The Budget

[Jonnyboy]

He'll never ever make a good point, because whenever he speaks you don't hear the words that come out of his mouth, you see a geek with a lisp and switch off.

 

The polls show that he is the most disliked of all the party leaders, but it's good to see people like you like him because i'd hate for him to be replaced.

 

Edit: Actually I wouldn't mind him being replaced if he was replaced by Ed Balls.

 

You ar elike one of these annoying Saints fans who only talk about Pompey and how much you hate them.

[bridge too far]

Sunday Times Opinion Polls from a week ago:

 

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-11-130111.pdf

 

show that Dunce is being economical with the truth about the performance of the party leaders.

 

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

[dune]

Labour's Ed Miliband is the least-liked of the three main party leaders, according to pollsters, despite Nick Clegg admitting he is so hated people have spat on him and posted dog mess through his letterbox.

 

Mr Miliband was liked by 36% of the people Ipsos Mori asked. Prime Minister David Cameron was most-liked (47%) followed by his Deputy Prime Minister, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg (40%).

 

Conservative leader Mr Cameron was also the least disliked of the three, despite his government’s plan to implement severe spending cuts.

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Poll-Shows-Labour-Leader-Ed-Miliband-Is-The-Least-Liked-Of-The-Three-Main-Party-Leaders/Article/201103315954353?lpos=Politics_First_Poilitics_Article_Teaser_Regi_4&lid=ARTICLE_15954353_Poll_Shows_Labour_Leader_Ed_Miliband_Is_The_Least-Liked_Of_The_Three_Main_Party_Leaders

[rocknrollman no2]

So what does the budget mean to the average person in the street?

Beer up 4p.

Cigs up 34p.

Wine up 15p a bottle.

Spirits up 54p a bottle.

Petrol up 2p a litre on Januarys price because of this government and its going up again later.

Company tax cut a little(wont make no difference to anyone).

Oh but the money we can earn before we pay tax has increased slightly.wow.

This was a poor budget and things will continue to get worse while this government continue to slash and burn our economy and jobs.

[scotty]

He'll never ever make a good point, because whenever he speaks you don't hear the words that come out of his mouth, you see a geek with a lisp and switch off.

 

The polls show that he is the most disliked of all the party leaders, but it's good to see people like you like him because i'd hate for him to be replaced.

 

Edit: Actually I wouldn't mind him being replaced if he was replaced by Ed Balls.

 

Dont get too excited, he wont be there come the next election. He's only a bullet catcher after the last one, and eminently disposable.

[bridge too far]

Dont get too excited, he wont be there come the next election. He's only a bullet catcher after the last one, and eminently disposable.

 

I'll tell you who I think performs exceptionally well and is, I think, one to watch.

 

Yvette Cooper.

 

Mark my words.

[scotty]

I'll tell you who I think performs exceptionally well and is, I think, one to watch.

 

Yvette Cooper.

 

Mark my words.

 

I will indeed.

 

My personal preference would be Hilary Benn, it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

[dune]

I'll tell you who I think performs exceptionally well and is, I think, one to watch.

 

Yvette Cooper.

 

Mark my words.

 

You only have to look at who she married to weigh her up.

[scotty]

You only have to look at who she married to weigh her up.

 

out of interest, are you married?

[dune]

out of interest, are you married?

 

no.

[benjii]

So what does the budget mean to the average person in the street?

Beer up 4p.

Cigs up 34p.

Wine up 15p a bottle.

Spirits up 54p a bottle.

Petrol up 2p a litre on Januarys price because of this government and its going up again later.

Company tax cut a little(wont make no difference to anyone).

Oh but the money we can earn before we pay tax has increased slightly.wow.

This was a poor budget and things will continue to get worse while this government continue to slash and burn our economy and jobs.

 

So you're monumentally annoyed about a small rise on beer prices but non-plussed about a significant increase in your personal tax allowance?

[Verbal]

So you're monumentally annoyed about a small rise on beer prices but non-plussed about a significant increase in your personal tax allowance?

 

Rocknroll said 'slightly' not 'significant'. Of course, the amount of gain depends on your circumstances - so 'slightly' clearly applies to him. The 'giveaway' itself is a bit of a con, of course, given what the 'squeezed middle' has lost in the last two budgets and between. It's a pale version of what happened under Thatch, when the tax burden was piled on under the banner of tax cuts.

Edited 23 March, 2011 by Verbal

[rocknrollman no2]

So you're monumentally annoyed about a small rise on beer prices but non-plussed about a significant increase in your personal tax allowance?

