Support NeoGAF

[blazinglord]

:lol Wow.

I thought it was a reasonable point to make. I don't think low income earners are in the habit of buying 4X4s, flat screen TVs and XBOX 360 Slims all the while. It is only 'expensive' goods that will have a noticeable impact from the 2.5% increase.

To be fair, VAT increases are incredibly regressive. Much fairer to raise the same total monies through income tax.

Depends how you look at it. If you look at the wider picture, and at the level of spending - who spends the most? High income earners. So really it could be argued that it is progressive when it comes to spending.

As for income tax - we are taxed far too much already. Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the majority already think that the income tax is at present either too high or at the very least, at its limit. Even the Guardian poll on the eve of the budget showed that more people support a rise in VAT than in income tax, while also believing that most of the deficit reduction should come from spending cuts rather than tax rises.

 

[Shanadeus]

The effects of taxes and benefits on household income by the Office of National Statistics.

So much wrong :lol

 

[FabCam]

Labour wouldn't have increased VAT, they would of cut costs and relied more on economic growth, rather then go all out to decrease the deficit as soon as possible, it was the banks in the private sector that put us in this mess and now everyone has to suffer

Maybe you didn't hear that interest on loans alone is going to cost the taxpayer £250 million over the next few years? How can you rely on a little economic growth to overcome that kind of debt? I also think people are forgetting that Labour had 2 fucking years to try and sort this shit out.

 

[Cindres]

Yeah individually i doubt we'll feel the VAT increase too much.
Especially when you know most stores will do a "VAT Is going up, but our prices aren't!" thing just like when they came back up from 15%

 

[Sage00]

I thought it was a reasonable point to make. I don't think low income earners are in the habit of buying 4X4s, flat screen TVs and XBOX 360 Slims all the while. It is only 'expensive' goods that will have a noticeable impact from the 2.5% increase.


Depends how you look at it. If you look at the wider picture, and at the level of spending - who spends the most? High income earners. So really it could be argued that it is progressive when it comes to spending.

As for income tax - we are taxed far too much already. Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the majority already think that the income tax is at present either too high or at the very least, at its limit. Even the Guardian poll on the eve of the budget showed that more people support a rise in VAT than in income tax, while also believing that most of the deficit reduction should come from spending cuts rather than tax rises.

Don't be stupid, it's about proportion. The more you earn, the less proportion of your total income you're going to spend, that is basic common sense.

Obviously higher earners spend more in total, because they have much more money, but it's a much lower proportion of their income.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Yeah individually i doubt we'll feel the VAT increase too much.
Especially when you know most stores will do a "VAT Is going up, but our prices aren't!" thing just like when they came back up from 15%

Thats probably because most of them didn't pass on the 2.5% cut in the first place. When they've gotta pay more themselves, they'll pass it on. It won't feel like much on individual purchases, but I think over time its bound to add up. We'll definitely feel our purchasing power diminish... you'll get less for what you earn each month.

 

[radioheadrule83]

 

[phisheep]

Is the omission of Canterbury deliberate?

Accidental. I only recently went through a map and highlighted everywhere I had been. That was the only major one missing.

 

[J Tourettes]

The one thing I will say for Liverpool is that no one tried to short change me there. In Manchester almost every shop or pub tried it, the scruffy haired mancs.

However, Liverpool European capital of culture was the biggest laugh i had last decade.


Back OT, where did Harman get the figures from for Merseyside being the worst off in the budget?

 

[travisbickle]

Of the £156 Billion deficit, how much was caused by buying out the banks?

 

[louis89]

What's the timeline of debt reduction?

Edit: never mind

The UK's total debt, which currently stands at more than 62% of GDP, is forecast to peak at 70% of GDP in 2013-14, before falling to 67% by 2015-16.

 

[Deadman]

Of the £156 Billion deficit, how much was caused by buying out the banks?

I think that money is separate to the deficit. If i understand correct the deficit is how much money we have to borrow per year to finance everything the government pays for, not the total debt of the country.

 

[MarshMellow96]

I tried to justify the video game tax credit to my Dad earlier and he said 'well clearly they are doing very well so why do they need my money?'.

