The Budget

[Verbal]

So how do we generate income then?

 

In your case, presumably be careful not to smudge the print on the notes.

[Thedelldays]

verbal is a such a **** lol

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

In your case, presumably be careful not to smudge the print on the notes.

 

You must have worked as Mugabe's chief economist.

[benjii]

Verbal's National Socialist approach to nation bulding is ever so quaint.

[dune]

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

 

ho ho ho, the bedroom general pops up again.

 

Did you go to the Charlton game this time or stay in your bedroom again?

 

Ah, sorry you've turned your life around now that you're an ebay power seller.

Edited 24 March, 2011 by dune

[Smirking_Saint]

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%.

 

Yeah, I mean it was under the tories that this country plunged to such a huge deficit and had a finacial meltdown.....................

 

Oh wait, they just inherited it.

 

TBF i would love to see what Labour would have done if they had somehow managed to blag power again

 

 

Edit - No I wouldn't

[Smirking_Saint]

ho ho ho, the bedroom general pops up again.

 

Did you go to the Charlton game this time or stay in your bedroom again?

 

Ah, sorry you've turned your life around now that you're an ebay power seller.

 

 

I quite like VFTT, and Dune, your an annoying b*stard at times

 

 

But that was a belter.

[Verbal]

So according to the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, the outcome of Osborne's months in office so far is that families are on average £750 a year worse off. Perhaps some of the budget budgies on here, with their 'premises' and brilliant theories about how the country is like a small business, would like to offer a plausible defence of such daylight robbery.

[scotty]

Yeah, I mean it was under the tories that this country plunged to such a huge deficit and had a finacial meltdown.....................

 

Oh wait, they just inherited it.

TBF i would love to see what Labour would have done if they had somehow managed to blag power again

 

 

Edit - No I wouldn't

 

 

My guess is that they would have done what they are advocating at the moment, ie leave our deficit as it is and hope to get it cleared over a longer period. That would prompt a downgrading of our national credit rating, and we'd be even more f*cked than we are now.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

So according to the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, the outcome of Osborne's months in office so far is that families are on average £750 a year worse off. Perhaps some of the budget budgies on here, with their 'premises' and brilliant theories about how the country is like a small business, would like to offer a plausible defence of such daylight robbery.

 

So we keep spending do we?

[Special K]

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.

 

That's not the point. All large organisations are complex, be they public bodies or multinationals, by virtue of their size. Your point was of comparison, which, imho, was not a fair one to make. If your input is already secured, you don't have to worry about a significant element of your business.

[badgerx16]

That's not the point. All large organisations are complex, be they public bodies or multinationals, by virtue of their size. Your point was of comparison, which, imho, was not a fair one to make. If your input is already secured, you don't have to worry about a significant element of your business.

But you are also hamstrung as to that input, as it is strictly controlled by the Exchequer. The public sector lack the commercial flexibility of private companies, who can put on a penny here or there if they can accept the risk that the consumer will bear it, or can decide to up sticks and transfer production to Thailand or China. The point being debated is the relative merit and level of salaries in both sectors, and that fact is that for my specific job, a technical and professional role with the necessary qualifications and experience, the private sector pays more, and this is the case for most roles where a direct comparison can be made.

[thefunkygibbons]

One thing that winds me up is people (including journalists) who treat Deficit and Debt as the same thing

 

Jeff Randall in today's Telegraph makes some good points about this

 

 

In reality, the cuts we have seen so far are peanuts compared to what a responsible government would do if they were serious. The main problem is the ring fencing of certain spending, most notably the NHS

[saintfully]

So how do we generate income then?

 

Three ways in which the country can generate growth, (which is the requirement rather than income) are:

 

i) Make stuff and sell it for a profit as exports

ii) Carry out existing processes more efficiently (ie. manage your budget better)

iii) Make the stuff you already have/own more valuable by making its value more secure (eg. increasing you populations skills or by making sure your country is politcally stable)

 

IMHO, cutting as fast as the coalition are doing at the mo, jeopardises ii) + iii), which I judge to make a larger contribution to our economy at the mo. I'm sure you'll disagree and you may be right. Regardless, I hope it shows that a countries economics are a bit more complex than a households.

