Budget

[buctootim]

Osbourne is announcing details of the "Budget for Working People". Its primarily giveaways for companies, pensioners, the rich and the middle class with big cuts in income for the working poor and those on benefits. Only £12bn of cuts announced so far, another £22bn to come.

 

Its not so much the cuts directed at those least able to afford it which is reprehensible, its the Orwellian double speak of the language -claiming black is white

[hypochondriac]

Living wage is idiotic. Nursery schools around the country will be forced to close. Every 3 and 4 year old will be given 30 hours which removes a huge amount of income. "free" nursery places aren't free currently, they are subsidised by fee paying children. So there's a huge reduction in income and nurseries are then forced to give everyone a pay rise as well as pay business rates, fire safety, all bills etc. The figures don't add up.

Edited 8 July, 2015 by hypochondriac

[trousers]

[vine]enI3Wn2JFhO[/vine]

[buctootim]

Living wage is idiotic. Nursery schools around the country will be forced to close. Every 3 and 4 year old will be given 30 hours which removes a huge amount of income. "free" nursery places aren't free currently, they are subsidised by fee paying children. So there's a huge reduction in income and nurseries are then forced to give everyone a pay rise as well as pay business rates, fire safety, all bills etc. The figures don't add up.

 

That's an problem with the system for funding nursery / childcare places though. Its not a living wage problem per se, which I think is a very good thing in principle.

[hypochondriac]

That's an problem with the system for funding nursery / childcare places though. Its not a living wage problem per se, which I think is a very good thing in principle.

 

The living wage is supposed to penalise big companies who pay less than they can afford. It also has the unfortunate effect of screwing smaller businesses who can't afford to pay any more without a big increase in their prices. The government have fixed it so that largely nurseries can't even change their prices in order to cope with this change. The whole thing is a mess and extremely badly thought out. I'm not sure how nurseries will be able to continue and make any sort of money to survive.

[bridge too far]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake

[Batman]

i am quite stunned that defence spending is looking far more pleasant today.

[sadoldgit]

i am quite stunned that defence spending is looking far more pleasant today.

 

Yep, they will need to provide an armed guard for anyone going on holiday within striking distance of the nutters from IS.

[SuperMikey]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osbornes-living-wage-is-not-actually-a-living-wage-says-living-wage-foundation-10375897.html

 

George Osborne’s new ‘national living wage’ is not actually a living wage, the group responsible for promoting the living wage has said.

The Chancellor said it would become compulsory to pay over-25s £9 an hour by 2020 and £7.20 from next April.

However, the living wage is currently £7.85 an hour and £9.15 an hour in London. It is likely to rise next year as living costs continue to increase.

 

 

Still, at least the Tories can bleat on in Parliament for the next 5 years about how they've "introduced a living wage". Just, you know, not one you can actually live on.

[Lord Duckhunter]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osbornes-living-wage-is-not-actually-a-living-wage-says-living-wage-foundation-10375897.html

 

 

 

 

Still, at least the Tories can bleat on in Parliament for the next 5 years about how they've "introduced a living wage". Just, you know, not one you can actually live on.

 

Still £1 more an hour than labours manifesto promise. Surely lefties will think that's a good thing, or does their hatred of the Tories trump that?

[SuperMikey]

Still £1 more an hour than labours manifesto promise. Surely lefties will think that's a good thing, or does their hatred of the Tories trump that?

 

Not difficult to trump Labour's manifesto, it was pretty poor. This is definitely a step in the right direction and a nice addition to the budget, however the cynic in me can't help but feel that it's been stuck in there to counter-balance all of the bad PR from the welfare cuts.

[buctootim]

Still £1 more an hour than labours manifesto promise. Surely lefties will think that's a good thing, or does their hatred of the Tories trump that?

 

Its very welcome in general. However as the Director of the Living Wage Foundation was saying on the radio earlier the calculations to arrive at the living wage are based on the current benefits system. If you remove in work benefits then the living wage needs to be higher. The reduction in benefits and increase in the minimum wage will leave many working people worse off than before - especially in the early years as the benefits reduction is almost immediate but the wage rise is phased.