The one benefit I can think of off-hand is the creation of jobs. However, I couldn't really answer him aside from saying that gaming has contributed £1bil to the economy and that it's dumb to stifle a rapidly growing industry. I know that the industry 'standard' in France etc is tax relief and that it would level the playing field too...

Is there much more than that? Are there any other industries that get 'help' from the government in such a way?

 

[phisheep]

I tried to justify the video game tax credit to my Dad earlier and he said 'well clearly they are doing very well so why do they need my money?'.

The one benefit I can think of off-hand is the creation of jobs. However, I couldn't really answer him aside from saying that gaming has contributed £1bil to the economy and that it's dumb to stifle a rapidly growing industry. I know that the industry 'standard' in France etc is tax relief and that it would level the playing field too...

Is there much more than that? Are there any other industries that get 'help' from the government in such a way?

There are, but they're usually 'important' things like agriculture, fishing and defence contracting. At least those you'd have a fighting chance of justifying to the Commons and to the country.

But tax relief for video games companies which are there to create a profit for their shareholders? No way that will swing right now. And there's no way it should swing ever - why on earth should the UK taxpayer subsidise the shareholders in video games companies - it isn't as if they are particularly deserving or anything.

As to the argument about creating jobs - all you're doing is 'creating' jobs for people who are already trained, educated and familiar and skilled with modern technology and then some. That's not creating jobs, it is just moving jobs around. Doesn't deserve special treatment.

 

[Empty]

I tried to justify the video game tax credit to my Dad earlier and he said 'well clearly they are doing very well so why do they need my money?'.

The one benefit I can think of off-hand is the creation of jobs. However, I couldn't really answer him aside from saying that gaming has contributed £1bil to the economy and that it's dumb to stifle a rapidly growing industry. I know that the industry 'standard' in France etc is tax relief and that it would level the playing field too...

Is there much more than that? Are there any other industries that get 'help' from the government in such a way?

the film industry gets similar tax breaks; the game industry is just asking for parity with that creative industry in terms of incentives.

it isn't so much the idea of giving CEO's free money, as investing in them to get much greater returns down the line in tax revenues. by offering tax breaks you encourage more places to take up shop here as opposed to france or canada, which are being favoured thanks to their governments' tax incentive schemes, creating jobs here rather than abroad and establishing businesses that will, if the advocates are correct, increase job creation in the years to come because games are apparently big growth industry in the upcoming years and establishing britain as a creative hub in this field thus encouraging more investment down the line as other companies will want to replicate their success by setting up UK studios. that's the argument anyway.

 

[MarshMellow96]

the film industry gets similar tax breaks; the game industry is just asking for parity with that creative industry in terms of incentives.

it isn't so much the idea of giving CEO's free money, as investing in them to get much greater returns down the line in tax revenues. by offering tax breaks you encourage more places to take up shop here as opposed to france or canada, which are being favoured thanks to their governments' tax incentive schemes, creating jobs here rather than abroad and establishing businesses that will, if the advocates are correct, increase job creation in the years to come because games are apparently big growth industry in the upcoming years and establishing britain as a creative hub in this field thus encouraging more investment down the line as other companies will want to replicate their success by setting up UK studios. that's the argument anyway.

See that's what I thought: it's all about getting the UK industry in line with competitors abroad. We've apparently dropped from the '3rd placed' country of development in the last few years, meaning a relief might increase revenue further. It seems a little narrow-minded to prevent the games industry from prospering even if it gets 'privileges'. How on Earth is the UK industry meant to compete with other countries with its hands tied? The film industry seems to get away with it so it's more likely to be something to do with the 'image' that gaming purports.

What I am curious about is how the govt. generates money off the back of the industry aside from obvious things like VAT, taxes from income etc. Is it simply from taxation (i.e. corporation tax) or what? Similarly, do the US and Japan incorporate tax breaks for games?

 

[Dark Machine]

Question Time on. Call me Dave trying to avoid the questions from Harperson. Trying to make it descend into Punch and Judy. Harperson admirably ignoring it and consistently re-asking the questions well IMO. Cameron now trying to drag Brown and Blair's ghosts back into the chamber.