[dune]

In reality, the cuts we have seen so far are peanuts compared to what a responsible government would do if they were serious. The main problem is the ring fencing of certain spending, most notably the NHS

 

I'd agree with this. I'd love to see far deeper cuts to the public sector including the NHS in order to not only wipe out the deficit but start to tackle Labours huge mountain of debt.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Three ways in which the country can generate growth, (which is the requirement rather than income) are:

 

i) Make stuff and sell it for a profit as exports

ii) Carry out existing processes more efficiently (ie. manage your budget better)

iii) Make the stuff you already have/own more valuable by making its value more secure (eg. increasing you populations skills or by making sure your country is politcally stable)

 

IMHO, cutting as fast as the coalition are doing at the mo, jeopardises ii) + iii), which I judge to make a larger contribution to our economy at the mo. I'm sure you'll disagree and you may be right. Regardless, I hope it shows that a countries economics are a bit more complex than a households.

 

You are right but sadly we are at the stage where we have to do more.

[dune]

You are right but sadly we are at the stage where we have to do more.

 

Thanks to the idiotic Labour Party.

 

We're going to be suffering for years because that gormless lot were allowed to govern for 13 years.

[saintfully]

You are right but sadly we are at the stage where we have to do more.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I look at Ireland as evidence to show that doing more can push you further/back into recession.

 

I understand the argument that by not tackling the debt you end up being screwed by the markets cause they see you as too risky a proposition to lend money to anymore, whack up your interest rate and the country ends up in a debt fuelled 'death spiral'. As it stands, the UK doesn't have to 'not tackle the debt'. Indeed, no-one of the three parties is advocating that. The only difference is that Labour want to do it more slowly. I think that argument has some validity based upon the evidence of Ireland - they adpoted a harsh austerity programme which pushed them deeper into recession - the markets saw this and increased their cost of borrowing. My worry is that will happen here - if it does we will have 'thrown the baby out with the bathwater'.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Maybe, maybe not. I look at Ireland as evidence to show that doing more can push you further/back into recession.

 

I understand the argument that by not tackling the debt you end up being screwed by the markets cause they see you as too risky a proposition to lend money to anymore, whack up your interest rate and the country ends up in a debt fuelled 'death spiral'. As it stands, the UK doesn't have to 'not tackle the debt'. Indeed, no-one of the three parties is advocating that. The only difference is that Labour want to do it more slowly. I think that argument has some validity based upon the evidence of Ireland - they adpoted a harsh austerity programme which pushed them deeper into recession - the markets saw this and increased their cost of borrowing. My worry is that will happen here - if it does we will have 'thrown the baby out with the bathwater'.

 

Ireland was screwed because they did not do enough.

[thefunkygibbons]

Ireland was ruined because they guaranteed the banks

 

and they are members of the Euro

[badgerx16]

We're going to be suffering for years because that gormless lot were allowed to govern for 13 years.

That's democracy for you, ( or at least the FPTP version ), sometimes the other person's view holds sway, and you just have to accept it.

[benjii]

So according to the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, the outcome of Osborne's months in office so far is that families are on average £750 a year worse off. Perhaps some of the budget budgies on here, with their 'premises' and brilliant theories about how the country is like a small business, would like to offer a plausible defence of such daylight robbery.

 

Presumably because the country is in a large recession with a massive structural defecit.

 

It is not Osbourne's job to fill everyone's pockets with monopoly money. For someone who seems so staunchly opposed to anyone actually making money you seem to have quite a grasping attitude towards it if it is given to you on a plate.

[Verbal]

Presumably because the country is in a large recession with a massive structural defecit.

 

It is not Osbourne's job to fill everyone's pockets with monopoly money. For someone who seems so staunchly opposed to anyone actually making money you seem to have quite a grasping attitude towards it if it is given to you on a plate.

 

So your pay packet was full of monopoly money, was it? Tell me more. And by what twisted 'logic' do you get to the idea that I am opposed to people making money? I've been a company director since 1995, and I'm happy to see people making money. The more the better.

 

It's very difficult to engage with you and your odd little 'premises' because you are evidently such a sloganising slave to what you presumably see as a Tory party line. But even the few half-decent Tories I know can take on board that there are real problems ahead. And by the way, why is it that you and all the other Tory Party doorsteppers on here who can't spell the name of your own chancellor?

 

I'll try spelling this out again, as succinctly as possible, and in the vain hope that you will grasp some of it. It is not that there is a particularly persuasive argument against spending cuts to deal with the structural deficit. Nor is it the case that anyone who disagrees with the reckless way in which Osborne is going about it is a Labour Party apparatchik. The argument about the where and when of cuts is much more subtle than that, and the consequences for getting it wrong much more severe.

