Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
budget chat goes in here
He's a proper cunt if you ask me
Think it’s a terrible idea anyway, but isn’t it also a bit flimsy economically as well? Given that the money is still going to be offered, but as loans instead, my understanding is that instead of not getting any money back because they’re offering them as grants, they won’t get any money back because the students paying £9k fees probably won’t even get round to paying them off, let alone their living cost loans as well. Or are they just hoping loads less people will take up the offer if they’re loans rather than grants?
It allows him to say he's reduced headline figure spending, when in fact he's transferred it to a different area of the books.
worrying about getting things stuff off the books now and letting someone else pick up the pieces in a couple of decades time.
c + p:
HIGHER EDUCATION NEWS
Top universities urged to solve access problem (BBC Online)
Leading English universities are being urged to apply their "research expertise" to the issue of access by youngsters from poorer homes.
Osborne takes axe to student grants to find £1.6 billion saving: Handouts to be replaced with loans paid back after graduation (Mail online; Independent online)
Student grants will be axed and replaced with loans, it is expected to be announced in today’s Budget.
Daily Mail: http://dailym.ai/1KS9c16
Governments don't need to tinker with anything wrt university fees/loans because in spite of their introduction more students from poorer families are going to university.
Osborne's taking a big gamble here if this is shown to have an impact in decreasing numbers of students from poorer families going to university over the course of this parliament.
Summer budget, fucked the working class!
Would we move to a 32% basic rate? Tax rates increase with earnings and NI rates decrease, so they'd have to do something about that, and also do something about pensioners not paying NI (maybe that could be solved by pensioners having a higher personal allowance?).
Basically it probably could be done in a way that works, but I don't trust this government to be the ones to do it. Also it would remove the principle of NI as a central part of the welfare state (however far from reality that is in practice).
I only realised recently that the NI rate offsets the increase in tax for higher earners
but as always, the devil will be in the detail. There's plenty of opportunity to fiddle with the rates and banding if you do this to ensure a net tax increase.
Osborne reckons that'll be worth £1.5b.
Clever Osborne! First Tory budget in 19 years and he's gone TAX MAD
All eyes were on welfare smashing. Now he's gone and SLASHED tax relief for BTL landlords!
He'll be nationalising land next!
some progressive sounding things that probably wont actually have any effect
The answer's probably somewhere in the middle, but there's no denying there's more `good stuff` in here than in previous Osborne budgets.
:D i mean :(
Incapacity benefits cut to rate of JSA (net £30 loss p/week for new claimants)!
Four year working age benefits freeze!
Yeah george, everyone can stay with their parents, no ones ever been booted out for no reason
Getting booted out of the family home is a lifestyle choice.
Cutting corporation tax/inheritance tax for the strongest, cutting benefits for the weakest and offering them a freedom of poverty depression and death.
Might pop down to the protest after work, dunno.
Up £6.50 to £9! (Over the next five years)
and as a result we're getting tax cuts for businesses and benefit caps for all of us on benefits
it's not going to help unemployment at all (other than to incentivise working? is that how you tories think?)
can see a lot of part-time workers who are unfit for work having to work OR part-time workers who are long-term sick/disabled coming out of work all together to get top level benefits
Oh it's £7.20 ph and only availble to over 25s
I thought the living wage was always just a suggestion
It's being referred to as the living wage, which already exists.
also worth pointing out it's less than what the Living Wage Foundation recommendation
which is £7.85 (£9.15 in London)
by renaming the minimum wage as something it isn't.
"not hideous tory bullshit living wage"?
"fuck you george wage"?
There's a fair bit of future Tory leadership posturing going on here IMO.
says that if you remove tax credits the Living Wage should actually be £12ph.
Combine that with the fact that major employers will just fire staff when they hit 25, and you end up with a huge problem.
if there are already companies out there who let go of people once they turn 21... imagine the concequences
I know loads of countries base their defence spending on GDP but what's the logic? That the cost of defending economic interest is always directly proportional to the size of that economy?
Owen Jones says that it isn't actually a Living Wage.
Maybe they could have a fight and figure it out.
In other news - how the fuck are Labour going to respond to this?
didn't have quite the same ring, presumably.
Works as a political tactic though. Osborne basically wants to give the Labour party no reason to exist by 2020. So if every budget has popular `centre left` policies in them then... that's worrying for The Red Team.
Although an output of that is that poorer people get a little bit more help than they ordinarily would have so... y'know.
Be good if #Corbyn4Leader types could look at this budget performance and go... d'you know, if we were actually serious about getting Labour back into power we could do some of this stuff.
