that they make a load of changes without any thought for how much each will cost/bring in, and no care of what it will do to our budget deficit. Obviously that's not what happens.

 

[El Presidente]

Of course it's a central pool, but when any party think of a change to tax they think of it in relation to other changes. If they want to make a change they think about how much it's going to cost/bring in, and they think about what other changes they can make to balance it. If one of the tories aims was to reduce IHT, and they worked out how much it would cost, they would then look at ways of raising the money to pay for it, and they've come up with the change I've mentioned. So it does work like that, regardless of the central pool.

That would suggest that they make a load of changes without any thought for how much each will cost/bring in, and no care of what it will do to our budget deficit. Obviously that's not what happens.

If the government are sincere about cutting the deficit, then they should focus on narrowing the gap, not expanding it by giving arbitrary tax cuts to a small section of well off individuals.

It would make far more sense to make the adjustment in relation to pensions (which I think is a good idea) and dividends (which I also agree with in principle despite my earlier grumbles) and say to those about to profit from their parent's death that they can keep £860,000 of the £1 million property that has just fallen into their lap, rather than all of it, surely?

 

[Dandyman]

Profits incentivise people to create wealth and jobs, its what industrialised countries do and it enables people to have jobs. BTL owners are hit pretty badly in this budget. You dont incentivise working people by making them poorer, you incentivise them working people by making them less reliant on other people, i mean the state

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/unfair_and_unclear.pdf

 

[Hampster Gull]

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/unfair_and_unclear.pdf

Are you able to summarise your views?

 

[El Presidente]

Are you able to summarise your views?

Isn't there a problem that many on benefits come from a background of poor/nonexistent education, living in areas of social deprivation where there are few if any jobs, and those jobs are low skilled and low paid.

They then get trapped in the cycle of paying high marginal rates of tax (once their benefits are tapered) and so there is little, if any incentive to work, even if there were jobs available.

If you earn an extra £10 and lose £9.50 in the process, for a job that has no intellectual, artistic or creative worth, why bother?

 

[Hampster Gull]

[MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] I agree with that. For me at least though we should not perpetuate that problem through an ever faster growing welfare state. We need to help by Removing taxes for the lowest paid, reducing welfare credits and increasing the minimum wage feels a really credible alternative. I woild spend more on education and no ring fence the NHS which i think would add another element into the mix

 

[Bry Nylon]

If you earn an extra £10 and lose £9.50 in the process, for a job that has no intellectual, artistic or creative worth, why bother?

Self respect and the hope that that job might just lead to something better. You create your own breaks in life.

I have done some really shitty jobs in my time, for piss-poor money. But at least it was MY shitty job and I always did it the best I could.

 

[Triggaaar]

If the government are sincere about cutting the deficit, then they should focus on narrowing the gap, not expanding it by giving arbitrary tax cuts to a small section of well off individuals.

Says who? They said they were going to deal with the deficit, and they are doing so. They also made promises to those that voted for them, and they're keeping those promises too.

It would make far more sense to make the adjustment in relation to pensions (which I think is a good idea) and dividends (which I also agree with in principle despite my earlier grumbles) and say to those about to profit from their parent's death that they can keep £860,000 of the £1 million property that has just fallen into their lap, rather than all of it, surely?

While I can understand that's a policy you would favour, the tories they would reduce IHT, so no, that wouldn't make sense.

 

[El Presidente]

Self respect and the hope that that job might just lead to something better. You create your own breaks in life.

I have done some really shitty jobs in my time, for piss-poor money. But at least it was MY shitty job and I always did it the best I could.

In these areas there not even any shitty jobs though.

 

[LamieRobertson]

i'd call shenanigans on that claim. HA's built 37k homes last year, so i hardly think a 1% reduction in rents will reduce their asset base by that much (a 2% reduction would mean unable to build any new homes, and presumably have to start selling to cover overheads).

what we have this evening is everyone with a vested interest, economically and policitally, saying how bad it is for their area of interest.[/QUOTE]

You have a point there...although i would add..that goes for the ''how good'' bit too

 

[Bry Nylon]

In these areas there not even any shitty jobs though.

I've joined the debate late and I haven't read the whole thread -which areas are we discussing?

 

[El Presidente]

They also made promises to those that voted for them, and they're keeping those promises too.
.

Mark Lever, Chief Executive of the National Autistic Society, said:

"The Government has broken its promise to protect disability benefits.

It looks as if they've kept their promises to the wealthy but not the disabled, which is their perogative.

 

[El Presidente]

I've joined the debate late and I haven't read the whole thread -which areas are we discussing?

Whether George Osborne should give Paul Barber a tax break, I think.

 

[Steve.S]

Isn't there a problem that many on benefits come from a background of poor/nonexistent education, living in areas of social deprivation where there are few if any jobs, and those jobs are low skilled and low paid.

They then get trapped in the cycle of paying high marginal rates of tax (once their benefits are tapered) and so there is little, if any incentive to work, even if there were jobs available.

If you earn an extra £10 and lose £9.50 in the process, for a job that has no intellectual, artistic or creative worth, why bother?

You have hit the nail on the head, so many people on here think that this budget will bring down the welfare budget. What the budget has done today is bring closer the gap between low wage working and benefits. Yes they have cut benefit payments, but at the same time taken the incentive of tax credits away from those trying to earn a living on low wages. People on benefits don't just get income support, they have housing benefit, free school meals, free eye care and free dental care and the cost of those benefits can easily add up to 25,000 + plus a year for a couple with 2 children, who is going to go to work and earn less as they will lose tax credits and have have to pay for a lot more such as eye tests, dental care, school meals and pay all the rent. It is a fine line between work paying and being on benefits.