 

[Empty]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8757000/8757712.stm

Eurgh. Clegg. Horrible.

I wish he'd just say 'this is a coalition government, the tories decide the budget thanks to their number of seats, we don't agree with much of it, but here's what we got [CGT etc] and that's the nature of compromise'. Instead he's bending over backwards to defend a very tory budget across the press, and might as well be one as a result. I've defended him a lot, but this is so irritating.

 

[jas0nuk]

Glad to see this topic is still going, I've been away from gaf for a while.

Budget was impressive, shame about the VAT increase but it had to be done, especially since some of the items like the pensions triple lock and linking to earnings, plus taking people out of income tax by raising the personal allowance are so expensive. Overall, major respect to George Osborne. His approval ratings have improved tremendously since the budget.

Harman's response was truly horrifying from a Labour perspective. She'd seemingly written it without actually reading the budget, went into a massive shrieking attack on the Lib Dems pushing them even closer to the Tories. Labour will hopefully return to their joke party status of the 1980s when they had a reputation for having no idea how to manage the economy, oh well!

Interesting post-budget public opinion snapshot, but beware it was taken very shortly after:
http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/tod...n-budget-toplines-230610BUDGETREACTIONS_3.pdf

 

[defel]

Dunno if anyone saw This Week yesterday but Andrew Neil laid into Diane Abbott and it was a pretty cringe worthy response from her
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/8761601.stm

 

[louis89]

Interesting post-budget public opinion snapshot, but beware it was taken very shortly after:
http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/tod...n-budget-toplines-230610BUDGETREACTIONS_3.pdf

Very interesting. I'm surprised at the level of support for this budget from the general public. I guess the Conservatives have really succeeded in convincing the country of the necessity of these austerity measures.

 

[Kentpaul]

The uk IS FUCKED

 

[Empty]

Very interesting. I'm surprised at the level of support for this budget from the general public. I guess the Conservatives have really succeeded in convincing the country of the necessity of these austerity measures.

They didn't need to, really. The election campaign was fought with all three parties arguing for massive cuts and big austerity measures, there was no need to convince people they were necessary when that was the only debate allowed by the dominant political forces in the country. Now whether that is right or wrong is another question, but i think to put it down to their success is a bit off.

I think the tories are benefiting from a few things, firstly the honeymoon period; it is refreshing not to have the same old faces saying in number 10 the same old things, and lying about big decisions because an election is coming up, the simple change factor i think brings in a boost. The second is a clever image based campaign where they use the Lib Dems' perception as a nice party as cover for tory policies by making them argue for it on tv/radio, using the phrase 'coalition government' a lot and having the image of Alexander and Clegg sitting behind Osbourne splattered across the media, all helping soften the blow of the cuts by giving them 'progressive' credibility. Then finally the backfiring of election campaigns waged by the left; it isn't anywhere near as ugly a budget as much of the rhetoric suggested, in fact most people would consider it tame after campaigns manipulating the Tories public perception over the thatcher years to suggest they'd instantly kill all help for pensioners or health spending didn't pan out in the first budget.

 

[defel]

The election period was fought during the sovereign debt crisis in Greece. News coverage contained rioting, billions of Euros, bailouts, emergency loans, collapsing economies, all of which fed into the hysteria about the UK deficit and played into the hands of the Conservatives.

Eurgh. Clegg. Horrible.

I wish he'd just say 'this is a coalition government, the tories decide the budget thanks to their number of seats, we don't agree with much of it, but here's what we got [CGT etc] and that's the nature of compromise'.

I feel exactly the same. Clegg has an annoying "telephone voice" tone whenever he is making a statement. I wish he would just say what he believes, we understand that they made compromises and that the Lib Dems disagree with many of the Tory policies and its foolish to think we believe that they have changed their tune. I'd be interested to know whether coalition governments on the continent remain united in their opinions or whether divisions within the government are openly expressed and acknowledged.

 

[jas0nuk]

after campaigns manipulating the Tories public perception over the thatcher years to suggest they'd instantly kill all help for pensioners or health spending didn't pan out in the first budget.

Labour's negative campaign was hugely successful and they have to be applauded for that. It nearly saved their bastard hides.

