More cuts from failing Osborne

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The spending wasn't actually excessive the problem was how thin the tax base was. Much as it is now actually, the economy having not been balanced.

I am guessing this is a bad thread to ask for ways to mitigate the insane tax rate at £100k?

If the economy is supposed to be doing well and you are still have to borrow to cover your spending, you are spending too much. If the borrowing was a sign of the economy being bad, then Labour screwed the economy up by around 2000. If there wasn't excessive spending back then, what would there be to cut back?

[Ignitionnet]

How many times has the budget been in surplus in the past 30 years?

Deficit versus growth and what the deficit is being spent on are key. Not making essential investment shifts bills onto the following generations too, and potentially at higher interest rates.

Debt to GDP ratio matters, not nominal debt.

Simply saying surplus good, deficits bad is a gross oversimplification. A fair amount of the relaxation of austerity the Chancellor has done has actually been the right kind - they went after the 'easy' and expedient savings and quickly realised this was a bad idea.

Some of it, however, the more cynically politically motivated cuts and short-termist sales of assets, is nuts.

The ongoing shifting of more activities onto local authorities while continuing to cut their budgets so that they rather than central government will take blame for example is repugnant.

---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was 29-02-2016 at 23:55 ----------

Incidentally the major issue is that ridiculous requirement to be running a surplus in 'normal' times.

The Chancellor is hoist on his own petard, has robbed himself of flexibility, and has run the economy for political and ideological ends way too much.

The OBR predicted that private debt would be the substitute for public borrowing and that is, with interest, what is happening.

The economy is more dependent on services than ever before after it became politically expedient to ignore rebalancing attempts.

We have had a big asset price boom that's led to huge amounts of capital not generating any economic growth. Employment is high but productivity is still in the toilet - the jobs don't seem to have been much good.

The economy is very precarious indeed and this is nothing to do with Labour but a Chancellor whose long term economic plan is more like a long term plan to try and become the Prime Minister.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, they're not - you are deliberately mis-quoting him, as he was talking about people/companies who set up/utilise dodgy tax-avoidance schemes which would be challenged by HMRC, whereas in this case we are discussing something that is on the HMRC website, with guidance, and that is used every year by thousands of companies legally and without challenge from the HMRC.

But you already knew that, but didn't let it stop you making a cheap political point...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17525977 Deferred tax credits are no more morally repugnant than pension tax relief - they are both defined and managed by HMRC, under strict guidelines.

Cheap political points, like trying to bring the mirror or the Guardian into the discussion and I'm sure you know in the same speech he was talking about clamping down on firms hiding in tax havens, guess who does business with one such firm

http://www.channel4.com/news/george-...-offshore-firm

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

How many times has the budget been in surplus in the past 30 years?

Deficit versus growth and what the deficit is being spent on are key. Not making essential investment shifts bills onto the following generations too, and potentially at higher interest rates.

Debt to GDP ratio matters, not nominal debt.

Simply saying surplus good, deficits bad is a gross oversimplification. A fair amount of the relaxation of austerity the Chancellor has done has actually been the right kind - they went after the 'easy' and expedient savings and quickly realised this was a bad idea.

Some of it, however, the more cynically politically motivated cuts and short-termist sales of assets, is nuts.

The ongoing shifting of more activities onto local authorities while continuing to cut their budgets so that they rather than central government will take blame for example is repugnant.

---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was 29-02-2016 at 23:55 ----------

Incidentally the major issue is that ridiculous requirement to be running a surplus in 'normal' times.

The Chancellor is hoist on his own petard, has robbed himself of flexibility, and has run the economy for political and ideological ends way too much.

The OBR predicted that private debt would be the substitute for public borrowing and that is, with interest, what is happening.

The economy is more dependent on services than ever before after it became politically expedient to ignore rebalancing attempts.

We have had a big asset price boom that's led to huge amounts of capital not generating any economic growth. Employment is high but productivity is still in the toilet - the jobs don't seem to have been much good.

The economy is very precarious indeed and this is nothing to do with Labour but a Chancellor whose long term economic plan is more like a long term plan to try and become the Prime Minister.

This.

[Mr K]

Georges gift to the hard up rich of cutting the top rate of tax has cost the country £2.4bn - clever old George. Doubtless he'll get it back from the disabled or children.http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6905836.html

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Georges gift to the hard up rich of cutting the top rate of tax has cost the country £2.4bn - clever old George. Doubtless he'll get it back from the disabled or children.http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6905836.html

Who in their right mind believes a word pretty much any politician says, Gideon is a snake and a charlatan just like the rest of them, no better no worse

[heero_yuy]

SLASHING the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p raised £8billion from the super-rich in a year, George Osborne claimed last night.

But despite the cash boost, Treasury sources ruled out cutting the rate to 40p — even if this brought in more revenue.

A jubilant Chancellor yesterday told the Commons that new figures on income tax data for 2013/14 showed there was an £8billion increase in revenues from wealthy top rate taxpayers.

Mr Osborne claimed it “completely defies” predictions made by Labour that cutting the rate from 50p to 45p in the pound would cost £3billion and give top earners an average £10,000 tax cut.

Linky

And if you don't like that source try this one

It all depends on who you believe.

---------- Post added at 08:59 ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 ----------

Perhaps a more credible source is this paper from the LSE:

cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/EA029.pdf

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

It all depends on who you believe.

I don't believe George or The Sun that's for sure. Tax receipts from the rich may have gone up this year, but only because one's clever accountant has shifted one's income into the cheaper tax year. The net loss to the Tax payer has been £2.6bn. He must take us all for muppets.

I see the Torygraph are called for more tax cuts for higher earners or what it calls 'middle classes'. Someone need to tell them that the average wage in the UK is £26k.

You can certainly see where Georges priorities lie, with his rich mates and those that don't need the money. The rest of us can suffer more cuts to pay for it. The rich get richer and the poor continue to get poorer - life under the Tories. Still it's what we all voted for isn't it ?

[heero_yuy]

Massive increase in personal tax allowance threshold, living wage boost. I'm sure those in receipt are poorer.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Massive increase in personal tax allowance threshold, living wage boost. I'm sure those in receipt are poorer.

A personal tax allowance increase at the same time as a national insurance increase that will more than wipe it out for millions. http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk...-millions.html

As for the living wage in ain't fully coming in till 2020! By then it might not seem that generous an amount.

[heero_yuy]

In April the Government’s new National Living Wage will become law.

If you’re working and aged 25 or over and not in the first year of an apprenticeship, you’ll be legally entitled to at least £7.20 per hour. That’s an extra fifty pence per hour in your pocket. The Government is committed to increasing this every year.

If you’re an employer, you’ll need to make sure you’re paying your staff correctly from 1st April 2016, as the National Living Wage will be enforced as strongly as the current National Minimum Wage.

Living wage

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Living wage

As he said, not fully coming in until 2020 then

[denphone]

And a lot of things can happen between now and 2020 as we all know..

[Osem]

All bets are off so far as I can see and whichever colour of incumbent government we get I expect future changes to such things as pensions, personal taxation, benefits etc. to be more drastic and happen far more frequently than ever before. Gone are the days when planning ahead meant planning for retirement 30 or 40 years hence with some semblance of certainty - a) an awful lot of people now at work will never be able to retire and b) the goalposts are going to be moved repeatedly in one way or another that it's impossible to plan for anything other than a few years ahead.

[denphone]

Young people starting their working lives now will probably have to work until they are 75 according to government hints in the pension review that is going to be taking place in the next 14 months.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...nsion-age.html