 

Is THIS a basis for discussion, or are you going to settle for Trumpton again?

[Lord Duckhunter]

So your pay packet was full of monopoly money, was it? Tell me more. And by what twisted 'logic' do you get to the idea that I am opposed to people making money? I've been a company director since 1995, and I'm happy to see people making money. The more the better.

 

It's very difficult to engage with you and your odd little 'premises' because you are evidently such a sloganising slave to what you presumably see as a Tory party line. But even the few half-decent Tories I know can take on board that there are real problems ahead. And by the way, why is it that you and all the other Tory Party doorsteppers on here who can't spell the name of your own chancellor?

 

I'll try spelling this out again, as succinctly as possible, and in the vain hope that you will grasp some of it. It is not that there is a particularly persuasive argument against spending cuts to deal with the structural deficit. Nor is it the case that anyone who disagrees with the reckless way in which Osborne is going about it is a Labour Party apparatchik. The argument about the where and when of cuts is much more subtle than that, and the consequences for getting it wrong much more severe.

 

Is THIS a basis for discussion, or are you going to settle for Trumpton again?

 

Of course there are real problems ahead, but at least this Govt have a plan to deal with them. Darling also had a plan, but since he moved on the Labour policy is unworkable. They have oppossed every cut, every measure, and have even made more spending commitments. Ed Balls is either in denial of the scale of the problem or a cynical opportunist who is misleading the Country. Either way he is unfit to sort out the mess that his policies helped to create. I am no fan of this "wet" centre Tory led coalition, but it a damn sight better than the alternative.

[scotty]

Ireland was ruined because they guaranteed the banks

 

and they are members of the Euro

 

ireland was a basket case until european money rebuilt it. Sadly, they seem to have overlooked the inevitable payback time and that europe was going to want something in return. They were down the bottom of the league with spain for years in terms of net contributions, i think we were 3rd from top after germany and france.

[Special K]

But you are also hamstrung as to that input, as it is strictly controlled by the Exchequer. The public sector lack the commercial flexibility of private companies, who can put on a penny here or there if they can accept the risk that the consumer will bear it, or can decide to up sticks and transfer production to Thailand or China. The point being debated is the relative merit and level of salaries in both sectors, and that fact is that for my specific job, a technical and professional role with the necessary qualifications and experience, the private sector pays more, and this is the case for most roles where a direct comparison can be made.

 

I'd say this is not strictly true. Whilst it is not wholesale, i know, for instance, HCC Architects department actively pursue work outside of the council contracts they get and LA building control can now operate in the marketplace alongside private BC operators. However, i take your point about commercial flexibility, but would question as to whether they would be able too anyway? If they were streamlined and efficient enough to compete, why are so many LA functions outsourced to the private sector in the first place? Presumably because it is cheaper and more efficient than perfoming the task in house. But by virtue of outsourcing, LA's are taking advantage of the flexibility of the private sector for their own benefit.

 

You say they are hamstrung, but my guess would be that a lot of private sector organisations would be very happy to have a guaranteed turnover for the next year sown up already!

 

And you may well be paid more outside the public body you work for, but i'd hazard a guess and say that you'd get less holiday and work more hours if you did. You also risk losing your job more often. And recent times have meant a large reduction in salary for some in he private sector. In my field, tradesmen have dropped their hourly rates by between 30 and 40% over the last 3 years.

[Lord Duckhunter]

We are friends with an Irish family and have been for years, we stay with them once a year and they stay with us once a year. They are similar to us in terms of jobs and income, but you would not beleiev the amount of money they have been allowed to borrow. They have remortgaged time and time again, building a massive extension. They have had flash new cars time and time again, all on credit. 2 foregin holidays a year, house full of flat screen tvs, games consules, and they spent money like it was going out of fashion. All their neighbours are the same, and these are ordinary working people. They have had a great lifestyle for the past 10 years, but it is now coming back to haunt them. for the first time in years, they cant afford a holiday and they are really struggling to pay their bills.

 

I used to shake my head wondering how on earth they could afford the stuff they had. Now they cant and if you think it's bad here, it's 10 worse over there.

[badgerx16]

In my field, tradesmen have dropped their hourly rates by between 30 and 40% over the last 3 years.

If your 'field' were in the public sector, than the raving right on here would justify this on the grounds that they were overpaid 'bloat' and the cut was making them more 'efficient'.

