UK Budget 2015 - Polidicks - Facepunch Forum

Prior to starting my internship, the only government assistance I was getting was £6800 a year. This was to pay for everything - from rent to travel to clothes to food, and I'm a full time student. Only about £2000 of this was comprised of the maintenance grants. It seems that when it comes to cuts, education always comes first. All this is going to do is push people to go to other countries for University, or discourage them from attending University at all. If I had a little more balls when I was 18, I'd have just gone to Norway and studied there for free. The Conservatives don't give a shit about you unless you're over 40 and upper-middle class. As far as they're concerned, everyone who doesn't fit that demographic can go fuck themselves.

Not as bad as I was expecting given the doom and gloom. Some good policies in there, notably tax increases on buy-to-let and dividends earnings, devolution to Manchester, and money towards anti-tax evasion measures. To be honest, the main thing that annoys me about the budget are the benefits given purely to enrich traditional Tory supporters, such as the reduction in Inheritance Tax and benefits for pensioners (eg. BBC license fee for over 75s, devolved to the BBC of course, because they're cunts), which are completely against the ideological aims of the budget in the first place. I can tolerate ideological differences as I can generally see there are multiple ways to resolve an issue, but I hate political slime like that much more than anything else in the budget. But yeah, not as bad as I was expecting, and not too different to what a Labour budget realistically would have been. [editline]8th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Cushie;48149388]wage - The minimum wage for 21+ is currently £6.50 and has very steadily gone up. a 50% increase for 25+ in 5 years isnt anything to scoff at cuts - arent the cuts mainly to job related welfare? i highly doubt they'd cut benefits to people that rely on them to live e.g. disabled people. corp tax - i think the point is the corp tax reduction offsets the fact that they are going to have to be paying out more to people, otherwise i guess you run the risk of corporations laying off staff to make up for the sudden dip out of paying people more. meaning you just end up with less jobs and less people who earn more.[/QUOTE] Corporation tax reductions make little difference due to the comparatively small contribution to government revenues of it, but regardless, its the wrong direction to take if only due to the bad taste it leaves in everyone's mouth cutting corporation tax while benefits are cut. [editline]8th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;48149010]george osborne, the failed journalist and shelf stacker. economist? no, but why would the tories ever think economically anyway. this is an opportunity to punish the poor and disabled for not voting tory.[/QUOTE] They aren't looking to punish the poor, they have an ideological motivation to reduce the size of the state. Also, you don't need to be an economist to be the Chancellor. You have plenty helping you out anyway from think-tanks and other government employees, and no other cabinet position requires experience in the field (no matter how much lawyers like my dad moan about Grayling/Gove not being lawyers).

[QUOTE=Mellowbloom;48150713]that maintenance grant is basically the only reason I can afford to go to university[/QUOTE] you'll still get the money, just in the form of a loan now which you will have to pay back after you graduate.

[QUOTE=frankie penis;48151551]you'll still get the money, just in the form of a loan now which you will have to pay back after you graduate.[/QUOTE] More wood for the fires. (student loan debt bubble [url]http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-2326560/Debt-timebomb-85-cent-students-pay-loans.html[/url]) They (the government) don't need to worry though. By the time it bursts and all that toxic debt is written off, it will be somebody else's problem.

[QUOTE=frankie penis;48148273] student maintenance grants are also gone from 2016-17, but they're replaced with a maintenance loan increase and the threshold to pay back the loan is increased. could be worse i guess[/QUOTE] Great! More debt for me!

Still beats the Armageddon that would have been another 5 years of labour. Labour "Everyone should rent, no one who is from poverty should buy a house"

[QUOTE=Arrows;48153994]Still beats the Armageddon that would have been another 5 years of labour. Labour "Everyone should rent, no one who is from poverty should buy a house"[/QUOTE] Tories seem to be in the same mindset. Also had tories been in when the recession happened it might have been worse, they were pushing for less regulation at the time, which might have resulted in more bad debt.

