Budget 2014

[blues_r_best]

One thing is confusing me, from the bbc website:

12:46:"Growth up, the deficit set to halve, debt is lower, and the biggest single saving of all is a £42bn reduction in the interest payments we will have to make on that debt," he tells MPs.

How can the debt be lower if there is still a deficit?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

My moment of the day was the face on Ed Balls when BBC man Nick Robinson countered him by saying "of course we are all worse off, we have just come out of a huge recession"
This was in response to Balls repeating over and over "the public are worse off now than in 2010"
Of course we are dick head and you put us there.

 

[londonblue]

My moment of the day was the face on Ed Balls when BBC man Nick Robinson countered him by saying "of course we are all worse off, we have just come out of a huge recession"
This was in response to Balls repeating over and over "the public are worse off now than in 2010"
Of course we are dick head and you put us there.

No he didn't.

GDP

Or if you don't like that one, try page 6 of the ONS report:

ONS

And remember, the election was in May 2010.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

A bit of a nothing budget really. I thought it might be a pre election give away for votes BUT as it isn't then the economy MUST really still be in deep doo doos. (swear filter swerved?).

 

[Holy Joe]

One thing is confusing me, from the bbc website:



How can the debt be lower if there is still a deficit?

I think the debt is lower than where it was projected to be - so debt is higher but lower than they thought it was going to be.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Obviously it must have been a reasonably good budget all round going by the lack of debate on this thread.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Obviously it must have been a reasonably good budget all round going by the lack of debate on this thread.

I guess everyone is too focused on their dabbing down the bingo hall to scrutinise to see if anything else of note was announced.

 

[steveo]

I thought I heard a 1p reduction in the price of a pint, but since I gave up smoking I don't really take much notice of it. Not a lot we can do about any of it anyway.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Obviously it must have been a reasonably good budget all round going by the lack of debate on this thread.

Our industry has been right ****ed over.

In fairness, doing over the bookies isn't exactly a vote loser. About £500m wiped off the shares of the biggest firms these last two days though.

 

[KAB]

The biggest problem with this budget is what isnt covered, on the face of it, it would appear fairly neutral for most people, a bit of give and take but consider, 60% of Government cuts have yet to be implemented, this in turn is reflected in council expenditure. There are some huge changes coming and not for the better, public services are going to get gradually worse and the governments hope of the private sector coming to the rescue is unlikely to be successful as many of those rolls will end up costing much more if privatised or it will result in a, can't afford it then you can't have it, attitude. The budget has also glossed over the very real issues that face this country. We still are no nearer to having a balanced economy and other than some help towards exports or some slight changes in investment rates or taxes, nothing is being done to redress that and the cynic in me thinks that the raising of the tax threshold will just mean even lower wages as some employers will argue that your getting a pay rise from the government. In summary, a budget that maintains the status quo and changes bugger all, a share in the benefits of recovery is kept firmly away from the likes of me. Far from enjoying a well earned pay rise, as has been suggested is occurring across the board, Ive had my pay cut, my workload increased and the resources, that I require to do the inevitable half arsed job, have been cut too. Del Amitri is correct 'Nothing Ever Changes'.

 

[londonblue]

I don't think many tories are happy either given the complete lack of approval.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

The biggest problem with this budget is what isnt covered, on the face of it, it would appear fairly neutral for most people, a bit of give and take but consider, 60% of Government cuts have yet to be implemented, this in turn is reflected in council expenditure. There are some huge changes coming and not for the better, public services are going to get gradually worse and the governments hope of the private sector coming to the rescue is unlikely to be successful as many of those rolls will end up costing much more if privatised or it will result in a, can't afford it then you can't have it, attitude. The budget has also glossed over the very real issues that face this country. We still are no nearer to having a balanced economy and other than some help towards exports or some slight changes in investment rates or taxes, nothing is being done to redress that and the cynic in me thinks that the raising of the tax threshold will just mean even lower wages as some employers will argue that your getting a pay rise from the government. In summary, a budget that maintains the status quo and changes bugger all, a share in the benefits of recovery is kept firmly away from the likes of me. Far from enjoying a well earned pay rise, as has been suggested is occurring across the board, Ive had my pay cut, my workload increased and the resources, that I require to do the inevitable half arsed job, have been cut too. Del Amitri is correct 'Nothing Ever Changes'.