[CB Saint]

Limited company contractor are getting the shaft

 

dividend tax credits abolished and the employment allowance removed for sole director / sole employee companies

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The commitment to upholding the 2% of GDP defence spending target is as welcome as it is surprising - although I note how HMG defines defence spending may be changing. On a selfish note, a good budget for me as I'll benefit (a little) from the new National Living Wage and, as I don't claim benefits anyway, cuts there don't personally effect me. I didn't actually vote for him, but anyone in a similiar position to me has some cause to thank the Chancellor tonight. A much tougher Budget of course for those who do claim Tax Credits etc - they have my sympathies, for what its worth.

 

Moving towards a balanced budget is both wise and quite inevitable I think - although of course that still leaves this nation with a huge national debt burden hanging over us. I do seem to remember not so long ago our resident lefties on here were queuing up to slate the Chancellor's previous moves towards austerity as an erroneous policy that could only lead to disaster ...

 

Funnily enough you don't hear that argument put forward quite so often now do you?

[badgerx16]

The whole thing is a mess and extremely badly thought out..

No surprise there.

[hypochondriac]

No surprise there.

 

Labour pledged the same so we would have had the same problem there.

[badgerx16]

...... not so long ago our resident lefties on here were queuing up to slate the Chancellor's previous moves towards austerity as an erroneous policy that could only lead to disaster ...

 

Funnily enough you don't hear that argument put forward quite so often now do you?

 

The full effects of the cuts have yet to be felt, ( but have already bitten in our house :-( ).

[badgerx16]

Labour pledged the same so we would have had the same problem there.

So their plans were equally poorly thought out - again, no surprise.

[bridge too far]

Sad to see that there will be a reduction in the number of new (affordable) houses built

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/08/fewer-cheap-homes-will-be_n_7754868.html?1436378093&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

[SuperMikey]

Sad to see that there will be a reduction in the number of new (affordable) houses built

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/08/fewer-cheap-homes-will-be_n_7754868.html?1436378093&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

 

Only going to benefit the private rental sector and mean that folks such as myself won't be able to get on the housing ladder any time soon. But when you consider that 1 in 5 MPs are landlords (compared to 1 in 33 across the general population) you can see why this may have been included.

 

Step 1 - Sell off council houses

Step 2 - Don't build enough houses to replace them

Step 3 - Keep people paying high rental prices

Step 4 - Profit

[bridge too far]

Only going to benefit the private rental sector and mean that folks such as myself won't be able to get on the housing ladder any time soon. But when you consider that 1 in 5 MPs are landlords (compared to 1 in 33 across the general population) you can see why this may have been included.

 

Step 1 - Sell off council houses

Step 2 - Don't build enough houses to replace them

Step 3 - Keep people paying high rental prices

Step 4 - Profit

 

Quite so although it has been mooted that, because tax relief for buy-to-let mortgages will be pegged at the standard rate rather than potentially 45% as it is at the moment, a number of 'landlords' may well put their properties back on the market.

[Sour Mash]

Only going to benefit the private rental sector and mean that folks such as myself won't be able to get on the housing ladder any time soon. But when you consider that 1 in 5 MPs are landlords (compared to 1 in 33 across the general population) you can see why this may have been included.

 

Step 1 - Sell off council houses

Step 2 - Don't build enough houses to replace them

Step 3 - Keep people paying high rental prices

Step 4 - Profit

"Housing associations already build 40,000 affordable homes every year.". That's already a load of new affordable housing every year.

[CB Saint]

Only going to benefit the private rental sector and mean that folks such as myself won't be able to get on the housing ladder any time soon. But when you consider that 1 in 5 MPs are landlords (compared to 1 in 33 across the general population) you can see why this may have been included.

 

Step 1 - Sell off council houses

Step 2 - Don't build enough houses to replace them

Step 3 - Keep people paying high rental prices

Step 4 - Profit

 

They did restrict tax relief on buy to let mortgages and I suspect that it will be removed altogether before too long. That will make buy to let a less attractive proposition.