Lots of backdoor tax increases for wealthier people in the budget - harder approach to non-doms, reduced expenses for rental property owners, etc. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48148310]This affects pensions and disability also. It's cruel.[/quote] Disability keeps being thrown in with this as some tug of the heart strings, most disability budgets are ring fenced - the only changes are to make existing funds go further and help more people. [quote]So we're suffering from austerity (still!) to save money yet the government is REDUCING the amount they'll collect from taxes. What a bunch of absolute cunts.[/QUOTE] The government can decrease corporate tax because it makes the UK look more attractive on the face of it. In reality, HMRC has changed its approach to other areas to get more revenue. [QUOTE=Jame's;48148474]I still believe slashing vat to 10% will help the poor hugely.[/QUOTE] Why would it? Most essential items are zero-rated or exempt from VAT. [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48148398] Clause hilarious because that's something that will have to be decided by the [I]next government[/I] anyway. They could throw in a clause of "a pony or a lambo for every poor child by 2020" in there and it would have the exact same implication. The horribly confusing (people here are already thinking it's a flat payout) clause serves no other purpose but to make the budget look less stark than it is.[/QUOTE] No it won't - the government elected in 2020 would have to accept the budget passed in that year. All governments do this: set a target for the end of their term. [QUOTE=Bobie;48149044]you do realise that all of these cuts target people who [I]don't[/I] vote tory, right? the poor, the disabled and students. why else would they give a massive cut to corporate tax (which isnt even claimed on regardless) and extend the right to buy? its a thank you letter to their donors and supporters who helped them take control of a depressingly bleak election.[/QUOTE] Yes, an increased bank levy and a massive slap to the non-dom rules was the biggest thank you of all. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48154581]Tories seem to be in the same mindset. Also had tories been in when the recession happened it might have been worse, they were pushing for less regulation at the time, which might have resulted in more bad debt.[/QUOTE] On the basis that Labour's regulation was effectively doing nothing at all, which they themselves later admitted.

VAT is a regressive tax that hurts those that are poorer most as they spend a greater proportion of their income on VAT effected goods. But it shouldn't be cut as we need the money. Just because many essentials are exempt doesn't make this not true.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48154933]VAT is a regressive tax that hurts those that are poorer most as they spend a greater proportion of their income on VAT effected goods. But it shouldn't be cut as we need the money. Just because many essentials are exempt doesn't make this not true.[/QUOTE] But it isn't true because someone who's not awfully well off isn't going to be buying many things with VAT tacked on top. I dunno what is and isn't exempt in the UK but with our GST here (a 10% VAT) my rent is GST exempt, my uni textbooks are GST exempt, pretty sure most if not all medical expenses are exempt, and most groceries are exempt. Looking at my last $70 grocery shopping receipt I only paid $0.67 GST. If GST was paid on everything I would have paid a bit under $77. Although saying that I still disagree with VATs anyways, just not for regressivity reasons because they aren't true.

It is true. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12111507[/url] In fact it's the most cited regressive tax in existence. (I realise I just cited an article that disagrees at least partially with my point but I couldn't find a better source right now)

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48155029]It is true. [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12111507[/URL] In fact it's the most cited regressive tax in existence. (I realise I just cited an article that disagrees at least partially with my point but I couldn't find a better source right now)[/QUOTE] Did you read that entire article? The second half is about how it isn't that clear and when the stats are taken differently it does look very progressive. For example, that first graph includes pensioners with no income as very poor, even though they have a ton of saved wealth. When you look at spending instead of income the percentages reverse.

[QUOTE=Arrows;48153994]Still beats the Armageddon that would have been another 5 years of labour. Labour "Everyone should rent, no one who is from poverty should buy a house"[/QUOTE] What are you on about, Labour are pretty much agreeing with everything the Tories are doing, they might as well be part of the Tory party at this point.