The fact that the Conservatives had manifesto pledges to ringfence NHS spending and pensioner benefits like eyetests, bus passes, winter fuel allowances etc, and the Labour campaign created such doubt, is amazing.

Additionally Labour succeeded over 13 years in creating state dependency by giving tax credits to families along the entire range of the income scale. Families with joint incomes of £50,000 were voting Labour to save their ~£550 tax credits, even though the costs of the Labour government from direct and indirect tax actually outweighed this. I'm pleased to see that the government has begun the long process of weaning people off the teat of the state.

 

[Panda1]

I thought it was a reasonable point to make. I don't think low income earners are in the habit of buying 4X4s, flat screen TVs and XBOX 360 Slims all the while. It is only 'expensive' goods that will have a noticeable impact from the 2.5% increase.


Depends how you look at it. If you look at the wider picture, and at the level of spending - who spends the most? High income earners. So really it could be argued that it is progressive when it comes to spending.
.

No it does not depend on how you look at it
it's regressive because we compare like for like and as a percentage of income poorer people have less, that's just not debatable

 

[Stinkles]

Labour's negative campaign was hugely successful and they have to be applauded for that. It nearly saved their bastard hides.

The fact that the Conservatives had manifesto pledges to ringfence NHS spending and pensioner benefits like eyetests, bus passes, winter fuel allowances etc, and the Labour campaign created such doubt, is amazing.

Additionally Labour succeeded over 13 years in creating state dependency by giving tax credits to families along the entire range of the income scale. Families with joint incomes of £50,000 were voting Labour to save their ~£550 tax credits, even though the costs of the Labour government from direct and indirect tax actually outweighed this. I'm pleased to see that the government has begun the long process of weaning people off the teat of the state.

Having lived through the entirety of the Thatcher and Major years, I genuinely hope, for your sake, that the Conservatives have genuinely changed. Because if they haven't you can look forward to the destruction of the working class and the outsourcing of everything except cab driving racists.

 

[Stinkles]

Dunno if anyone saw This Week yesterday but Andrew Neil laid into Diane Abbott and it was a pretty cringe worthy response from her
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/8761601.stm

That woman is an ironically unelectable clown and an intellectual failure of the highest order.

West Indian mums:

"Andrew, it was a homey, saccharine comment, like saying Scottish mums like to feed their kids lots of cake."

Taxis:

"I'm a lone woman, traveling alone through London after working late into the night, and my employer pays for cabs, as do many others in the city."

Private School:

"I have worked hard to afford lots of things, a big TV, a house, and yes, private school for my son. That's the nature of capitalism and the reality of life in the largest metropolitan area in the UK."


thereifixedit

 

[Lo-Volt]

If the Budget is helping anyone, it isn't Nick Clegg: half of Liberal Democrat voters are less likely to support them in the next poll, says The Guardian, while the party's voting intention falters in favor of the Conservatives and Labour. So if Lib Dem support is going to be this soft for a while, is this going to be the opposition playbook for the rest of the Parliament? Can Labour expect to benefit from defecting Lib Dem party members or a better voting position in two or four years, do you think?

 

[Salazar]

That woman is an ironically unelectable clown and an intellectual failure of the highest order.

Take off the fluffy gloves and hit her.

It astounds me that she can manage to sound so wearily, snootily patronising when she is sitting in the crumbled wreckage of her statements and reputation. In fact, it sounds like she can't help but sound that way.

 

[PJV3]

 

[dr_octagon]

Take off the fluffy gloves and hit her.

It astounds me that she can manage to sound so wearily, snootily patronising when she is sitting in the crumbled wreckage of her statements and reputation. In fact, it sounds like she can't help but sound that way.

She wants to show how how diverse the Labour party is, even though you had David Milliband putting her in the race and she is a token black woman. Andrew Neil's questioning wasn't about anything serious but her responses, or lack of, say a lot about her.

 

[Dambrosi]

What? Nothing yet about Iain Duncan-Smith's "Get-On-Your-Bike Ghetto" idea?

Unemployed people living in council homes could be offered incentives to move to areas where there are jobs, the work and pensions secretary has said.

