Budget Discussion.

[afleitch]

You know the score. (The lone Tory will wade in after work )

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Watched it, watched Cameron, suffering through Clegg at the moment.

[Silent Hunter]

Half-watched Darling. The edited highlights are a lot better than the full speech.

Can Cameron stop spinning the whole 10p rate thing? Even the Daily Mail admitted yesterday that most people won't lose anything through it because of Working Tax Credit.

Why does the Leader of the Opposition get the response rather than the Shadow Chancellor?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Why does the Leader of the Opposition get the response rather than the Shadow Chancellor?

Because the PM was the one who really gave the budget?


Sorry that I don't really know what I'm talking about, but that one seemed obvious even to me.

[afleitch]

Can Cameron stop spinning the whole 10p rate thing? Even the Daily Mail admitted yesterday that most people won't lose anything through it because of Working Tax Credit.

That's if your eligible for WTC (most single low earners without kids) I'm not eligable and my tax goes up yet my parents, who have an income three times higher, see theirs fall.

So yes it is a big point.

Quote of the budget is of course 'So What' - Ed Balls on the issue of tax rises. Sums up Labour today in a nutshell.

[afleitch]

My dad, who lives abroad, is looking forward to his extra winter fuel allowance. Total piss-take

Well the Labour ethos is; we'll tax you if you're the working poor, but you have to claw it back from the state (and be eligable) in order to claw your way out of poverty. Why not leave the money in their pockets in the first place? Why not raise the state pension instead of useless gimmicks for pensioners? Why, in Scotland oppose the abolition of an unfair Council Tax system and oppose a replacement L.I.T that will see drastic cuts to the tune of several hundred pounds a year in local tax for the poorest pensioners and poorest workers?

Because Labour now exists to tie people to the welfare state. It takes tax from you and gives you it back only if you qualify and you fill out a form. And if HM Revenue balls it up they hound you for the return of over payments. WTC for the average earning family who claim it still leaves a deficit of between £500 and £700 per year and rising because changes in the tax system are enacted faster than changes in WTC. Just leave the money in their pay packet to start with.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Because Labour now exists to tie people to the welfare state.

Now? More like for the past sixty years or so; in part because in the end the only alternative to this for a party like Labour is a repeat of the second MacDonald government (a slight exaggeration there, but only a slight one). As it happens I don't think it's actually a bad thing either (but that goes without saying really).

[Silent Hunter]

It might be a better idea to leave the money there in the first place, I'd agree.

I agree with the spirits and tobacco rise, especially the latter. What's the smoking rate among the working poor? Higher than it should be, IMO. Remember, if people gave up smoking, they'd have more to spend on other things- and could earn more too.

[afleitch]

I'd doubled tobacco rates,
I come in contact with a wide range of people in my job
It amazes me the amount of parents who are eligible for 'free school meals' that smoke,

It amazes me the high levels of income that still qualify for WTC.

A poster from PB.com highlighted this:

Single person, non smoker, non-driver no kids. Tax changes for 2008/09

£6,000 £12 worse off
£9,000 £127 worse off
£12,000 £67 worse off
£15,000 £7 worse off
£36,000 £297 better off

A lot of that includes last years 10% rate abolition. I was £110 worse off last year IIRC and this year I'm a further £25 down.

Ultimately, what's wrong with the picture is this;

£9,000 £127 worse off
£36,000 £297 better

[afleitch]

Yes, that's terrible.
The poorest need the tax breaks BUT what would it be like under the Tories, I can remember, to my youth and having some desperate times as a child. That is why I'll always be anti-Tory. That and their attitudes towards gay rights.

As an openly gay Tory candidate last May I never had any problem with anyone in the party I worked with or their attitude. On the issue of gay rights as a party we were slow, which is a reflection on the slow but steady change in societal attitudes, but I have no problems where with they currently stand on the matter. It's increasingly not the Tories attitudes to people that is the problem; it's peoples attitudes to the Tories

The abolition of the 10% rate hits 1.9 million of the poorest workers. Scrapping the rate, together with the increase in the proportion of tax credits withdrawn by higher earners leaves manyworkers eanring between £6500 and £15000 paying a tax rate of up to 70%. They claw it back through tax credits (though they shouldn't have to) but many are short changed or innacurately over-paid

If you're wondering what it would be like under the Tories, I don't believe it is fair any longer to rely solely on on how they were in government between 1979-97. If a voter in 1997 said they wouldn't vote Labour, in spite of everything in between, solely because of the '74-'79 government, people would see that as pretty irrational or stubborn. 

As for what they would do, there is strong support for tax reform that would see those earning below £15000 a year paying not a penny in income tax. This would be part of a targeted tax cut package as well as resulting of the overhaul or downsizing of WTC. It's a good policy, but it's difficult to sell because the party is probably more progressive on the matter than the general public (the middle class may baulk at the 'poors' not paying tax without knowing the maths). It is likely to be enacted during the second term of a Conservative government, or if we get a thumping majority.

[Silent Hunter]

I'd doubled tobacco rates,
I come in contact with a wide range of people in my job
It amazes me the amount of parents who are eligible for 'free school meals' that smoke,

It amazes me the high levels of income that still qualify for WTC.