Introduce policies that we've wanted to.
Introduce policies that are ours so that the other side doesn't take credit for them.
Y'know - the essence of being in government.
for being smug or condescending ;)
Calling someone smug is usually done in lieu of being bothered to refute a point.
I'll continue to hammer the point until at least SOME of you realise that ideological purity in opposition is worse place to be than being compromising in government mind.
too vague as well?
by which I take it that you're making 'a funny'? :D
I'm not sure how we refute those either. How on earth do I dig up evidence to tell you you're wrong? I mean even digesting what you're saying, you seem to be thinking along the lines of
Get Labour elected whatever the cost, meaning put whoever is most centrist or borderline Tory as Leader because it gives the best chance of winning. Then obviously 'govern' would follow but "Introduce policies that we've wanted to". Well which 'we'? Now we've put some Tory-lite in power how do we know they will actually enact a bunch of nice leftist policies rather than some weak bullshit that isn't really a big help?
Just a counter-argument to the idea that Labour shouldn't be seeking 5 more years in the electoral wilderness by selecting a leader who no-ones going to vote for.
`Get Labour elected whatever the cost` - nope. Not sure why you view all centre-ground concessions as being `borderline Tory/Tory-lite` stuff.
Perhaps the Labour party isn't for you. I dunno.
hence my comment about evidence. TBH I wouldn't have been picky about definition but you strike me as someone who picks words carefully, etc. so I presumed you used it for that reason.
Also, "Not sure why you view all centre-ground concessions as being `borderline Tory/Tory-lite`" - I didn't say that, but I'm trying unpack your glib statement.
* You're actively saying Corbyn shouldn't be leader on the implication that Labour definitely won't get elected.
* That, IMO, is a really weak position to take if the person you put in doesn't necessarily get elected, and the rest of your statement actually requires Labour DO get elected.
* Which leads us to picking the most electable Labour leader and by definition that's the person going most Blairite, most centre-ground.
* And this also brings me back to Corbyn because it feels very much as if the only thing you have against him is that you don't think he can get the party into power, which seems a highly dubious compromise to make, but an even dodgier one to try to foist on us based upon a notion that Labour get into power and do...something.
Perhaps the Labour party isn't for me? No, it's not really unless it gets its shit together.
was pretty condescending
but here we are.
`it feels very much as if the only thing you have against him is that you don't think he can get the party into power`
Pretty much actually. I like him. There's space for his voice in the Labour party. He doesn't seem to understand how to win elections though which is practically the whole point of being the opposition leader of a political party.
would you consider sacking off whatever it is you do outside of DiS politics posts and volunteering as his campaign manager?
If such mechanisms existed to campaign to get him a Cabinet gig then I might be up for that.
and I got the distinct impression from Corbyn that he didn't expect, nor really want, to be Labour leader. I'm pretty sure all this rankling over his electability or lack thereof is moot.
He's a figleave to let credulous Old Labourites pretend they still support a left wing party.
He wanted to be part of the debate and I got the feeling it was mostly the support of the younger left wingers in the party that got him the platform to get involved. The trouble is they're energetically trying to get him elected leader - I'm not sure what they're going to do when he isn't. Or what the hell he'd make of it if he somehow is.
He's a novelty candidate to make everyone feel better about their horrible party.
trying rediscover it's purpose.
I think the wider question that the Labour party needs to answer is who it wants to be for, because at the moment, it doesn't seem to know. It seems even more confused and conflicted about it's position than it was under Miliband.
but the basic principle of being the party of the rich and funding itself through wealthy donors has never really changed. Labour's founding ethos of being a coalition between the unions and the left wing seems to have totally evaporated. They've sacked off the majority of the unions and most proper left wingers and I don't personally see why anyone would vote for them anymore - if you're left, vote Green, if you're centre/right, vote Tory.
IIRC. I'm sure there was an interview with IDS on Radio 4 where he was basically saying, "Yeah but we've been saying we'd do this!" which is obviously of completely no worth after the fact. Hey ho, politics.
about Osborne basically wants to give the Labour party no reason to exist by 2020. meaning he wants 1 party state so end to democracy so we should throw him in prison
but that was then and this is now
V. glad that the speed of the cuts will slow down tbh. Gotta hand it to him, 2012 excepting, GO really is the consummate political chancellor.
(I mean that in a nice way)
but I mean it in a nasty way
Chris-budget has requested the use of the #SummerBudget hashtag for the rest of the afternoon in order to showcase the latest fashions.
I almost put
chris_budget, had me a blast!
chris_budget, fucked his mum in the ass!
But decided it was somewhat uncouth.
I knew it was coming but for fucks sake. As if the way money moves in this country isn't old fashioned enough. Apparently the Tories want to change their logo to a ladder!!!
What Osborne said about `left wingers` when he announced was just... remarkable.
far better to make homes exempt so long as both the deceased and whoever inherits are married/in a civil partnership or have cohabited for say 4 years+.
Bonus is you then get to reduce the IHT threshold to something more sensible as people won't be taxed on their home any more.
Probably needs a bit more work to avoid loopholes, but I'm pretty sure the principle is sound.
but I'd wager about 75% of the average person's estate is property value. IHT receipts would tank if that was exempt. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.
1) The average person's estate isn't subject to IHT anyway - I forget the figure, but from memory it's well under 10% of estates.
2) I proposed a heavy cut in the level at which IHT applies. Allow people their home if they live in it, fine, but I don't see any reason not to tax the vast majority of the rest of the estate as (to the recipient) it's unearned wealth.
2. Got it. Get where you're coming from but it sounds intensely bureaucratic. Also - people would just give away their entire non-property estate before they died (unless you wanted to extend the 7 year rule) meaning that in a lot of cases sod all would be eligible for IHT I reckon. Also, more tax complications = more loopholes.
I get what you're saying but levying IHT on a person's entire gross estate still seems like the only real thing to do. The best thing would be to end the emotiveness around `the family home` or whatever (which is tied into peculiarly British attitudes to property)
And I'd argue that out of any part of an estate, it's the equity in a property that is the most 'unearned' of any of it.
You don't have to pay IHT if you're married or in a civil partnership with the deceased already anyway, that's what was confusing me.
(Combined with the earlier announcements of the scrapping of northern rail improvementa) and the VED/Road Tax policy: so so backward it's unbelievable. Just staggering.
bad things - Tories in power til it does
bad - policies
bad - caused several geoff politics posts
The bits he stole from Ed Miliband (scrapping of non-doms, increase of minimum wage)
Everything else (working tax credit cuts, scrapping benefits to under 21s, more roadbuilding, raising inheritance tax threshold, etc etc)
Didn't the Tories make a big thing about not being the party to do that in the run up to the election?
increase in minimum wage is good though. what's it being raised to outside of London?
And for over 25s only.
in order to kill off the actual "living wage".
Scrapping of student maintenance grants
Raiding housing associations' social rent book.
take it AND RUN.
I think it's a pretty decent step and I don't give a hoot which civil servant came up with it and which colour flag was flying when they did. when you combine it with GARR, (in particular the introduction in recent years of accelerated payment notices) this country is pretty fucking tough on tax, in a business sense anyway.
didn't the Tories make a big hoo-har of it and act like Labour were being unreasonable? Or was that just the press? Because doing that and then going ahead with it still means it's worth pointing out.
get newspaper support
do other stuff
can this be real?
but getting irked when the govt implements popular opposition policies is mad partisan weirdness.
It's in my 'Good things' column.
"why qualify it then? seems churlish."
She asked for them to be separated into good and bad.
sounds a bit irked?
You might have a lower irking threshold than me though.
the motivations, politics and positioning involved, which is as much a part of the budget as the announcements themselves.
Its like he's some mad hippy at a Pink Floyd concert as the guitar solo reaches a crescendo
who do I speak to about that?
put google images gave me the brilliant alternative search of 'Iain Duncan Smith young' - first result:
Meanwhile, in Victorian England:
Twist, O: Please sir, I’d like some more.
Bumble, Mr: Yes, Twist, but you are 19, aren’t you boy?
Twist, O: 19, sir.
Bumble, Mr: Get lost, boy, nothing for you here. Back to mummy and daddy with you.
Twist, O: But, sir, I aint got any, they are both dead y’see.
Bumble, Mr: Well, that’s brilliant! The inheritance tax threshold has just been raised!
Twist, O: They barely left me a months rent, sir. I’m in arrears, sir.
Bumble. Mr: Well, what about a job, you lazy little worm? What’s wrong with getting on your bike and getting a job?
Twist, O: I do sir, get up by candlelight to walk to the Sports Direct south of the Thames. Sometimes they have me, sometimes they turn me away. It’s not enough. Ten hours a week, sometimes.
Bumble, Mr: £72.50 a week is an ample sum; ungrateful worm! And you’ve no university degree?
Twist, O: No, sir.
Bumble, Mr: Well, I’ve got no choice [opens man hole cover]. Into the sewer!
Twist, O: Oh, boy! The sewer!
Bumble, Mr: The sewer!