Iain Duncan Smith said millions were trapped in "ghettos of poverty" unable to move for fear of losing their homes.

Labour's Ed Balls called the idea "profoundly unfair" and likened it to Tory calls in the 1980s for people to "get on your bike" to look for work.

But Mr Duncan Smith said such comparisons were "ludicrous".

The coalition government has promised bold welfare reforms to ensure work pays better and to tackle generations of unemployment in families.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10426714.stm

I can just imagine those "incentives" being "Move to Bumfuckshire or lose all your benefits. Don't worry, we'll help with the removals" Sorry if that sounds paranoid, but they are Tories.

 

[Mr. Sam]

"Economic apartheid", "ghettos of poverty" - they're not drawing very cheerful historical comparisons, are they?

 

[jas0nuk]

IDS comment wasn't "get on your bike" at all - people will be offered the CHANCE to move if they can find work elsewhere. It's optional and completely sensible.

On the other hand, http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/06/when-labour-told-claimants-to-get-on-their-bike/

You may have noted the mock horror from Labour about IDS’s comments to the Sunday Telegraph yesterday that those on benefits may need to travel to work. It’s described by the Labour-supporting Mirror as an “extreme Norman Tebbit-style ‘on yer bike’ policy“.

Here is a link to the interview when Caroline Flint two years ago suggested that unemployed people getting housing benefit should, in effect, be turfed out. She was, of course, the Labour housing minister. It appears to be exactly the same policy. What goes around comes around.

travisbickles: None of the deficit (£155 bn) or national debt (~£900bn) comes from bailing out the banks. Those costs, as well as public sector pensions liabilities, and PFI initiatives (private sector finance initiatives to build schools & hospitals, basically bank loans to the govt) would increase the official national debt by an additional 4 trillion pounds, to around £5tn

Under Labour plans to "halve the deficit" we'd still be borrowing over £70 billion a year in 2015-16 which is completely ridiculous. By then the national debt would have ballooned to around £1.4tn, or nearly SIX TRILLION POUNDS when you factor in the growth of pensions and PFI.

I find it quite hilarious that Labour is now totally isolated in the G20 with regard to the timing and depth of spending cuts. Their false cries are pointless - they planned 44 billion of cuts, but refuse to specify what.

 

[Dambrosi]

I'm aware of the "optional" aspect (though what kind of "optional" he had in mind is up for debate), and I'm also aware that it's just an idea at present, but it's a stupid idea no matter who comes up with it.

Also, the article said nothing about people being OFFERED the chance to move if they find work elsewhere. It specifically said that they could be offered "incentives" to move to areas where there is suitable work if they can't find any where they currently live, which sounds reasonable on the surface, but in the end, since there's still no guarantee of a job even if they DO move, just shuffles the problem around, which is idiotic.

So yeah, best to give this idea the wide berth it deserves. :lol

 

[radioheadrule83]

If the Budget is helping anyone, it isn't Nick Clegg: half of Liberal Democrat voters are less likely to support them in the next poll, says The Guardian, while the party's voting intention falters in favor of the Conservatives and Labour. So if Lib Dem support is going to be this soft for a while, is this going to be the opposition playbook for the rest of the Parliament? Can Labour expect to benefit from defecting Lib Dem party members or a better voting position in two or four years, do you think?

If the parliament survives the full term, four years is a long time. It will depend on how badly bitten people feel by these measures, whether mitigations and help has helped to soften the blow of people having to go through unemployment and reign back their spending. If we recover well, Clegg and Cameron will be vindicated. If not, the next election is on a silver platter for Labour.

 

[louis89]

How is the next election going to work? Are you going to be able to vote for a "coalition MP", or is Clegg going to have to come out and denounce the government he's been at the centre of for the last five years and encourage people to vote Lib Dem?

 

[J Tourettes]

If the parliament survives the full term, four years is a long time. It will depend on how badly bitten people feel by these measures, whether mitigations and help has helped to soften the blow of people having to go through unemployment and reign back their spending. If we recover well, Clegg and Cameron will be vindicated. If not, the next election is on a silver platter for Labour.