[bridge too far]

"Housing associations already build 40,000 affordable homes every year.". That's already a load of new affordable housing every year.

 

I'd be interested to know your source for these figures. According to the government's own statistics, there were 35K new starts by June this year. These figures would include 'Help to Buy' and other government funded schemes AS WELL AS Housing association starts.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/435136/Housing_Statistics_June_2015.pdf

[Batman]

doesnt help when the numbers coming over equal a new southampton being required every other year or so.

[benjii]

I think Osborne is one of the stars of the Commons currently. Accomplished, clear and well on top of his brief. Will be interesting to see whether he or Boris is the next PM.

[Batman]

I think Osborne is one of the stars of the Commons currently. Accomplished, clear and well on top of his brief. Will be interesting to see whether he or Boris is the next PM.

 

He is a million miles from the predicted disaster he was made out to be in 2010

[SuperMikey]

I think Osborne is one of the stars of the Commons currently. Accomplished, clear and well on top of his brief. Will be interesting to see whether he or Boris is the next PM.

 

George 'Submarine' Osborne? No chance he'll be PM. It'll be Boris or Theresa May for leader next. As for being on top of his brief, he's failed to deliver on pretty much every key point that was set out in 2010. The deficit was meant to be paid down now, it's not even been halved. National debt is higher than it's ever been and he borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the previous 13 while massively slashing public spending. Not a resounding success in my book, although alarmingly there are worse candidates for his job out there.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Overall I think it looks a pretty decent budget , although these things do tend to fall apart in the following days.

 

I wish he'd been a bit more radical .

 

Am I right in assuming that the 2 children rule applies to benefits only and not family allowance. If so that's nonsense. If you establish a rule that the state will only pay for 2 children if you're poorly paid, and need benefits to top up your wages, why can a bloke & his Mrs on a combined income of £60k have a state handout for 3,4,5 brats?

[Sour Mash]

I'd be interested to know your source for these figures. According to the government's own statistics, there were 35K new starts by June this year. These figures would include 'Help to Buy' and other government funded schemes AS WELL AS Housing association starts.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/435136/Housing_Statistics_June_2015.pdf

 

From the article you linked above.

[Sour Mash]

doesnt help when the numbers coming over equal a new southampton being required every other year or so.

And no-one can answer if we should be building housing for a million odd people every few years.

[SuperMikey]

And no-one can answer if we should be building housing for a million odd people every few years.

 

Part of the reason we've got such a high net migration at the moment is because of the poor state of the Eurozone - there's little competition for jobs elsewhere in the EU so we're seeing more come here to work. As the situation improves (hopefully) over the next few years, we should see those levels come down. We do still have to factor in that we have a pretty high birth/death ratio (12:9) regardless of migration so our population is expanding whether we like it or not. To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail...

[badgerx16]

Am I right in assuming that the 2 children rule applies to benefits only and not family allowance. If so that's nonsense. If you establish a rule that the state will only pay for 2 children if you're poorly paid, and need benefits to top up your wages, why can a bloke & his Mrs on a combined income of £60k have a state handout for 3,4,5 brats?

 

The cynical view might be that the latter couple are more likely to vote Tory.

[Sour Mash]

Part of the reason we've got such a high net migration at the moment is because of the poor state of the Eurozone - there's little competition for jobs elsewhere in the EU so we're seeing more come here to work. As the situation improves (hopefully) over the next few years, we should see those levels come down. We do still have to factor in that we have a pretty high birth/death ratio (12:9) regardless of migration so our population is expanding whether we like it or not. To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail...

But we're still expected to build housing for a million + people every few years. Crazy situation.

[badgerx16]

One key thing to remember, the cuts in Public Sector budgets won't be announced until November,. With the MOD effectively now ring fenced, along with the NHS, and with the welfare cuts toned down, will there be a greater hit on Councils, etc ?

