Yesterday's budget

[RHB]

I'm really not sure what I think about George's latest offering. From a personal point of view, an increase in the tax allowance and raising the ceiling before 40% tax rate kicks in, is going to make me better off. From a socially aware perspective, the reduction in benefits for some and a further 4 year 1% ceiling on public sector wage rises just seems wrong.

So how do you feel about this budget, good or bad?

 

[Napster]

Good. It makes it fairer for us hardworking families who haven't been able to top up with tax credits. If you don't like it, change jobs, retrain, or become a tube driver.

I particularly like the defence committment.

 

[Phippsy]

For me its an ok ish budget, raising the 40p tax rate is good for myself, we were forewarned about the 12bn in cuts and they nearly always target the easiest options being the lower income/unemployed which is tough for them. I like the idea of only getting tax credit for your first two children (if you want more then pick up the tab yourself) Overall for me it was good, for others not so.

 

[manor15]

I'm under 25, so most of the negatives affect me and very few of the positives. Definitely not a fan of the living wage being for over 25s only, and although it won't affect me personally the further increases in tuition fees and scrapping of the maintenance grant will only make universities more elitist and put more people off going.

 

[Firestorm]

Its A Tory Budget and we know all about them.....
If you Voted for them you got what you voted for so you can have no complaints
If you voted for someone else.then you don't matter so there is no point in wasting energy complaining and don't even think about "I told you so"
If you didn't vote and you don't like it , then perhaps you should have got of your arse because by not having input you have no right to complain....

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I'm under 25, so most of the negatives affect me and very few of the positives. Definitely not a fan of the living wage being for over 25s only, and although it won't affect me personally the further increases in tuition fees and scrapping of the maintenance grant will only make universities more elitist and put more people off going.

This is basically it - under 25's are lose lose here. Scrapping Uni maintenance hits the poor and if they don't get a job the second they leave college they have no assistance with housing and have bigger debts. My student debt was around £3k and my deposit on my first home was around £3k and I'm not even old. Students now will be looking at £50k for each. Seriously bottle necking financial issues for the young.
The tax credits for two children maximum is all a bit China, and ignores the fact that most of the people in poverty are children and that we have an ageing population so more children is a good thing.
Benefits cap sounds like a good idea but a large part of the sum is paid out to landlords as housing benefit. The only people getting rich on housing benefit is the landlords not the claimants. What has been announced on rent caps.....no I missed that bit. So total benefit inc housing payment is reduced while rents go up and social housing is sold off. Complete lack of forward thinking.

 

[markw]

I'm under 25, so most of the negatives affect me and very few of the positives. Definitely not a fan of the living wage being for over 25s only, and although it won't affect me personally the further increases in tuition fees and scrapping of the maintenance grant will only make universities more elitist and put more people off going.

While I agree with the maintenance bit, surely investing in your own future via tuition fees is not that bad. if people feel its not worth it they wont go. If they feel it is they get the loan..

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

I like the taking and using of ideas from Labour- a good idea is ignored by the stupid? - & to raise the minimum wage even higher; and also cap benefits to manageable areas and give incentives to earning/working.
As is posted above, sadly, it is hard on under 25s.
The 2 child benefit is austere but is again targeted at specific population groups.
Despite being a non Tory voter it is, mainly, IMO, a reasonable budget to start this Parliament with.

 

[Pubey]

So Cameron bare-faced lied during the election debates about the tax credits and 2 child benefit cap.

Scrapping student grants is an accounting fiddle. Reduce spending now and lump a debt burden on a future govt. many aspects of the budget seem to introduce more layers of complexity and bureaucracy into a complex and under resourced tax and welfare system.

The inheritance tax changes only benefit the wealthiest 5%. No surprise there.

Also I received an email saying the new childcare benefits are being delayed until 2017, so It begins...

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

While I agree with the maintenance bit, surely investing in your own future via tuition fees is not that bad. if people feel its not worth it they wont go. If they feel it is they get the loan..

In many ways that is valid but as a nation we benefit from an educated workforce so discouraging people from further education if they have the ability is not a great policy

 

[manor15]

While I agree with the maintenance bit, surely investing in your own future via tuition fees is not that bad. if people feel its not worth it they wont go. If they feel it is they get the loan..

You're right to an extent, but it's largely about what people see as the opportunity cost. Especially in more deprived areas where the majority of people go straight into unskilled work or basic work and are earning money, which is always going to be more attractive than getting yourself into £50k+ of debt with no guarantee of a job at the end. Thinking long term it doesn't put masses of people of but as *** says, I don't think putting anyone off further training and education is a good thing.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the massive increase in IPT.

