General Chat

What do you think ;-) ;-)

Loads of repeated promises. Jam for everyone tomorrow!

JoyBoroAngel - 'that will sort immigration out'.

Why on earth would some immigrants opt to be just the same as everyone else when they are utterly different & individual, unlike the rest of us?

Maybe Joy meant that will sort the catholics out, Dermot.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I was being ironic. :-)

Guinevere - Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Catholics who stop attending services are ‘lapsed’ Catholics. Catholics who join the Taliban are ‘bad’ Catholics.

#Something I remember reading ages ago. :-D

It's pretty good in many respects - I particularly like the fact that benefits are being capped (long overdue in my opinion).

I see again somebody can't understand a reasonable debate.

an immigrant maybe ;-)

Or quite possibly somebody who found it offensive and somewhat xenophobic.

Disappointed that there was no mention of radical measures to start simplifying the income tax system, for example acknowledging that income tax and employee National Insurance Contributions are virtually the same thing and that merging them under income tax rules would free up people with low but variable earnings from paying no income tax over the year but still paying NIC if weekly/monthly earnings cross the threshold.

(Income tax is cumulative over the year so that if you earn over the threshold one week but only a little the next then excess tax is refunded, unlike NIC where contributions paid in a high earning week are not refunded).

Shame that the University Maintenance Grant is going to be changed into a Loan.

The inheritance tax threshold increase is very welcome news indeed.

Poor - it is about time Osborne realised that his job is setting a framework for the nation's finances not playing political stunts which rarely deliver.

It is a strange sort of logic which says let's squeeze tax and child credits now 'cos firms should pay "a living wage" when the living wage is pie in the sky for some future date ... Like many of Osborne's trite analysis the alleged circle of tax credits = subsidy to Tesco is a phantom.

Large firms ( and the govt ) will never pay more than they have to hence the min. wage - which is widely ignored with zero prosecutions. Trying to push up the min wage just creates massive troubles with the next rungs up eg semi skilled white collar and blue collar workers, bus drivers and so on who inconveniently go on strike. Hence the introduction of tax credits which were targeted as a way of alleviating the terrible levels of poverty in the UK. They have worked very well in doing this.

The effects of poverty and poor education are very expensive to a modern state as well as a bad thing per se. That was the driving force behind Blair's govt which was unfortunately overtaken by the Iraq war and Brown playing union machine games. However they did cut poverty very significantly. Since 2010 this has been in reverse.

The three main benefits - TC, HB and child credit are not contributory as in most EU countries. Without a doubt they have pushed up EU immigration beyond what it might have been. The simple fix is to require a year of contribs. before claiming for UK and EU citizens not leaving the EU which is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Though it sounds impressive the latest cuts are not actually all that severe unless inflation takes off again. Osborne is just using them as a political stunt with which to beat Labour around the head - as he knows the "deficit" is a great aunt sally and there will be a balanced budget one day but not yet ... Meanwhile he goes on nicking Labour ideas.

Given the way the wind is blowing I rather doubt if Ken Loach would get much screen time today - anybody notice the total absence of repeats although it is ok to wheel out ancient tv private eye programs such as Dirk Gently.

Only bears of very little brain have failed to work out how to avoid death duties. They are mainly paid by estates in SE England where house prices have leaped well beyond the ability of the owners to have bought a similar house and insistent on keeping their names on the deeds. A better way to deal with death duties would be to tax the recipients not the estate.

Which brings us to the elephant in the room. The UK is running a current account deficit of Homeric proportions which is largely being financed by the London & SE property bubble. The consumer boom it has created is the sole source of UK "growth". It can only end in tears.

fwiw NI and income tax are not remotely the same thing which is why when a govt comes to power you hear of plans to merge NI and PAYE which soon disappear in the face of reality. The failure to levy NI (both employer and employee) at a suitable level for a modern state is the root cause of a great deal of trouble including the rickety finances of the NHS.

At the end of the current chairman's 5 year plan by far the majority of people will still be poorer than in 2010 and the deficit will still be there but shuffled off stage like a disappointing child in favour of the next-big-thing.