 

Im happy the personal tax allowance has risen,but its a drop in the ocean compaired with the rise in vat,the cost of living and the fact that businesses are losing contracts and laying people off.I think even the government are getting it wrong,because they expected the economy to rise by 2.4%,but its only managed a poor 1.7%.

[View From The Top]

out of interest, are you married?

 

Don't be silly, he still lives with mum.

[scotty]

no.

 

I bet your wifes glad of that.

[CB Saint]

Given the state of the economy, is anyone really surprised that not much was given away. The petrol duty cut is a sop to the public but at least it didn't increase. Realistically no government of whatever colour was going to significantly reduce it to the extent it was going to make a real difference. By the way Texaco in Millbrook trousered the extra penny as they didn't get the prices down in time - bstards.

[Verbal]

Im happy the personal tax allowance has risen,but its a drop in the ocean compaired with the rise in vat,the cost of living and the fact that businesses are losing contracts and laying people off.I think even the government are getting it wrong,because they expected the economy to rise by 2.4%,but its only managed a poor 1.7%.

 

And it's a con anyway. The old Thatcher technique is at work here - changing the rules to eventually create a tax rise from a tax cut.

 

Mary Ann Sieghart (an old tory herself) in the Independent yesterday:

 

Meanwhile, a stealth tax will hurt us all more and more as the years go by. This is the use of the lower CPI inflation rate for increasing tax thresholds. By the end of this parliament, it will nearly wipe out all the gains from raising personal tax allowance by more than inflation. And in future parliaments, it will continue to scoop more money out of our pay packets and into Treasury coffers.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mary-ann-sieghart/mary-ann-sieghart-no-wonder-clegg-looked-miserable-there-was-little-for-the-lib-dems-to-cheer-2251291.html

[Verbal]

And this in the Daily Mail, whose politics I need hardly describe.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369340/BUDGET-2011-Shocks-bonnet-middle-earners--youll-work-longer-pension.html

[CB Saint]

Stealth taxes - Created by Thatcher, Perfected by brown, Continued by Osbourne.

[CB Saint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12844986

 

Maybe George did get something right

[Verbal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12844986

 

Maybe George did get something right

 

Only if you consider it a major coup to attract companies back to Britain who always, even when they were HQ'd here, kept a substantial proportion of their profits (and hence tax liabilities) offshore.

[benjii]

Only if you consider it a major coup to attract companies back to Britain who always, even when they were HQ'd here, kept a substantial proportion of their profits (and hence tax liabilities) offshore.

 

Job creation and a little additional tax must be better than no job creation and even less tax?

 

It crtainly seems a better plan than borrowing to employ people in pointless public sector jobs.

[Verbal]

Job creation and a little additional tax must be better than no job creation and even less tax?

 

It crtainly seems a better plan than borrowing to employ people in pointless public sector jobs.

 

Not really Benj. WPP are famous for stunts like this. Here are some books they cooked earlier.

 

http://www.bnet.com/blog/advertising-business/ad-agency-wpp-now-so-powerful-that-britain-will-change-its-tax-code-to-please-ceo-sorrell/5111

Edited 24 March, 2011 by Verbal

[saintfully]

Job creation and a little additional tax must be better than no job creation and even less tax?

 

It crtainly seems a better plan than borrowing to employ people in pointless public sector jobs.

 

Thats true if the public sector jobs are pointless.

 

However, better to employ people in the public sector doing marginal jobs than to have them sitting on the dole.

 

Unfortunately there is little sign of the private sector creating sufficient jobs for redundant public sector workers to move to (even though there appears to be plenty of space/capacity for it to do so). My view is that cutting the public sector so 'loudly' and so quickly has shrunk consumer confidence as well as spending power - and in a consumer-led economy that's bad.

[badgerx16]

It certainly seems a better plan than borrowing to employ people in pointless public sector jobs.

What proportion of public sector jobs are 'pointless' ? The Police, the Armed Forces, Doctors, Nurses, Teachers.... Admittedly there are also HMRC, MPs, and the Royal Family ( via the Civil List ).

[benjii]

Not really Benj.

 

No, really. The premise is simple:

 

People being employed in private sector jobs that are economically viable is better, regardless of the level of tax paid by the employer, than those same people being employed in unproductive publis sector jobs that can't be afforded.

 

Are you saying you disagree with that? Don't just post a link or some snide comment. Explain why that premise in incorrect.