That's going to hit home owners, motorists and businesses.

It seems to me to be a policy driven by Osborne needing to find a way of increasing revenue without being seen to do so. Indirect taxes like this are harder to factor into those "how will the budget affect you" calculators. I don't think this is what should be driving fiscal policy.

 

[markw]

You're right to an extent, but it's largely about what people see as the opportunity cost. Especially in more deprived areas where the majority of people go straight into unskilled work or basic work and are earning money, which is always going to be more attractive than getting yourself into £50k+ of debt with no guarantee of a job at the end. Thinking long term it doesn't put masses of people of but as *** says, I don't think putting anyone off further training and education is a good thing.

I do agree, but surely for some fields spending 3 years doing it instead of studying it is a better option. Maybe higher fees will make people think about what they study a bit more. People living in deprived areas will indeed normally go into basic work, but more apprenticeships/on the job training type roles would maybe make that not such a bad choice.

I also agree with *** in that a better educated workforce is better for everyone, but there has to be a point where the education bit is thought about. Everyone having a 3rd in a degree that is completely irrelevant to the job they have/want makes them technically better educated but its not that beneficial. So by hiking up fees maybe people who would go to uni to have a laugh and get ****ed will no longer go and instead get a job that they can train up in.

 

[manor15]

I do agree, but surely for some fields spending 3 years doing it instead of studying it is a better option. Maybe higher fees will make people think about what they study a bit more. People living in deprived areas will indeed normally go into basic work, but more apprenticeships/on the job training type roles would maybe make that not such a bad choice.

I also agree with *** in that a better educated workforce is better for everyone, but there has to be a point where the education bit is thought about. Everyone having a 3rd in a degree that is completely irrelevant to the job they have/want makes them technically better educated but its not that beneficial. So by hiking up fees maybe people who would go to uni to have a laugh and get ****ed will no longer go and instead get a job that they can train up in.

Agree with you that many fields are better in that way, particularly with some of the ridiculous courses that you see at some universities which just seem like a complete waste of time, but the issue is that if you're going to put people off of going to university to learn about it then it has to be possible to get a job where you can train on the job and build your way up, which at the moment is just near impossible in most cases. If the government were helping to encourage big companies to offer more trainee contracts etc then that would be a different case. A friend of mine was very lucky in that his relative worked at a top London bank and got him a place there, where they've funded him to take courses and exams specific to that field while he's working and earning, but I know at least a dozen people who have tried to do that kind of thing and he is the only one who has had any success and that is largely down to having a contact. In my opinion if government want to discourage university, then they have to encourage trainee jobs for young people, and at the moment they aren't doing anywhere near enough to do so.

 

[Ricky Otto]

I understand the need for cuts and am certainly not one of the anti-austerity brigade, although I do believe in a fairer way of doing it. My major gripe is the government raising the ceiling on 40% tax rate when they are doing things like cut the independent living fund. Nearly 18,000 disabled people with high-support needs rely on the fund to live their lives with choice and control, rather than going into residential care or being trapped at home. This fund has been around for 27 years and thousands of disabled people will now see a massive restriction in their freedom to live a close to normal life. That in my eyes just isn’t right. Regardless of your political allegiances you must surely believe this is more important than a tax break on higher earners?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the massive increase in IPT.

That's going to hit home owners, motorists and businesses.

It seems to me to be a policy driven by Osborne needing to find a way of increasing revenue without being seen to do so. Indirect taxes like this are harder to factor into those "how will the budget affect you" calculators. I don't think this is what should be driving fiscal policy.

Insurance tax is a classic Tory tax in that they introduced it as if it was a version of VAT and historically VAT is their go to tax to raise. As you say this tax hits all individuals and businesses and has just been increased by more than half of its previous value. The fact is has crept under the radar.....it's as if the mass media had a political bias....

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Insurance tax is a classic Tory tax in that they introduced it as if it was a version of VAT and historically VAT is their go to tax to raise. As you say this tax hits all individuals and businesses and has just been increased by more than half of its previous value. The fact is has crept under the radar.....it's as if the mass media had a political bias....

I've heard this idea been mooted a few times that the BBC is left-wing, pro-tax, anti-business etc but surely that doesn't explain why say the Times or the Guardian would be pro-tax (and of course we know that the Guardian is very aggressively anti-tax).

Of course another option would be that the opposition is economically illiterate and ineffective despite having two former Chief Secretaries to the Treasury fighting it out for their leadership. I heard their message being reported; it just wasn't a very impressive message.