A fair summary and likely to be very true. I too believe that the real hard decisions are yet to be taken and won't be until after the next election: although I don't believe Labour or Lib will have the balls to do that & the Tories will only ensure the poor and low income persons take the real hits.

 

[Pubey]

A typical vote-winning tory budget which benefits the old and wealthy and squeezes the income of the bottom 30%. Easy to forget it's a tory/lib coalition.

I spent about 24 hours thinking the bingo and beer ad was a spoof...

 

[steveo]

it will result in a, can't afford it then you can't have it, attitude.

Do you not think this is a good idea though? For too long individuals/Companies/Governments have been buying stuff they can't afford and the Credit Crunch seemed to be the result of years of this practise. If more people worked on the basis of If you can't afford it don't buy it there would be far less problems.

 

[KAB]

A typical vote-winning tory budget which benefits the old and wealthy and squeezes the income of the bottom 30%. Easy to forget it's a tory/lib coalition.

I spent about 24 hours thinking the bingo and beer ad was a spoof...

I aspire to get a few pints in before I head off to the bingo hall. Patronising and demeaning and utterly typical of an out of touch ruling elite that have no perception of struggle or insecurity. We live in an age where the the cost is known but the value is ignored.

 

[steveo]

A typical vote-winning tory budget which benefits the old and wealthy and squeezes the income of the bottom 30%. Easy to forget it's a tory/lib coalition.

I spent about 24 hours thinking the bingo and beer ad was a spoof...

But if they didnt benefit the old they would have got slaughtered for not benefitting the old.

 

[KAB]

Do you not think this is a good idea though? For too long individuals/Companies/Governments have been buying stuff they can't afford and the Credit Crunch seemed to be the result of years of this practise. If more people worked on the basis of If you can't afford it don't buy it there would be far less problems.

There is a lot of truth in what you say, I have personally witnessed wastes of public money, all be it at a low level, that beggar belief but I am aware that the cost of those folly's are too frequently bourne by those who can least afford it. Ive always lived within my means but to what cost, I know plenty who havent practiced that simple ethos and have thrived as a result. I was once told by a very successful person that he achieved his wealth by ensuring he always borrowed more than he could ever afford to pay back, thus ensuring that if his ventures did go tits up, it would be his lenders problem, not his. Many of his ideas did go wrong and some didnt and no, it's not RM.

 

[steveo]

Ive always lived within my means but to what cost, I know plenty who havent practiced that simple ethos and have thrived as a result.

But for those plenty there are plenty that have failed miserably. At least doing what you do means you can sleep well at night.

I also know people who have borrowed more than they can afford and got away with it. Maybe they are cleverer or luckier than the average bloke.

The ones that frustrate me are the ones, and I've got some working here, who spend 45 quid a month on the latest mobile phone on a long contract, 8 quid a day on fags then complain they don't have any money and to be fair they never will have, but I've found through experience you can only offer what you see as sensible advise knowing they won't take it.

 

[Pubey]

But if they didnt benefit the old they would have got slaughtered for not benefiting the old.

Of course they would - because old people in general are tory voters and even though state pensions are by far the largest contributor to our benefit state, touching them is impossible and instead they've pandered to them with significant pension/savings changes which could turn out to be a big issue in the future. From what I've read, no one seems to be sure of the future effect of these changes which seems very risky to me. In principle I'm not against giving people more flexibility when they retire. However I think it's dangerous because it continues to build a house price bubble and lets people more easily invest in buy to let and property. etc.

Also - removing inheritance tax for paramedics/police etc if they work in the public sector their whole life? I can't see that having any tangible benefit because I don't think any life long paramedic will end up with a £350k estate when they die. Seems like adding more layers of complexity.

The treasury figures suggest that the bottom 30% of our country will be worse off from these changes - in what way is that acceptable to anyone?

 

[steveo]

The treasury figures suggest that the bottom 30% of our country will be worse off from these changes - in what way is that acceptable to anyone?

Its not but they can't keep giving away money they don't have. This has been a problem for a long time and was highlighted in KABS post. Getting the balance right is the tricky bit. Obviously if it was Labour they prefer to take it from people who earn more money by higher taxation, but any party will obviously prefer to do what they think will win them more votes, as you already pointed out.