[benjii]

What proportion of public sector jobs are 'pointless' ? The Police, the Armed Forces, Doctors, Nurses, Teachers.... Admittedly there are also HMRC, MPs, and the Royal Family ( via the Civil List ).

 

You've listed a bunch of services there. You haven't pointed at any jobs. If you think the public sector operates efficiently and isn't bloated then you are mental, IMHO of course.

[benjii]

Thats true if the public sector jobs are pointless.

 

However, better to employ people in the public sector doing marginal jobs than to have them sitting on the dole.

 

And even better to have them gainfully employed in economically viable positions.

[badgerx16]

You've listed a bunch of services there. You haven't pointed at any jobs. If you think the public sector operates efficiently and isn't bloated then you are mental, IMHO of course.

I am, at this very moment, filling in the application to apply to retain my own public sector job, due to a 40% reduction in numbers at my grade within my unit. Not through cutting 'bloat', but because the BrokeBacks have cut our budget by 28% wef April 1st - I may be 2 weeks from redundancy from a post that I most certainly DO think operates efficiently And I think that anybody who believes the bullsh!t assertion that the public sector IS bloated is themselves mental - all IMHO of course.

 

And just to be clear, I have taken 2 days of my annual leave entitlement to give me time to do this, so I am not wasting work's time.

Edited 24 March, 2011 by badgerx16

[Verbal]

No, really. The premise is simple:

 

People being employed in private sector jobs that are economically viable is better, regardless of the level of tax paid by the employer, than those same people being employed in unproductive publis sector jobs that can't be afforded.

 

Are you saying you disagree with that? Don't just post a link or some snide comment. Explain why that premise in incorrect.

 

You're mistaking modern capitalism for Trumpton. WPP are a multinational who, like a lot of multinationals, lay down the law with governments. As the link showed quite clearly, WPP made an explicit set of threats and demands, got Osborne to do their bidding (and actually say so!), and gave him the final sop of saying: okay, maybe we'll come back and pay a fraction of the tax we should and plonk our HQ back in London.

 

Multinationals like WPP create and wipe out jobs at a whim. The economy is dominated by them. Democracy, for hem, can go hang: they'll get their way come what may. But if you want to persist with a breathtakingly kindergarten model of the economy that rests the simplistic distinction between nasty public sector employees doing absolutely nothing all day long, and firebrand, can't get enough of making this country grrreeeaaattt private sector workers, then be my guest. But one word of warning: if you ever have a fire, don't go calling for Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert or Dibble. They've all been sacked.

Edited 24 March, 2011 by Verbal

[Jones91]

The tax allowance increase is making up for the 1% rise in NI next month.

 

However the 40% tax band has been lowered to £35k

[badgerx16]

....... But one word of warning: if you ever have a fire, don't go calling for Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert or Dibble. They've all been sacked.

That still leaves poor old Grubb. Far more efficient on the public purse to have 1 man doing the work of 6.

 

As back to the Budget, will these new economic development zones lead to another round of what we saw under Thatcher - companies that don't actually create 'new' jobs, but instead migrate their factories and facilities around the country looking for the most advantageous incentives, like some new form of capitalist 'travellers'.

[badgerx16]

The tax allowance increase is making up for the 1% rise in NI next month.

 

However the 40% tax band has been lowered to £35k

Adding more to the 'squeezed middle'.

[benjii]

You're mistaking modern capitalism for Trumpton. WPP are a multinational who, like a lot of multinationals, lay down the law with governments. As the link showed quite clearly, WPP made an explicit set of threats and demands, got Osborne to do their bidding (and actually say so!), and gave him the final sop of saying: okay, maybe we'll come back and pay a fraction of the tax we should and plonk our HQ back in London.

 

Multinationals like WPP create and wipe out jobs at a whim. The economy is dominated by them. Democracy, for hem, can go hang: they'll get their way come what may. But if you want to persist with a breathtakingly kindergarten model of the economy that rests the simplistic distinction between nasty public sector employees doing absolutely nothing all day long, and firebrand, can't get enough of making this country grrreeeaaattt private sector workers, then be my guest. But one word of warning: if you ever have a fire, don't go calling for Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert or Dibble. They've all been sacked.

 

No, didn't think you could engage sensibly with the premise.

[Bath Saint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12844986

 

Maybe George did get something right

 

Lest we forget:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12335801

[Special K]

Thats true if the public sector jobs are pointless.

 

However, better to employ people in the public sector doing marginal jobs than to have them sitting on the dole.