[saint si]

George 'Submarine' Osborne? No chance he'll be PM. It'll be Boris or Theresa May for leader next. As for being on top of his brief, he's failed to deliver on pretty much every key point that was set out in 2010. The deficit was meant to be paid down now, it's not even been halved. National debt is higher than it's ever been and he borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the previous 13 while massively slashing public spending. Not a resounding success in my book, although alarmingly there are worse candidates for his job out there.

 

Sorry to use statistics and facts as I know that is somewhat unfashionable around here.

 

UK national debt was around 40% of GDP in 2005. By 2010 it was around 80%. By 2012 it had increased further to circa 90% (a result of the tax/spending commitments made in the previous parliament). Now in 2015 it is back down to around 81-82%.

 

Which means since 2012 we have actually been reducing the debt. That also means the share of GDP being spent on interest payments will also be falling.

 

Don't get suckered in by the size of the debt or borrowing in £ - it's meaningless.

[FarehamRed]

In theory, the move away from Tax Credits (which subsidise employers who pay poverty wages) to a Living Wage is a good one. In practice, GO's Living Wage will not do what it says on the tin. it is simply not enough to live on, and should have been implemented at a higher rate before the cut in Tax Credits.

 

Over all, the budget again fails to address to most pressing issue of this generation: climate change. Inequality is simply bad for the environment, and we only have a few years left to implement major economic structural change to limit warming to 2 degrees. (If warming gets to 2 degrees, its effects will increase exponentially and half the planet will be uninhabitable). Not only is this an opportunity missed, the road building plans will make the changes which have to come hurt even more.

[CB Saint]

George 'Submarine' Osborne? No chance he'll be PM. It'll be Boris or Theresa May for leader next. As for being on top of his brief, he's failed to deliver on pretty much every key point that was set out in 2010. The deficit was meant to be paid down now, it's not even been halved. National debt is higher than it's ever been and he borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the previous 13 while massively slashing public spending. Not a resounding success in my book, although alarmingly there are worse candidates for his job out there.

 

Whilst factually you are right regarding the National Debt, to lay the blame at the door of the Tories is incorrect and just party politics.

 

If you are left with an economy running a huge deficit, short of stopping spending altogether of course the national debt is going to go up. The National Debt is the symptom, the deficit is the cause - therefore if you want to apportion blame you have to look at the causes of the deficit.

 

Given the state of the global economy which has restricted our ability to raise income from tax receipts, the only way to reduce the deficit was by spending cuts. You bemoan the scale of the spending cuts yet criticize the lack of deficit reduction - you cannot have both.

[trousers]

Whilst factually you are right regarding the National Debt, to lay the blame at the door of the Tories is incorrect and just party politics.

 

If you are left with an economy running a huge deficit, short of stopping spending altogether of course the national debt is going to go up. The National Debt is the symptom, the deficit is the cause - therefore if you want to apportion blame you have to look at the causes of the deficit.

 

Given the state of the global economy which has restricted our ability to raise income from tax receipts, the only way to reduce the deficit was by spending cuts. You bemoan the scale of the spending cuts yet criticize the lack of deficit reduction - you cannot have both.

This

[buctootim]

Sorry to use statistics and facts as I know that is somewhat unfashionable around here.

 

UK national debt was around 40% of GDP in 2005. By 2010 it was around 80%. By 2012 it had increased further to circa 90% (a result of the tax/spending commitments made in the previous parliament). Now in 2015 it is back down to around 81-82%.

 

Which means since 2012 we have actually been reducing the debt. That also means the share of GDP being spent on interest payments will also be falling.

 

If you're going to be condescending its best to be right. Government debt is the figure which matters and that has been rising consistently year on year since 2003.

 

Edited 9 July, 2015 by buctootim

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Sorry to use statistics and facts as I know that is somewhat unfashionable around here.

 

UK national debt was around 40% of GDP in 2005. By 2010 it was around 80%. By 2012 it had increased further to circa 90% (a result of the tax/spending commitments made in the previous parliament). Now in 2015 it is back down to around 81-82%.

