• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves

Status
Not open for further replies.
They have started counting military pensions as part of the defense spending budget in order to hit the 2% target...

As "Westminster book-cookery" as this clearly is, it's not immediately obvious to me why it wasn't considered part of military spending in the first place. Employment-specific pensions (ie not the public pension) are basically just deferred payment for work. It makes sense that this come out of the military budget given it's the military who write and sign the contracts. I'm not sure if other countries do this, but I'm not opposed to us doing so.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Didn't you hear? You HAVE to earn or learn till you're 21 now.

That part I was ok with. Lots of people that go out to work at 18 still have to stay at home with parents as they can't afford their own place. So unless there are significant extenuating circumstances, I don't think anyone 18-21 should be offered social housing.

I was quite surprised to find out that some people are still in Housing Association accommodation while earning high rate tax - while there is a shortage of houses for those on low/no income. There should be some encouragement to move in that situation I think. Phasing in a market rate for those properties will either encourage people to move somewhere else because the cost differential isn't high (which frees up HA property for those that need it more), or they stay and the HA makes more money which they can then invest in more property.
 
So right hang on

Isn't this just going to mean that people who only paid minimum wage before are now just going to hire exclusively people 18 - 25 and still pay them like shit?
 
So right hang on

Isn't this just going to mean that people who only paid minimum wage before are now just going to hire exclusively people 18 - 25 and still pay them like shit?

I wouldn't have thought so. The minimum wage already rises with age, yet there's no particular demand for those straight out of school.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Can anyone tell me what the deal will be for working tax credits?

not specifically but I assume there will be online 'how are you impacted' things

At a high level though, they are reducing the point where the benefit tapers off from I think £26k to £23k, and it will be tapering off more quickly (48%, don't know what it is currently). So you'll start losing it earlier, and more quickly. Also for the family part, you only get it for your first two kids (for new claimants starting from 2017)

The mitigation is supposed to be the increased personal allowance, raising of the high rate tax threshold, and the move to a living wage. The Tories say most/many(?) families will be better off, but I'm sure there will be plenty of situations where people are worse off under this new approach. I agree with the concept though.
 
not specifically but I assume there will be online 'how are you impacted' things

At a high level though, they are reducing the point where the benefit tapers off from I think £26k to £23k, and it will be tapering off more quickly (48%, don't know what it is currently). So you'll start losing it earlier, and more quickly. Also for the family part, you only get it for your first two kids (for new claimants starting from 2017)

The mitigation is supposed to be the increased personal allowance, raising of the high rate tax threshold, and the move to a living wage. The Tories say most/many(?) families will be better off, but I'm sure there will be plenty of situations where people are worse off under this new approach. I agree with the concept though.

What I don't understand is why they need to scale back tax credits at all. As you say, the benefit tapers off the more you earn, so surely this raising of the minimum wage - if it's actually going to make the low-paid better-off - should simply make them fade away into obsolescence...
 

kitch9

Banned
So right hang on

Isn't this just going to mean that people who only paid minimum wage before are now just going to hire exclusively people 18 - 25 and still pay them like shit?

I went through a period of hiring young apprentices and nearly ended up blowing my own brains out..
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
From the point of pure self-interest ...

The change in dividend taxation is going to hit me one way or the other. But given that it seems to be aimed particularly at people (like me) who eschew salary in favour of dividends for tax reasons I guess I can't complain that much. So it doesn't exactly irk me. Low hanging fruit and all that.

I'd rather like there to have been something much more punchy about taxation of offshored corporate profits - like requiring IP transfer costs to be at a market rather than an arbitrary rate, and with the default value being zero. But then I guess there would spring up an entire offshore industry of "independent" offshore companies buying and selling IP futures - at least that's what I would do in their position.

On the whole it seems a reasonably fair and balanced budget.

I would, though, like to see exemptions to the minimum wage for small and/or poor businesses. I do find it somewhat galling that I should have to pay an employee about twice my hourly rate and an infinite percent more holidays than I get. There's a queue about 60 people who would work for me on lesser terms and legally I cannot employ any of them.
 

kitch9

Banned
From the point of pure self-interest ...

The change in dividend taxation is going to hit me one way or the other. But given that it seems to be aimed particularly at people (like me) who eschew salary in favour of dividends for tax reasons I guess I can't complain that much. So it doesn't exactly irk me. Low hanging fruit and all that.

I'd rather like there to have been something much more punchy about taxation of offshored corporate profits - like requiring IP transfer costs to be at a market rather than an arbitrary rate, and with the default value being zero. But then I guess there would spring up an entire offshore industry of "independent" offshore companies buying and selling IP futures - at least that's what I would do in their position.

On the whole it seems a reasonably fair and balanced budget.

I would, though, like to see exemptions to the minimum wage for small and/or poor businesses. I do find it somewhat galling that I should have to pay an employee about twice my hourly rate and an infinite percent more holidays than I get. There's a queue about 60 people who would work for me on lesser terms and legally I cannot employ any of them.