I felt that whoever got in this term faced a real risk of being booted out next time. Time will tell and although people seem to be accepting the austerity at the moment, it'll be interesting to see reactions when the cuts bite.

 

[Empty]

Lembit Opik is probably standing as the Lib Dem candidate for the mayoral election.

smh, smh.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Lembit Opik is probably standing as the Lib Dem candidate for the mayoral election.

smh, smh.

No better candidate than an MP who recently lost his seat. Then again, they wouldn't win the mayoral election if they had Winston Churchill standing for them.

 

[Salazar]

Lembit Opik is probably standing as the Lib Dem candidate for the mayoral election.

smh, smh.

He may as well save time and adopt an apologetic foetal position now.

 

[Empty]

No better candidate than an MP who recently lost his seat. Then again, they wouldn't win the mayoral election if they had Winston Churchill standing for them.

When said candidate lost the safest seat the LD's held in the country with a 22 point swing to the tories, despite the party actually increasing their share nationally, due to his own incompetence; i think there are plenty of better candidates.

 

[jas0nuk]

When the original "Liberal Party" had 5 seats in the UK and they were nearly wiped out... they still had Montgomeryshire. And Lembit managed to lose them the seat on a humongous swing.

He doesn't stand a chance. Especially against more "serious" candidates such as Boris (I use the term loosely, but he's had a good term in office so far) and Ken Livingston (who is *likely* to be the Labour candidate, I believe).

 

[CHEEZMO™]

loosely

 

[Empty]

some interesting polling re: AV referendun, rumoured to be held next may, from yougov.

There are no full polls in Sunday papers, but a couple of bits and bobs. The Sunday Times has a brief piece about a YouGov experiment on the AV referendum – rather than just asking straight voting intention in a referendum, they gave respondents 6 arguments in favour of AV, and 6 arguments in favour of FPTP – asked after this, support for AV fell to 33%, compared to 44% in standard YouGov polling at the time.

YouGov did a similar exercise prior to the North East referendum, which proved very prescient in suggesting there might be a big movement in favour of NO once the arguments got a hearing. Of course, it does depend on how well the statements reflect the arguments that actually end up being made during the campaign (if I recall correctly, for the North East referendum campaign the statements were sourced from the YES and NO campaigns, which was ideal. In the case of AV, there obviously aren’t official campaigns yet). The info in the Sunday Times is very brief and I don’t have the tables to hand, but it will be equally interesting to see exactly which pro- and anti- arguments the public found most convincing. I’ll do a proper post when I have the full details in front of me.

The key point that Peter Kellner draws out in his comments on the findings is that Labour voters are key. Lib Dem supporters support AV to start with, and remain supportive after being exposed to the pro- and anti- arguments. The Conservatives start negative, and remain so. The big shift in support is Labour voters, who change from 59% in favour in normal polls, to 58% against after exposure to the arguments. This implies that how Labour voters split (and how the new Labour leader plays the referendum) will be key to the result.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2735

i think the important parts are a) in helping predict the impact of the campaign for 'no' from the right wing press once they start to 'educate' their readers about it closer to voting day (it's a strong impact) and b) the importance of what labour's new leader decides to campaign for. whether they go for the political benefit (short term - creates schism in coalition, long-term - they benefit from keeping status quo) or the image benefit (looking new, a departure from brown) and of course avoiding cries of hypocrisy given it was in their 2010 election manifesto.

 

[louis89]

For me the surprising thing there is that the support is mostly for 'no' to begin with. I guess the silent majority just aren't interested. And support goes down after they hear the arguments? Rejection of the proposal looks inevitable at this point.

 

[Chinner]

it'll be the biggest kick in the nuts for the lib dems. they've lost support since joining the coalition, and even though AV isn't PR, it does get them about 15 more seats which they'll be desperate for.

 

[SmokyDave]

I reckon it won't pass and barely anybody will care until the run-up to the next election.

Political pessimism is my new hobby.

 

[Salazar]

more "serious" candidates such as Boris (I use the term loosely

He has the full force of a classical education. Never has a statesman able to quote Virgil and fiddle Latin tenses let Britain down. Never. Ever. Oh.