 

Which means since 2012 we have actually been reducing the debt. That also means the share of GDP being spent on interest payments will also be falling.

 

Don't get suckered in by the size of the debt or borrowing in £ - it's meaningless.

 

Well - on your own figures - our National Debt has increased dramatically since the start of the recession then.

 

It seems to me that debt is very far from being a ''meaningless'' statistic because borrowing of course has to be serviced. The record shows that the cost of servicing our (£1.56 trillion and still increasing) National Debt is now some £43bn per year - IE 3% of GDP or put another way rather more than our ENTIRE defence budget. So that's 43 billion reasons why debt is of some significance you might say. It may well be that we can't even rely upon the effects of inflation over time to decrease to relative significance of these huge numbers anymore - leaving the problem top our grandchildren to worry about hardly seems equitable in any case. So moving towards a balanced budget - in economically 'normal' circumstances that is - would appear to be pretty damn inevitable.

 

But I will pass on the message re the unimportance of debt to the Greek people and see how they react to this news ...

[saint si]

My point is that it's meaningless only in absolute terms which is why I find it irritating when people say the debt is higher than ever and we've borrowed more in last Xyears than ever before etc etc. It is only meaningful when considered against the size of the economy as a whole - i.e. as a ratio.

 

If I've picked out bad figures through hasty Googling then mea culpa and frankly that makes me as bad as anyone else for drawing conclusions based on spurious data (and the sarcastic tone was due to a similar discussion on another thread) - so of course I apologise for that and thanks for providing better data.

 

Nevertheless, the chart at least shows debt-to-GDP leveling off from a steep upward trajectory commenced in 2008. Which is really the point I was looking to make - we're reaching the point of break even where our debt is no longer worsening. Further reductions in the budget deficit will see us paying it down.

[hutch]

And no-one can answer if we should be building housing for a million odd people every few years.

Odd people need somewhere to live too, you know.

[st alex]

But we're still expected to build housing for a million + people every few years. Crazy situation.

 

Can you point out a time in the country's entire history when our population wasn't increasing (excluding world wars & plague). To think that we won't need be building new housing pretty stupid.

 

40,000 new social homes doesn't sound like nearly enough especially at the rate they're being sold off. This is a country of 60 odd million, that's going to be spread extremely thinly.

[stevegrant]

Limited company contractor are getting the shaft

 

dividend tax credits abolished and the employment allowance removed for sole director / sole employee companies

Yep. One mightily ****ed off limited company contractor here

[holepuncture]

doesnt help when the numbers coming over equal a new southampton being required every other year or so.

 

And no-one can answer if we should be building housing for a million odd people every few years.

 

The whopping great elephant in the room which nobody can address, hugely short of housing for our own population yet we also need to produce the equivalent of Southampton each year just to keep up with net migration!

 

I'm sure the people who suggest we should be 'welcoming' all and sundry (who no doubt live in middle class areas and have absolutely no contact with the folk flooding in) will do their bit by opening up their homes, providing rooms, food and money, f'sure.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Yep. One mightily ****ed off limited company contractor here

 

Forgive my ignorance Steve but how did the budget effect limited company contractors? I should really know as I probably to an extent fall into this camp.

[Sour Mash]

Odd people need somewhere to live too, you know.

I'm well aware they do, that's my point.

[CB Saint]

Forgive my ignorance Steve but how did the budget effect limited company contractors? I should really know as I probably to an extent fall into this camp.

 

Limited company contractor are getting the shaft

 

dividend tax credits abolished and the employment allowance removed for sole director / sole employee companies

 

Here you go

[Sour Mash]

Can you point out a time in the country's entire history when our population wasn't increasing (excluding world wars & plague). To think that we won't need be building new housing pretty stupid.

 

40,000 new social homes doesn't sound like nearly enough especially at the rate they're being sold off. This is a country of 60 odd million, that's going to be spread extremely thinly.

Who has suggested the country's population never grows? Or that we won't need to build new housing?