Well if you earn £1000 and spend £1100 of it sooner or later as the debt increases to a level where drastic action has to be taken.

 

Actually not as bad as expected - the big news will come in the "budget of cuts" in the autumn.

Bummer about VAT - but if you are going to make big ticket purchases you can make them ahead of Jan 4th so it's giving you fair notice.

I think for once I'm actually in pocket this time about - God bless George!

Also the crackdown on people who say they can't work due to illness and reduction in the housing allowance as well - another big plus. Did you hear that some families managed to claim £104,000 a year in housing benefits? No wonder we've got such a large debt burden.

ITV news showed some of the locals in Morpeth (which I assume is somewhere up t'North) complaining about being £75 a year worse off - that's about £1.50 a week and not being funny that doesn't buy a lot these days.

 

I think it all seems fairly sensible really.

Just be grateful Labour are not still here completely destroying the economy :roll:

 

As with all Budgets the Devil will always be in the detail which will drip fed to us in the coming weeks.Noticed though that the Coalition government have already back tracked on the changes to fuel duty

 

The thing with the VAT increase, is the more someone earns, the greater their discretionary spending power and the more they chose to spend, the more VAT they contribute. It is thus a progressive tax on the better off. Simples!

 

I don't know a great deal about economics to know if it was all bull or not, but it seemed very sensible to me. Sure VAT is going to be an arse but the economy is screwed. I think I'd rather VAT than income tax as I can choose not to buy luxuary goods if I don't want to pay more tax.

 

The thing with the VAT increase, is the more someone earns, the greater their discretionary spending power and the more they chose to spend, the more VAT they contribute. It is thus a progressive tax on the better off. Simples!

Ummmm. Actually no.

Sure, they contribute more to the treasury in VAT, but as a percentage of their earnings, it is generally a tax on the poorest.

Sod 'em though. They don't have to be poor. It is usually lazniness. Either that, or they can't do anything which people will pay money for. Either way, they don't contribute much to society and deserve to be worse off.

 

This is only the start. What has been announced so far will only scratch the surface of the structural deficit and the existing debt will still be going up. A quick calculation on my finances suggests that I need to pay about 30 times more additional tax than I'm going to unless any cuts in government spending are swift and ruthless.

 

The thing with the VAT increase, is the more someone earns, the greater their discretionary spending power and the more they chose to spend, the more VAT they contribute. It is thus a progressive tax on the better off. Simples!

Ummmm. Actually no.

Sure, they contribute more to the treasury in VAT, but as a percentage of their earnings, it is generally a tax on the poorest.

Sod 'em though. They don't have to be poor. It is usually lazniness. Either that, or they can't do anything which people will pay money for. Either way, they don't contribute much to society and deserve to be worse off.

Totally agree with jampott.

Did anyone actually notice a difference in what they were spending while we were on a "VAT holiday" at 15% - I didnt.

Dont qualify for tax credits etc anyway and dont plan on selling property anytime soon.

On the plus side my company is considered "small" so co. tax is down to 20%

Like jampott says, at least with upping VAT the scumbags at the bottom of the pond contribute to society as well, albeit a small amount.

 

We have a few (3 at least!) companies between the 2 of us... :lol:

I would like to have seen the VAT threshold come down a little - I do think more companies should be registered for VAT.

I certainly didn't notice much difference during the "VAT holiday" of 15%, although to a certain extent, some retailers did buffer the jump back to 17.5%

MIldly disappointed that George didn't whack up tobacco and alcohol duty (in fact he cancelled the planned 10% rise in cider duty, didn't he!?) because both of these products have a very real "cost" to the economy - not just in terms of healthcare, but also lost productivity. It probably hits the private sector as much as it hits the public sector...

Capping Housing Benefit is great. Likewise freezing child benefit. I still don't understand why I pay taxes which are then handed out to EVERYONE who chooses to have kids, whether they need it or not. Means test the damn thing, and cut it too. Also, if a family has 1 child and qualifies... fine. If they have 2 children, they still get benefit for the 1st, but not the 2nd. If they have a 3rd child, they lose some (or all) of the benefit for the 1st child. Might encourage "parents" to only have children they can "afford". At the moment we're simply encouraging the poorest in our society to continue to breed way beyond their own means to support them.

I don't care what people say... if you cannot support your family of 7 inbred rascals, you DON'T have "human rights" to have them in the first place.

Oh, and lets reintroduce some of the diseases we've previously wiped out which are linked to poverty and the lower classes. I'm sure we have them stored in a vial somewhere - but every species needs a controlling element to prevent them overrunning. I'm sure if there's a government sponsored programme to infect bags of Turkey Twizzlers and knock-off perfumes with Smallpox, and let nature take care of the rest, we'd all be much better off.