Red tories

[QUOTE=Arrows;48153994]Still beats the Armageddon that would have been another 5 years of labour. Labour "Everyone should rent, no one who is from poverty should buy a house"[/QUOTE] House ownership is one of the biggest causes poverty. Look at the rest of the world where they do not have the obsession with owning houses, the cost of living is significantly cheaper. [editline]9th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;48154976]But it isn't true because someone who's not awfully well off isn't going to be buying many things with VAT tacked on top. I dunno what is and isn't exempt in the UK but with our GST here (a 10% VAT) my rent is GST exempt, my uni textbooks are GST exempt, pretty sure most if not all medical expenses are exempt, and most groceries are exempt. Looking at my last $70 grocery shopping receipt I only paid $0.67 GST. If GST was paid on everything I would have paid a bit under $77. Although saying that I still disagree with VATs anyways, just not for regressivity reasons because they aren't true.[/QUOTE] Here is a list of things that are zero rated, useful for understanding VAT. [url]https://www.gov.uk/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services[/url]

[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;48156127]Red tories[/QUOTE] Red Tories and Blue Labour, the new age of British Politics

and dead liberals

lol the inheritance tax changes means that people are just going to buy bigger/more houses so they can avoid being taxed

[QUOTE=Noss;48150967]Prior to starting my internship, the only government assistance I was getting was £6800 a year. This was to pay for everything - from rent to travel to clothes to food, and I'm a full time student. Only about £2000 of this was comprised of the maintenance grants. It seems that when it comes to cuts, education always comes first. All this is going to do is push people to go to other countries for University, or discourage them from attending University at all. If I had a little more balls when I was 18, I'd have just gone to Norway and studied there for free. The Conservatives don't give a shit about you unless you're over 40 and upper-middle class. As far as they're concerned, everyone who doesn't fit that demographic can go fuck themselves.[/QUOTE] David Camo's chums children will have less competition from the poor when it comes to getting jobs that need higher education.

so when are your politicians going to realize that austerity is killing your economy? like, the entire case for austerity has been [URL="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2013-04-03/austerity-delusion"]thoroughly[/URL] and [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion"]repeatedly[/URL] [URL="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565211-debate-about-budget-cuts-has-become-dangerously-theological-deficit-common-sense"]refuted[/URL], along with a new swath of economic literature that proves that all it does is hold back recovery. every other developed nation has already realized this and already abandoned austerity. britain, by comparison, is transfixed by it for some unknown reason. labour really needs to stop pussyfooting around and go on the offense with proposals for more, not less, spending and stimulus. once the economy is back on track, [I]then[/I] you focus on balancing the budget. that's basic economics.

[QUOTE=joes33431;48158663]so when are your politicians going to realize that austerity is killing your economy? like, the entire case for austerity has been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted, along with a new swath of economic literature that proves that all it does is hold back recovery. every other developed nation has already realized this and already abandoned austerity. britain, by comparison, is transfixed by it for some unknown reason. labour really needs to stop pussyfooting around and go on the offense with proposals for more, not less, spending and stimulus. once the economy is back on track, [I]then[/I] you focus on balancing the budget. that's basic economics.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately for this argument the British economy is really doing quite well relatively to the rest of the rich world, mostly because there hasn't ACTUALLY been real austerity, for all the hard talk from Conservatives and the crying from the left wing. This is shown by the constant delays in when the budget is to be balanced.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48158710]Unfortunately for this argument the British economy is really doing quite well relatively to the rest of the rich world, mostly because there hasn't ACTUALLY been real austerity, for all the hard talk from Conservatives and the crying from the left wing. This is shown by the constant delays in when the budget is to be balanced.[/QUOTE] one of the articles i linked to addresses this: [QUOTE]By this point, some readers will nonetheless be shaking their heads and declaring, “But the economy is booming, and you said that couldn’t happen under austerity.” But Keynesian logic says that a one-time tightening of fiscal policy will produce a one-time hit to the economy, not a permanent reduction in the growth rate. A return to growth after austerity has been put on hold is not at all surprising. ... You might be tempted to say that this is all water under the bridge, given that the coalition, whatever it may claim, effectively called a halt to fiscal tightening midway through its term. But this story isn’t over. Cameron is campaigning largely on a spurious claim to have “rescued” the British economy – and promising, if he stays in power, [U]to continue making substantial cuts in the years ahead[/U]. Labour, sad to say, are echoing that position.[/QUOTE] the cuts described in the OP are exactly what were brought up in the underlined portion.

But he won't. The cuts made in this budget are not large compared to what is promised, and he is politically fickle, and won't make the big cuts he bashes on about.