 

Unfortunately there is little sign of the private sector creating sufficient jobs for redundant public sector workers to move to (even though there appears to be plenty of space/capacity for it to do so). My view is that cutting the public sector so 'loudly' and so quickly has shrunk consumer confidence as well as spending power - and in a consumer-led economy that's bad.

 

It will be interesting to see if there are the number of jobs created in the private sector over the next 2 years to cover those lost in the public sector. I suspect not as there will be too many external influences on a Co's ability for job creation along with the fact that spending cuts in the public sector will also mean private sector jobs are shed in certain areas. Also you have to question the suitability of some potential employees from the Public sector. It won't be the same union protected, 35 hour week, flexitime, 35 days leave a year job that some council staff may be familiar with.

[Verbal]

No, didn't think you could engage sensibly with the premise.

 

If by 'premise' you mean that fluffy nonsense you posted earlier, no one can engage with it by definition. Look, I'll be charitable. I'll assume you're young and either unemployed or in your first job. Naturally, in your private-sector idyll, you think the world is a entrepreneurial wonderland. One day, maybe not too far into the distance, you'll wake up and realise that the real world really isn't like that. A cleaner working for the council is laid off one day, as an unproductive lazy, expendable nothing, and then is rehired the next, and (with her wages cut to legal minimum or below) he or she, doing the exact same job, is suddenly 'productive'?!

 

Meanwhile, in the world you refuse to engage in, companies like WPP are pulling Osborne like a puppet on a string. THAT"S the premise that should be engaged with, and which you can't even bear to address because it disturbs your serene, rose-tinted, 150-years-out-of-date view of a world divided into thrusting entrepreneurs with their sleeves-rolled-up workforces bursting at the seams with get-up-and-go-ness, and the deadweight doctors, nurses, fire crew, etc etc.

 

As for 'waste', another indication that you've never worked in a real company for any length of time is that you appear to think this doesn't happen in the private sector. Trust me, it happens ALL the time. Empires are built, politics are played, non-jobs are created...Hiring and firing is the name of the game, private sector or public sector.

[badgerx16]

It won't be the same union protected, 35 hour week, flexitime, 35 days leave a year job that some council staff may be familiar with.

The vast majority of council staff work a minimum 37 hour week, get at most 31 days leave, and most earn less than £20k pa. And of course, there aren't any unions in the private sector, are there ?

[Special K]

The vast majority of council staff work a minimum 37 hour week, get at most 31 days leave, and most earn less than £20k pa. And of course, there aren't any unions in the private sector, are there ?

 

I won't quibble over a couple of hours :-)

[LGTL]

Public Sector workers work shorter weeks, have more holidays, have more benefits, yet 95% are ultimately paid far far less than Private Sector workers. So what exactly is the problem?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

If by 'premise' you mean that fluffy nonsense you posted earlier, no one can engage with it by definition. Look, I'll be charitable. I'll assume you're young and either unemployed or in your first job. Naturally, in your private-sector idyll, you think the world is a entrepreneurial wonderland. One day, maybe not too far into the distance, you'll wake up and realise that the real world really isn't like that. A cleaner working for the council is laid off one day, as an unproductive lazy, expendable nothing, and then is rehired the next, and (with her wages cut to legal minimum or below) he or she, doing the exact same job, is suddenly 'productive'?!

 

Meanwhile, in the world you refuse to engage in, companies like WPP are pulling Osborne like a puppet on a string. THAT"S the premise that should be engaged with, and which you can't even bear to address because it disturbs your serene, rose-tinted, 150-years-out-of-date view of a world divided into thrusting entrepreneurs with their sleeves-rolled-up workforces bursting at the seams with get-up-and-go-ness, and the deadweight doctors, nurses, fire crew, etc etc.

 

As for 'waste', another indication that you've never worked in a real company for any length of time is that you appear to think this doesn't happen in the private sector. Trust me, it happens ALL the time. Empires are built, politics are played, non-jobs are created...Hiring and firing is the name of the game, private sector or public sector.

 

Its quite straight forward Verbal; we cannot continue to borrow £150b+ a year, we cannot thus afford some of the things we would like to have. What we can do is try to attract as much private business into our country - you know Verbal they are the ones that pay the bills. Look at Ireland, Greece, Portugal and you will realise that if we do not do something somebody will do it for us.

 

It may come as a surprise to you but we live in a global martketplace.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Public Sector workers work shorter weeks, have more holidays, have more benefits, yet 95% are ultimately paid far far less than Private Sector workers. So what exactly is the problem?

 

According to the Office for National Statistics, last year "The average public sector worker was paid £23,660 a year, compared with average private sector workers who were paid £21,528 a year."

[saintfully]

Its quite straight forward Verbal; we cannot continue to borrow £150b+ a year, we cannot thus afford some of the things we would like to have. What we can do is try to attract as much private business into our country - you know Verbal they are the ones that pay the bills. Look at Ireland, Greece, Portugal and you will realise that if we do not do something somebody will do it for us.

 

It may come as a surprise to you but we live in a global martketplace.

 

Actually its not that straightforward.

 

Public sector jobs aren't things you can just stop having because they come with people attached . Making people redundant comes at a price as does the wthdrawal of their labour, and consequent wages, from the economy. As discussed above, if the private sector were providing replacement jobs that were being filled by the newly redundant public sector workers, things might look a little rosier... but that doesn't appear to be happening. So we have a situation where money is being removed from the consumer economy and not being replaced. Add inflation and you have a large problem.

 

As for Ireland, Greece and Portugal... our banks lent them much of the money. Don't be surprised if finally one of them turns round and refuses to pay it back (portugal?). Then our banks will be stuffed once more and maybe we'll decide this time not to bail them out.

[badgerx16]

According to the Office for National Statistics, last year "The average public sector worker was paid £23,660 a year, compared with average private sector workers who were paid £21,528 a year."

We've done this to death previously - on a 'like for like' basis public sector workers doing similar jobs to the private sector, generally earn less. Certainly I would be paid quite a bit more doing exactly the same job for a private company, as can easily be evidenced by perusing job adverts. ( The fact that I choose not to is my decision ). The 'average' figure for the public sector is swollen by including such people as teachers.

Even at the top this probably holds true, despite the hysteria over Local Authority Ch Execs' pay - in the private sector, if you ran a company with a turnover of £300 million+ and employed 10,000 staff, what would you expect to get paid ?

Edited 24 March, 2011 by badgerx16

[Special K]

We've done this to death previously - on a 'like for like' basis public sector workers doing similar jobs to the private sector, generally earn less. Certainly I would be paid quite a bit more doing exactly the same job for a private company, as can easily be evidenced by perusing job adverts. ( The fact that I choose not to is my decision ). The 'average' figure for the public sector is swollen by including such people as teachers.

Even at the top this probably holds true, despite the hysteria over Local Authority Ch Execs' pay - in the private sector, if you ran a company with a turnover of £300 million+ and employed 10,000 staff, what would you expect to get paid ?

 

More than someone who "runs a company" whose finance is already secured. It's not a case of running a business, just determining how to spend what has been allocated in the best way possible - not a fair comparison.

[OldNick]

So what does the budget mean to the average person in the street?

Beer up 4p.

Cigs up 34p.

Wine up 15p a bottle.

Spirits up 54p a bottle.

Petrol up 2p a litre on Januarys price because of this government and its going up again later.

Company tax cut a little(wont make no difference to anyone).

Oh but the money we can earn before we pay tax has increased slightly.wow.

This was a poor budget and things will continue to get worse while this government continue to slash and burn our economy and jobs.

the taxes on wine spirits and cigs were not made yesterday.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Actually its not that straightforward.

 

Public sector jobs aren't things you can just stop having because they come with people attached . Making people redundant comes at a price as does the wthdrawal of their labour, and consequent wages, from the economy. As discussed above, if the private sector were providing replacement jobs that were being filled by the newly redundant public sector workers, things might look a little rosier... but that doesn't appear to be happening. So we have a situation where money is being removed from the consumer economy and not being replaced. Add inflation and you have a large problem.

 

As for Ireland, Greece and Portugal... our banks lent them much of the money. Don't be surprised if finally one of them turns round and refuses to pay it back (portugal?). Then our banks will be stuffed once more and maybe we'll decide this time not to bail them out.

 

Sadly it is that straightforward. Britian is just like a business, you employ who you can afford.

[Verbal]

Sadly it is that straightforward. Britian is just like a business, you employ who you can afford.

 

Wrong in so many ways. For a start, name a business that prints its own money. Apart from Sergei Ltd, obviously.

[badgerx16]

More than someone who "runs a company" whose finance is already secured. It's not a case of running a business, just determining how to spend what has been allocated in the best way possible - not a fair comparison.

But what private company is anywhere near as complex, or open to public scrutiny, as Birmingham City Council ? Also, Councils don't have the ability to pick and choose their markets or customers.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Wrong in so many ways. For a start, name a business that prints its own money. Apart from Sergei Ltd, obviously.

 

So how do we generate income then?