The dividends thing has raised an eyebrow for me as it will effectively negate the corporate tax cut for a lot of sme's.

Company directors will use the corporation tax cut to pay themselves more so their net income doesn't change.
 

Daffy Duck

Member
That calculator reckons we'll be £1400 odd worse off, not sure how though as we don't get the amount they say we currently do anyway, it's closer to the amount we will get...
 
Are you better or worse off? Take the test

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946

I will be £1370 worse off from 2016/17

Thank you very fucking much, "the working peoples government" smh

Me and the missus will be £160 better off by the looks of it, however as a small business owner it's only really a very very rough perspective.

I'm pretty happy with the budget. I hired a new staff member last year and gave her a significant rise this year after her probationary period so the effect of the living wage change has little bearing on our SME.

Being Scottish I've seen many FB posts from friends who are SNP voters about the living wage being £9 per hour by 2020 despite the fact their party only ventured £8.70. It does seem that some people are determined to find fault simply because it's a Tory budget. It looks like a significantly more centre aligned budget than most were expecting.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
That calculator reckons we'll be £1400 odd worse off, not sure how though as we don't get the amount they say we currently do anyway, it's closer to the amount we will get...
The calculator is crap, doesn't take enough things into account. The budget calculators the bbc would do in the past had many more questions, very odd.
 
Unrelated, but I started perusing the Something Awful UK politics thread recently. I don't know why, but I assumed here would be more left wing. Apparently I was wrong.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
They can't account for phisheep's famously creative accounting!

Now hold back there lad! I have a rule zero of accounting which is, thou shalt keep thy accounts honestly.

I spent a lot of my professional career dealing with companies that were in some sort of trouble, and 90% of them had ignored, or never learned of, rule zero. Accounts were being routinely fiddled at very low levels of the organisation, the higher-ups had no fucking idea what was going on, and had no idea either that it was their example that had led to this helluva mess.

(The other 10% had reasonable excuses, mostly UK VAT regulations and German competition regulations, both of which were impenetrable).

Sure, I can come up with all manner of ways of cheating things - it is a professional necessity, but is not a practice I indulge in.

My books are clean.

(but they are also on paper so they can be shredded at a moment's notice ;))
 

f0rk

Member
Having tax credits factored into the old living wage proposals just makes them look poorly thought out in retrospect. This conservative plan makes much more sense even if it isn't as radical
 

Juicy Bob

Member
This budget isn't going to affect me at all and, to be honest, I feel pretty guilty about it. I feel awful for all the less fortunate people in the country (IE, young people) who are going to be hit the most.

Feels bad, man. :/
 

Uzzy

Member
£80 better off, apparently. Not that I plan to be in my current job for the next few years, of course.
 
Heeheehee, I was just playing Phisheep!

I got a seat on my train this morning for the first time ever. Usually I have to cram just to get on standing up. Admittedly I've only been getting the train since Monday, but I don't think this is natural weekly falloff - people are "working from home" due to the tube strike. I could get used to this! Keep it up, Aslanef!

Edit: The leader in the Speccie this week nails pretty well the challenge faced by Osborne (it's "today's" issue, so it was written after the budget): http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week...il&utm_campaign=20150709_Weekly_Highlights_28

Here's the conclusion:

As the Chancellor said, this needs to change: pay needs to be higher, and welfare lower. The bill for tax credits has soared from £1 billion to £30 billion, which is plainly unaffordable. Everyone agrees that the government ought to help those who are unemployed, but why subsidise supermarkets who get away with paying the minimum wage, knowing that the government will top it up? So the case for reform is clear.

What’s less clear is how you proceed — without causing undue hardship to low-waged families who had come to base their budgets upon the tax credits which have ended up distorting the economics of the workplace. Osborne’s plan to phase them out via a four-year freeze, rather than tear them away, is wise. It will mean slower progress with the deficit, but is probably worth the price. Even with a lower target of £8 billion in cuts, there will still be much pain ahead — and freezing working-age benefits for four years will be progressively tougher. The Chancellor says that wages will rise to compensate — but that is a gamble.

This was perhaps the toughest Budget that Osborne has delivered: had he introduced these changes earlier, it would have been easier. But he faces almost no opposition now, with the Labour party in crisis and the Liberal Democrats fighting for their own survival. So he can afford to change his tone. He dismissed the ‘depressingly inevitable howls’ of pain that accompany welfare reform — he was thinking about his political opponents. But he ought to remember that the pain is felt by those on low wages, the people whom the Conservatives ought to stand full square behind.

