The Budget

[Tangled up in Blue]

The cynic might consider if the poor forecast, slow growth stuff went alongside the Brexit warning for any particular reason? ADD the "safer in" stuff and Georgie Boy is maybe ******* up BIG to "call me Dave", Herman, Pierre and Co.

I'd say that it was a calculated move to get Call me Dave's job in 2019.After all he wouldn't want to to still be in the number 2 job at that time.He'd finally have to produce that budget surplus he's promised.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Personally 41p a month worse off apparently! :sad:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Personally 41p a month worse off apparently! :sad:

They should be hammering the old more than that.

 

[OldBlueLady]

They should be hammering the old more than that.

You cheeky young whippersnapper!

 

[RHB]

They should be hammering the old more than that.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Wait till you get there pal, you won't be saying that then.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

They should be hammering the old more than that.

Not the old who are still working though.:nope:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

You cheeky young whippersnapper!

:raspberry:

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Wait till you get there pal, you won't be saying that then.

No, because the inequality (pensions, house-prices, student debt, national debt etc etc) is generational and I'm on the cusp of that generation; it's the ones that follow me who have had it bad. Plus when I'm old I'll still have 20+ years to work to get my pension!

What I liked was the sugar tax. I hope to see more measures like this to tax causes of obesity.

Bemused by the ISA limits increasing again. If you can afford to save £15k a year, you don't need tax relief on the next £5k.

LISAs nice idea to do something for the young, but I think it'll be wealthy parents, who have paid off their cheap mortgages and don't have to worry about topping up their pensions, giving it to their children.

Disappointed fuel duty didn't increase - we need to incentivise people to move away from private vehicles - and the lack of environmental measures.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Some very interesting ideas YB, including some very good ones. The budget has little for the poor and helps the middle to high incomers;- no change there then.
That "Old Chestnut" of wage restraint is used again while MPs get their increases ; and bosses get their rises and bonuses while too many of the workers at the same companies (including the Palace of Westminster) are on minimum wage.
Taxing sugar drinks is a good start BUT is a tad "nanny state" and compulsory health orders before health care is sanctioned (i.e loose X kilos before knee op etc) is hardly facist and combines carrot and stick approach to health - how it could be worked into children's health might be harder as the adults/parents/guardians need the "training".

 

[Napster]

Disappointed fuel duty didn't increase - we need to incentivise people to move away from private vehicles - and the lack of environmental measures.

In some rural areas the lack of public transport means cars are the only way to get around.

 

[superblue24]

:raspberry:
What I liked was the sugar tax. I hope to see more measures like this to tax causes of obesity.

Yes, me too.

I wish they would tax all unhealthy foods and use that tax to subsidize healthy foods. I find it surprising how cheap it is to fill your basket with a load of crap in the supermarket, but as soon as you start looking at fruit and veg, it's like luxury food!

 

[RobM]

"...but as soon as you start looking at fruit and veg, it's like luxury food!"

Is it really? 6lb potatoes £1 7 bananas £1 at the local greengrocer. Tin of coca cola 80p.

 

[Usual_Suspect]

£144 better off according to the calulator so not complaining.

The Lifetime ISA seems like an excellent idea, but struggle to see where the funds for the matched 25% will come from.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Some very interesting ideas YB, including some very good ones. The budget has little for the poor and helps the middle to high incomers;- no change there then.
That "Old Chestnut" of wage restraint is used again while MPs get their increases ; and bosses get their rises and bonuses while too many of the workers at the same companies (including the Palace of Westminster) are on minimum wage.
Taxing sugar drinks is a good start BUT is a tad "nanny state" and compulsory health orders before health care is sanctioned (i.e loose X kilos before knee op etc) is hardly facist and combines carrot and stick approach to health - how it could be worked into children's health might be harder as the adults/parents/guardians need the "training".

It's not nanny state. It allows the individual to make the choice, but just reflects that there's a price that comes with that choice. The individual should pay more to the price of that cost.

In some rural areas the lack of public transport means cars are the only way to get around.

First, the money raised should be used to invest in public transport.

Secondly, it's not the only means of getting around. People can walk, they can cycle, they can get the bus more. It may be that you still need a car if you live in the countryside (and maybe people should think twice about living in the middle of nowhere), but do you need to use the car as much as you currently use it? If it encourages people to cut down on 20% of car journeys as they don't really need to make them and could be more efficient then that would be good. Maybe I'm being unrealistic and all people who choose to live in their rural idylls already car pool to cut down on unnecessary journeys? Maybe they already ration their trips to town to do the shopping and their car is only used once a fortnight? However I suspect they make lots of inefficient journeys for convenience. And an increase in tax on that convenience to better reflect the cost to the nation in terms of health, in terms of environment to incentivise them to make better, healthier decisions can only be a good thing.

 

[RobM]

"they can get the bus more. It may be that you still need a car if you live in the countryside (and maybe people should think twice about living in the middle of nowhere)"...until the bus service is scrapped, like the 374 through Fobbing.

 

[ozzie]

I'm apparently better off by £6 a month.

what that much,about one& half pints of bitter..

 

[MK Shrimper]

what that much,about one& half pints of bitter..

Guinness on the rare times I'm in the pub!

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

IDS gone over budget. Several (soon to be many) Tory MPs "coming out" with disagreement on the budget that they voted for!
The disability payment cuts will be another bedroom tax farce for Georgie Boy IMO AND soon there will be big back pedaling from Call Me Dave's cronies on the issue.
This is a typical early, mid term budget by the rich to make sure their wealth is growing for a few years before they try to do something for the low/middle incomers (i.e the folks that are the swing voters in GE) in the final two years of the Guv's term.
WHY, WHEN can we get a Guv that does things for merit, right and justice as well as economic sense AND not for favour and select groups?
Or was that more the case when Clegg was a moderator of C.M.D? And the electorate did him in didn't it?:blush:

 

[Napster]

"they can get the bus more. It may be that you still need a car if you live in the countryside (and maybe people should think twice about living in the middle of nowhere)"...until the bus service is scrapped, like the 374 through Fobbing.

and my commuter bus 12RL from Tenterden to Headcorn

 

[Ricky Otto]

It's not nanny state. It allows the individual to make the choice, but just reflects that there's a price that comes with that choice. The individual should pay more to the price of that cost.



First, the money raised should be used to invest in public transport.

Secondly, it's not the only means of getting around. People can walk, they can cycle, they can get the bus more. It may be that you still need a car if you live in the countryside (and maybe people should think twice about living in the middle of nowhere), but do you need to use the car as much as you currently use it? If it encourages people to cut down on 20% of car journeys as they don't really need to make them and could be more efficient then that would be good. Maybe I'm being unrealistic and all people who choose to live in their rural idylls already car pool to cut down on unnecessary journeys? Maybe they already ration their trips to town to do the shopping and their car is only used once a fortnight? However I suspect they make lots of inefficient journeys for convenience. And an increase in tax on that convenience to better reflect the cost to the nation in terms of health, in terms of environment to incentivise them to make better, healthier decisions can only be a good thing.

I'm not too bothered about it but it is a bit Nanny state as there is an assumption that anyone with a sweet tooth is likely to be obese or a drain on the health service. I love a bit sugar, but I live a very healthy lifestyle all in all. Wish there was a way you could tax the obese directly, although I believe it is perceived to be against their human rights. I'd also like weight taken into account for your baggage allowance on flights and if you take up one and a half seats on the train you should pay for those two seats during rush hour. Obviously legitimate health reasons should be exempt

 

[EastStandBlue]

Osborne sending Gauke out for this afternoon's urgent question is shocking, really.