[GenevaSaint]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

 

Review the link and I'll think you'll find that from 79 - 96 the tories also ran a deficit every year apart from 2. It's not irrational mad Labour spending per se Dune, just a ****ing global recession.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

So your pay packet was full of monopoly money, was it? Tell me more. And by what twisted 'logic' do you get to the idea that I am opposed to people making money? I've been a company director since 1995, and I'm happy to see people making money. The more the better.

 

It's very difficult to engage with you and your odd little 'premises' because you are evidently such a sloganising slave to what you presumably see as a Tory party line. But even the few half-decent Tories I know can take on board that there are real problems ahead. And by the way, why is it that you and all the other Tory Party doorsteppers on here who can't spell the name of your own chancellor?

 

I'll try spelling this out again, as succinctly as possible, and in the vain hope that you will grasp some of it. It is not that there is a particularly persuasive argument against spending cuts to deal with the structural deficit. Nor is it the case that anyone who disagrees with the reckless way in which Osborne is going about it is a Labour Party apparatchik. The argument about the where and when of cuts is much more subtle than that, and the consequences for getting it wrong much more severe.

 

Is THIS a basis for discussion, or are you going to settle for Trumpton again?

 

Of course there is a debate to be had. You just happen to fall on the side of the minority of independent thinkers on this.

 

Anyway here some entertainment

 

[dune]

I used to shake my head wondering how on earth they could afford the stuff they had. Now they cant and if you think it's bad here, it's 10 worse over there.

 

Personal debt in this country got out of hand too as people tend to see what governments are doing and copy them. Gordon Brown told us that boom and bust was a thing of the past and like his gormless party people borrowed far too much.

[Verbal]

Of course there is a debate to be had. You just happen to fall on the side of the minority of independent thinkers on this.

 

Anyway here some entertainment

 

 

Ah, Daniel Hannan, the Glenn Beck of the Tory Party, who describes the BNP as a 'far-left, anti-British party'. How lovely to see him again.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Of course there is a debate to be had. You just happen to fall on the side of the minority of independent thinkers on this.

 

Anyway here some entertainment

 

 

"The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government" , and who were his chief advisors for many years, Ed and Ed. Who was at his side when he went through the "no more boom and bust" years, at his side when the gold was flogged off , of course Ed and Ed.God help us if those 2 ever get near our economy ever again.

[View From The Top]

We are friends with an Irish family and have been for years, we stay with them once a year and they stay with us once a year. They are similar to us in terms of jobs and income, but you would not beleiev the amount of money they have been allowed to borrow. They have remortgaged time and time again, building a massive extension. They have had flash new cars time and time again, all on credit. 2 foregin holidays a year, house full of flat screen tvs, games consules, and they spent money like it was going out of fashion. All their neighbours are the same, and these are ordinary working people. They have had a great lifestyle for the past 10 years, but it is now coming back to haunt them. for the first time in years, they cant afford a holiday and they are really struggling to pay their bills.

 

I used to shake my head wondering how on earth they could afford the stuff they had. Now they cant and if you think it's bad here, it's 10 worse over there.

 

Emmigration was gone through the roof by all accounts as youngsters and tradesmen leave by the droves.

[corky morris]

God I have read some fag packet economics & politics in this thread............................I heard a Tory cabinet member say to an audience of City Bankers the other day that they would not sell their stake in the banks before the next election because it would be possible for Labour to say that 'its the only privatisation that has actually made any money!' ..........

Could not believe my ears.........................Even if it makes financial sense to sell the state stake in the banks, they wont do it!!!!!!!

I hope it was just a throw away comment, but I can actually hear them saying that they would not want Labour to actually claim any credit for doing what it did with the banks.

Lets hope they can sell the banks & make a profit because it helps all of us!!

Anyone want to know another interesting calculation???? For every 1% interest rates go up it costs the government an extra 0.6% in interest on the debt. Does anyone really think the MPC is independent??????

The budget was nothing but PR. 1p on petrol is nothing when it goes up by 1p every 20 days. Corporation tax reductions mean nothing as we could generate more from pursueing companies who operate here from paying their tax in Ireland or Bemuda etc etc.

And dont forget if it was not for Mr Darling we would be saddled with all of Lehman's debt as Barclays wanted to buy them 2 weeks before they went bump!!!!!!

Osborne is not a man to be trusted & IMHO not a very bright fella either!!

[eurosaint]

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.

 

Just like they used to do in the old Eastern European communist countries !

That should fix the problem nicely, eh ?

[saintfully]

Just like they used to do in the old Eastern European communist countries !

That should fix the problem nicely, eh ?

 

Marginal jobs not pointless jobs. If the role adds value to the economy, arguably it is worth funding if the alternative is that person on the dole.

 

As for communist countries, I think you'd agree that the reason the Eastern Bloc failed was because it had a controlled state economy. How would you describe our economy where 20% of GDP is produced by an industrial sector that is state-backed to the point that no member company is allowed to fail? Not exactly capitalism/free-trade is it.

[badgerx16]

Trying to get back to the core discussion of the thread, what was the point of the 1p off fuel duty ? I went past a garage today where it's gone UP 3p per litre since Friday morning. An utterly pointless piece of propaganda posing by Georgie Porgie which the press fawningly spewed all over their front pages - "Britain you can drive your car, beep, beep, yeah" as the Sun put it.

[View From The Top]

Trying to get back to the core discussion of the thread, what was the point of the 1p off fuel duty ? I went past a garage today where it's gone UP 3p per litre since Friday morning. An utterly pointless piece of propaganda posing by Georgie Porgie which the press fawningly spewed all over their front pages - "Britain you can drive your car, beep, beep, yeah" as the Sun put it.

 

Even the tories I work with thought it a pointless PR exercise.

[bridge too far]

Trying to get back to the core discussion of the thread, what was the point of the 1p off fuel duty ? I went past a garage today where it's gone UP 3p per litre since Friday morning. An utterly pointless piece of propaganda posing by Georgie Porgie which the press fawningly spewed all over their front pages - "Britain you can drive your car, beep, beep, yeah" as the Sun put it.

 

Impossible to monitor IMO. Individual garages put their prices up (and rarely down) on a whim. How's the poor motorist supposed to know whether the increase is because of tax or profiteering?

[rocknrollman no2]

As i said in an earlier post,the Condems put the tax on petrol up by 3p in January and then drop it by a 1p in the budget,yet are still plaining to increase it YET AGAIN in a few months.

So all the spin and bullsh-t about helping the poor motorist is utter nonsense!!

[bridge too far]

As i said in an earlier post,the Condems put the tax on petrol up by 3p in January and then drop it by a 1p in the budget,yet are still plaining to increase it YET AGAIN in a few months.

So all the spin and bullsh-t about helping the poor motorist is utter nonsense!!

 

The coalition states it would be illegal to reverse the VAT increase. But it could reduce the other duties on fuel to bring it down to average European levels.

[the colonel]

Another tory government = anarchy on the streets...again

[miserableoldgit]

Another tory government = anarchy on the streets...again

Yes, I chose a really good day to go to a theatre just off Trafalgar Square didn`t I??

[dune]

As i said in an earlier post,the Condems put the tax on petrol up by 3p in January and then drop it by a 1p in the budget,yet are still plaining to increase it YET AGAIN in a few months.

So all the spin and bullsh-t about helping the poor motorist is utter nonsense!!

 

Unfortunately we have not only a budget deficit, but a collosal debt thanks to Labour. We're going to be paying price for that lot being let loose on public finances for years to come. I hope those who voted for them are proud of what they achieved.

[dune]

Another tory government = anarchy on the streets...again

 

another tory government = another mess from Labour to put right.

[Viking Warrior]

Tell me Verbal what do you make of your fellow anarchists and anti capalists yesterday Proud of them no doubt. Who is going to pay for the damage , Us tax payers.

 

Shame they kicked off yesterday, Destracted the attention to the genuine peaceful TU march through london.

[Viking Warrior]

Anopther Question Verbal given that this Country owes trillions to other counry's due to the blair /brown borrowing and thats before they bailed Northern rock and other banks out.

How do you plan to pay that debt off?

[rocknrollman no2]

Unfortunately we have not only a budget deficit, but a collosal debt thanks to Labour. We're going to be paying price for that lot being let loose on public finances for years to come. I hope those who voted for them are proud of what they achieved.

 

So the global catasphrophe caused by the banks had nothing to do with it then?

Still tell a Tory untruth long enough,then people will start to believe it.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

So the global catasphrophe caused by the banks had nothing to do with it then?

Still tell a Tory untruth long enough,then people will start to believe it.

 

Sadly Brown gave up being Prudence a long time before the banks went belly up. We might have been better equipped to deal with it otherwise.