So far the Labour proto opposition have been disappointing and somehow convey the feeling of a relegated football team expecting another relegation to follow. None of them seem to have a clue - which is of course why they lost.

My biggest worry now is the badgers as a govt I dislike seems determined to help me out even though I didn't ask.

for JoyBoroAngel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzOo6i8qb1o

:-D

Rollo, the main 'Benefit', handout, according to Government statistics, is Pension. Yes, I know we've all paid into a state pension for years, but it's still classed as a benefit, and is the highest welfare payment made.
The main recipients of Housing Benefit are landlords. This benefit could be substantially reduced if wages were above poverty level (employers) and rents were capped.
The majority of those who receive Tax Credits also pay tax, so they are, in effect, paying themselves.
Child Tax credit, like Housing Benefit and Tax Credits are means tested. Tax Credits are paid to working people, which shows how low wages are in reality.
Winter fuel allowance and Child allowance aren't means tested, so you can get them whether you need them or not - but they still cost the country a few million.

Last year, big businesses received tax 'breaks' of £93 million. This figure shows how important it is to screw £12 million from the already poor.

As usual, nothing's been thought through.
It all sounds very good -
"Subsidies for social housing will be phased out with local authority and housing association tenants in England who earn more than £30,000 - or £40,000 in London - having to pay up to the market rent"

Of course, with the 'right to buy' (and will they get the discount?) these people may as well buy their council house - thereby reducing the amount of social housing stock even more.
It would be a different story if there was no 'right to buy'. These tenants could buy a house on the open market, and free up social housing for those who need it.

They are talking billions dear Maggie not millions...

It is all very well increasing the minimum wage but quite quickly it results in people earning above the minimum wage finding their differentials disappearing. You might say that a semi skilled worker earning £ 10 / hr should not mind a n other's min wage going up from £ 7 to £ 9.20 but the reality is a mad rush to restore differentials as this effect bumps all the way up the tree. The result in the past has been strikes and wage inflation. It was to avoid that scenario that tax credits were brought in and why in their first term the Tories left them alone. Now it is their intention to have most of the country earning around £ 9 / hr it doesn't matter any more ...

Housing Associations are also landlords.

The debacle caused my Thatchers ill thought out scheme to sell municipal housing at half price has to some degree been alleviated by the Housing Associations most of which do a grand job. They are not owned by the government. AFAIK the Housing Associations do not agree that the govt has any legal right to set rents and neither do they own the H.A. property or the LA housing managed by the HA. A "new right to buy" would face stiff legal opposition. (a) who is the beneficial owner ? certainly not HMG. (b) if the property is to be sold off at 30/50% discount then the HA would have to be compensated for full market value.

It is less obvious away from London but this nasty little sting will soon hit many in the provinces. Social rents are based on 80% of "market rent". In London that has resulted in market rents thus calculated exceeding a families total income let alone leaving anything to live on. Quite soon there is an empty block with no tenants which can be sold off to Chinese investors, Russians etc. Similar actions can be expected in SE England as HA rents rise and low income families see their revenues decline.

The worst of it is that most of the Labour leadership hopefuls support a watered down version of all this nonsense.

we are all equal but some of us are more equal than others

The interesting thing will be to see how the property market for ordinary houses goes when interest rates rise to > 4% as they will. That hardly matters in central London of course where most property is bought with cash no loan involved.

Suggested reading: "The Road to Wigan Pier"

It doesn't really matter if it's billions, millions or pennies, it's the difference, indicating where the real problem lies.

As for your 'Suggested Reading'? I, personally have read it, thank you.
I've also read 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist.
Please don't imply, that just because others' don't need to write half an essay, and are female that they are totally naïve and dense.
It may amaze you to know that I've only ever read one 'chick lit' book - that's because I tend not to voice an opinion without experience.

Rollo, I find your patronising attitude incredibly irritating. Please stop it. Maggie is not your "dear Maggie".

It's very off-putting and adds nothing to the debate.