 

Housing benefit capped to £400 per week! I can rent a reasonable house (in the South East) for well under a grand a month!

How these people qualify for all these benefits?

In my hour of need during the last recession there was f**k all available to help me without my wife cutting her hours (not income) which we were not prepared to do.

Oh, and lets reintroduce some of the diseases we've previously wiped out which are linked to poverty and the lower classes. I'm sure we have them stored in a vial somewhere - but every species needs a controlling element to prevent them overrunning. I'm sure if there's a government sponsored programme to infect bags of Turkey Twizzlers and knock-off perfumes with Smallpox, and let nature take care of the rest, we'd all be much better off.

Tim at his best :lol: :lol:

 

Good point about the HB cap still being high.

If someone can't afford to live in London, they shouldn't be paid to live there. There are plenty of people who would love to live in London, but simply can't afford to get on the property ladder there.

Maybe the reason why property prices are sky high is that the taxpayer is underwriting huge rents to private landlords for a queue of people who can't afford to pay it for themselves.

Housing prices in London may just "adjust" slightly if the artificially high rent payments (and never ending queue of scroungers) is taken away.

 

LOL!

Agree entirely again!

 

[smiley=cheers.gif]

 

ITV news showed some of the locals in Morpeth (which I assume is somewhere up t'North) complaining about being £75 a year worse off - that's about £1.50 a week and not being funny that doesn't buy a lot these days.

Works out about a days Sky or 5 **** for the toe rags

 

I always thought Morpeth was quite a nice town , much nicer than.......Ashington for example.

 

Hey, whats wrong with ashington ? :lol:

 

Nothing just Morpeth is nicer.I wondered which of the Ashington related posters would be first to reply.

 

I wish I could afford £400 a week on rent:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to- ... 08327.html

 

I like how the general assumption is that people who are poor or on housing benefit are probably just scrounging scum... :?

 

I like how the general assumption is that people who are poor or on housing benefit are probably just scrounging scum... :?

I didn't say they were all scrouging scum - just that they clearly don't have much to offer society, and were either lazy, thick, or couldn't do anything which other people were prepared to pay money for.

 

I found this interesting
"Will Hutton to draw up plans for fairer pay across the public sector, without increasing the overall pay bill, so that those at the top of organisations are paid no more than 20 times the salaries of those at the bottom."

I think that sounds a fair way, although they will just make up for the lower salary(if that is the right word) by having bigger bonuses.

Shame that doesn't work for football, a manager would be on no more than 20 times the salary of one of his players.
I don't see any football managers complaining about that!

 

This chap asked me to be a friend on friends reunited (I remember his name but nothing else) who appears to be enjoying life at the expense of the tax payer (I have changed a few bits to protect his id):

About me

After a long time "developing" my qualifications, I eventually landed a job in Malvern, in 1992, where I have worked ever since. I recently had year off through illness, and when I resumed work everybody commented on how well I was looking ! It's amazing what a year off work can do ! I am still recovering and working 3 mornings a week. Update - I have now completely retired from that job.


I often wonder what happened to people I was at <school> with, though I doubt many of you remember me (even fewer favourably !!). I seem to remember the names well, and have a distinct impression of what they used to look like, and am curious what they look like now. None of you have photos !! Surely you can't ALL be embarassed ??!

I now live in Tewkesbury - don't be afraid to look me up.

Still the same, except I'm now unemployed/retired (depending on which way you look at it);

To summarise, he is approx 46 years old, has spent well over 10 years at Uni, got a job for about 10 years, went sick, couldnt hack it back at work now permanently out of work (retired).

 

I like how the general assumption is that people who are poor or on housing benefit are probably just scrounging scum... :?

I didn't say they were all scrouging scum - just that they clearly don't have much to offer society, and were either lazy, thick, or couldn't do anything which other people were prepared to pay money for.

You seem to have confused 'making money for yourself' with 'being useful'. :wink:

 

What surprises me with my now fellow Brits, is how easily they have forgotten where the recession came from. The downturn wasn't a product of us not working hard or corruption or negative growth or false data (like the Greek case). The downturn was as a result of us paying the flipping banks. Now we are asked to accept that and move forward, by filling up the empty government coffers with more taxes and cuts. In this budget the banks got off so lightly and it begs the question who is running this country? The government or the bankers? I think it's worth voting with a mortgage rather than with a ballot next time. If you think so many million public sector workers will sit tight and take it on the chin in the coming winter, you have another thing coming. As the song goes: " I predict a riot"........ :x