A poster from PB.com highlighted this:

Single person, non smoker, non-driver no kids. Tax changes for 2008/09

£6,000 £12 worse off
£9,000 £127 worse off
£12,000 £67 worse off
£15,000 £7 worse off
£36,000 £297 better off

A lot of that includes last years 10% rate abolition. I was £110 worse off last year IIRC and this year I'm a further £25 down.

Ultimately, what's wrong with the picture is this;

£9,000 £127 worse off
£36,000 £297 better

How does a single person with no kids earn only £9,000 a year- that's below minimum wage (Another great Labour achievement, which the Tories opposed)?

[Silent Hunter]

Maybe they don't work full time.

Yeah, but the only reason I could think for that is if they were a carer, in which case they could claim an allowance for that.

I'm sure there's others.

[afleitch]

I don't want to hijack the budget thread with a gay rights debate, but how can the tories be for equality? Last year, during the equality act only 29 tories voted for it, whilst a shockingly high 83(+2) voted against it! (on a 58% turnout)

My point about never voting tory, is that the poor nowadays are nuch better off than the poor of 1980s, well certainly in my family

Bear in mind acts like the Equality Act often attract 'nay' votes from the Tories not because of a judgemental nature but because they believe the state should not legislate on these matters. A a significant humber of Tories voted against the '98 Equality Act that extended minority rights to religions etc and opposed any extension to the blasphemy laws not so long ago. So there is consitency. It's not really an 'anti-gay' thing (though some MP's of course are). All I'm saying is that personal experience, not Hansard records forms my opinion on the matter. I wouldn't be in the Tories if I believed them to be purposefully and tactically homophobic.

[afleitch]

How does a single person with no kids earn only £9,000 a year- that's below minimum wage (Another great Labour achievement, which the Tories opposed)?

They can earn below £9000 a year if they work part time, which many single people with or without kids do.

As for the minimum wage, put your pom poms down (it was a 'great union idea' if any) Yes the Tories did oppose it when in office, as did a significant number of businesses as they wrongly believed it could harm job creation and competition, particularly amongst part time and seasonal employers (the same reason why the Labour front bench, this year, opposed the extension of employment grievance and dismissal rights to agency workers)

They were wrong. And they admitted they were wrong in 1998/99 and we have supported the minimum wage for 10 years.

If the Tories irk you, have a discussion of current Tory policy. I'm not bringing up decade old obsolete Labour policy.

[Silent Hunter]

OK, current Tory policy. Why cut spending at all? Why not spend it more efficiently?

[afleitch]

OK, current Tory policy. Why cut spending at all? Why not spend it more efficiently?

The real question is why increase spending? The real wrong in public spending thinking, is the concept of the 'escalator'; that we need to constantly raise taxes and raise spending to get better services. Efficiency precedes spending more or spendingless. If you can spend what you've got wisely, you may be able to spend less with the same effect and providing tax cuts to stimulate growth. So Labour have 'almost doubled' NHS spending in the past decade. NHS spending also doubled under Thatcher.

Oh and an intersting fact is that if the Tory spending plans at the last general election for 2005-08 been enacted, public spending would now be higher than it is under Labour. You should speak to your past self and tell him to vote Tory

[Silent Hunter]

OK, current Tory policy. Why cut spending at all? Why not spend it more efficiently?

Oh and an intersting fact is that if the Tory spending plans at the last general election for 2005-08 been enacted, public spending would now be higher than it is under Labour. You should speak to your past self and tell him to vote Tory

Yes, but what about after 2008?

Why not spend the same amount more efficiently so you can provide even more services?

[afleitch]

OK, current Tory policy. Why cut spending at all? Why not spend it more efficiently?

Oh and an intersting fact is that if the Tory spending plans at the last general election for 2005-08 been enacted, public spending would now be higher than it is under Labour. You should speak to your past self and tell him to vote Tory

Yes, but what about after 2008?

Why not spend the same amount more efficiently so you can provide even more services?

After 2008? Well looking at the actual projected levels of government spending beyond, even more than Labour. But no one sensible projects figures too far in advance.

As for efficiency, as I said before, being efficient comes before you factor in raising or cutting spending. You can be efficient and still be as efficient if you spent more. If that is the case, you don't spend more. You can also be efficient and still be as efficient if you spent less. Thats how you gauge things. We could, for a start not have spent £70bn on consultants and pumped that into services. Or you could have pumped half of that into services 'improving them' (if you believe money = improvement) and the other half into tax cuts. Would that not be an efficient use of money? Or is it only efficient if you don't use it to improve services and lighten the tax burden?

The problem is when you get it into your head that if a government cut income tax for the worse off by 1p everything would collapse and 'doctors n' nurses' will be let go in their thousands, and scaremongering like that; thats when you have a problem, And the people aren't buying it.

[Silent Hunter]

What tax cuts are the Tories proposing anyway?

[afleitch]

What tax cuts are the Tories proposing anyway?

I can answer this now.

By the looks of things in this weekends press - none.

[afleitch]

What tax cuts are the Tories proposing anyway?

I can answer this now.

By the looks of things in this weekends press - none.

I like the honesty of Cameron...it's such a shame he's a tory.
Maybe there is a prostitute in there somewhere!

You and half of Britain