So the next few years will not be a story of workers vs welfare claimants. It will be a mission to clean up the mess created by tax credits, without damaging the work incentive. Osborne has overseen tremendous amounts of job creation; he must now try to wean workers off welfare without pushing them back on the dole — or pricing workers out of the market. It will be a tough mission, but it will decide the success or failure of One Nation conservatism.
 
awful budget, as expected

I don't know what you're talking about, seems fair to me

CJeZoCwWsAA9QZ1.png


See, completely fair
 

tomtom94

Member
Also, the fox hunting ban vote is next week apparently, and Osbourne has also said the debate will be limited to 90 minutes.

“We’re going to have that free vote in Parliament. As I understand it it’s going to take something like 90 minutes to debate, so it’s not going to take the whole of Parliament’s time, and then people have their say.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...fore-they-vote-on-legalising-it-10376819.html

You know what, I might write a letter to my local MP about that one, mainly because she tends to swing fairly liberal on such issues. (I'll probably leave out the fact I didn't vote for her)
 
You know what, I might write a letter to my local MP about that one, mainly because she tends to swing fairly liberal on such issues. (I'll probably leave out the fact I didn't vote for her)

Where does a "liberal swing" leave one on an issue about banning something?
 

You like that gif, don't you?

But seriously, fox hunting is like the left's equivalent of, I dunno, central arts funding or something. Basically pointless politically mudslinging that impacts about six people but which galvanises the base. It's not immediately obvious where someone who calls themselves a liberal would fall on the issue.
 
You like that gif, don't you?

But seriously, fox hunting is like the left's equivalent of, I dunno, central arts funding or something. Basically pointless politically mudslinging that impacts about six people but which galvanises the base. It's not immediately obvious where someone who calls themselves a liberal would fall on the issue.

I do!

I would always assume that a liberal is against fox hunting personally.
 

tomtom94

Member
Where does a "liberal swing" leave one on an issue about banning something?
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24691/chloe_smith/norwich_north

Perhaps I meant to say socially left-wing. She voted in favour of gay rights but she was absent for some of the bills on human rights in the last Parliament. Obviously she sticks with the party on financial issues, but if it's a free vote there's no obligation there.
My stance is that fox hunting should stay banned.
 

Kuros

Member
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/13/foxhunting-ban-changes-under-threat-from-snp

So it looks like the SNP are going to break their "don't vote on English/Welsh only issues" in he fox hunting vote. While i'm all for voting down the repeal this is probably strengthening the Tories "English votes for english laws" legislation.

Its interesting that they'll effectively be blocking relaxing the ban to the level it is already in Scotland.

It almost feels like they have walked into a Tory trap. Just how Labour did this week with their policy on the welfare changes.
 
George really does know what he's doing. And whilst Labour being leaderless obviously doesn't help, the only one with a meaningful answer to his traps is Liz Kendall, who is basically agreeing with them anyway. Let's see what happens with this SNP, because generally they're a much more political capable party than Labour. But I really can't rationalise why they'd vote against fox hunting.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Agreeing with them by definition isn't a meaningful answer.
 
It almost feels like they have walked into a Tory trap. Just how Labour did this week with their policy on the welfare changes.

I think we have to ask who are the trappers here. I think it makes perfect sense for the SNP to vote for English laws if you want to bring about an end to the Union. The SNP want independence from the UK they didn't get it this time so they are going to spend the next 5 - 10 years doing everything they can to weaken and destroy the Union so that next time they have a referendum they will get what they want.
 

jimbor

Banned
George really does know what he's doing. And whilst Labour being leaderless obviously doesn't help, the only one with a meaningful answer to his traps is Liz Kendall, who is basically agreeing with them anyway. Let's see what happens with this SNP, because generally they're a much more political capable party than Labour. But I really can't rationalise why they'd vote against fox hunting.

I read (a pretty lame imo) article somewhere that suggested that they're doing it as they're looking to strengthen the ban on Scotland. Their argument being to bring Scotland in line with England and Wales on the ban front.

In other news, I'm pretty gobsmacked that the Greek government rolled over and let the EU go in dry. If only Tsipras had balls, my wedding in Greece next year would've been a lot cheaper.
 
I really hope that the "ban"* isnt relaxed, absolutely disgusting practice that needs to be abolished.

Also the whole argument is based on it being a form of pest control, yet when you find out that hunters have been caught feeding foxes to make sure they survive and are well enough for their hunting it shows that the only real reason they want this practice is for their own blood thirsty nature.

*I put ban in quotes because it still goes on today, plenty of saboteurs have to go and stop them from hunting every week.
 

jimbor

Banned
I really hope that the "ban"* isnt relaxed, absolutely disgusting practice that needs to be abolished.

Also the whole argument is based on it being a form of pest control, yet when you find out that hunters have been caught feeding foxes to make sure they survive and are well enough for their hunting it shows that the only real reason they want this practice is for their own blood thirsty nature.

*I put ban in quotes because it still goes on today, plenty of saboteurs have to go and stop them from hunting every week.


The pro foxhunting lobby arguments are all over the place. Personally I couldn't give a fuck if it's banned or not
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom