Budget

[MrFrost]

Thoughts?

Could have been worse. Vat increase is a bit of a downer.

[Filo]

MrFrost wrote:

Thoughts?

Could have been worse. Vat increase is a bit of a downer.

You wanted them in, Rent boy Clegg did n`t look happy with the VAT rise did he?

[MrFrost]

Yes I did. On the other hand i'm happy with the cooperation tax reduction. Cant have everything.

[Filo]

Rigoglioso wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Thoughts?

Could have been worse. Vat increase is a bit of a downer.

Agreed, but Labour would have introduced that anyway.

No doubt in a couple of hours this thread will be full of the \"same old Tories\" type comments, with the Labour lot telling us that the Tories only look after themselves, etc.   :dry:

What evidence have you got to back that statement, you`re too young Rigo to remember the last time the Tories f**ked our economy up and interest rates Peaked at 15%. This Budget does nothing to stimulate the economy

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Corporation tax reduction makes sense.  Many businesses aren't making money so entice the ones that do in by a low level rate.

VAT increase was harsh but had to be done and 20% is in line with most other countries as it is.  Thought a lot of it made sense and it seems to be aimed at getting rid of a lot of the scrounging and ludicrous sums of money available to some.  That can't be a bad thing.

It was always going to hurt whoever was in power, in fact I'm actually surprised that the increases in taxes etc weren't higher.

Oh and Cider went down, pretty pleased with that

[Filo]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

Corporation tax reduction makes sense.  Many businesses aren't making money so entice the ones that do in by a low level rate.

VAT increase was harsh but had to be done and 20% is in line with most other countries as it is.  Thought a lot of it made sense and it seems to be aimed at getting rid of a lot of the scrounging and ludicrous sums of money available to some.  That can't be a bad thing.

It was always going to hurt whoever was in power, in fact I'm actually surprised that the increases in taxes etc weren't higher.

Oh and Cider went down, pretty pleased with that

Osbourne must be one of those White Star junkie Chavs on his day off  

[Thinwhiteduke]

If Labour weren't going to raise VAT then what were they prpeared to do to pull us out of our mess? What Tax would they have increased instead?

At the end of the day, nothing in that Budget worried me. My Family will lose a bit of Tax Credits, which is fair enough if it helps bring things back on track we'll tighten our belts where appropriate and ride it out.

Just have to make sure I buy the New Car, Yacht, Plasma Tv's etc etc before Jan 1st.

Plenty of Scroungers already moaning about only £400 a week Housing Benefit though. Unbelieveable.

[Filo]

Thinwhiteduke wrote:

If Labour weren't going to raise VAT then what were they prpeared to do to pull us out of our mess? What Tax would they have increased instead?

At the end of the day, nothing in that Budget worried me. My Family will lose a bit of Tax Credits, which is fair enough if it helps bring things back on track we'll tighten our belts where appropriate and ride it out.

Just have to make sure I buy the New Car, Yacht, Plasma Tv's etc etc before Jan 1st.

Plenty of Scroungers already moaning about only £400 a week Housing Benefit though. Unbelieveable.

Just hope that you never lose your job! not everyone on benefits is a scrounger!  :angry:

[MrFrost]

I also like the fact those claiming incapacity will have to face a medical. That way we might only get those who actually are incapacitated claiming it!

[Nudga]

MrFrost wrote:

I also like the fact those claiming incapacity will have to face a medical. That way we might only get those who actually are incapacitated claiming it!

That will f**k my dad up big style          

[donnyjay]

Just as long as they don't get too heavy handed with genuine claimants like myself.
I've been off this week with a broken flask.

[Filo]

Rent Boy Clegg slagging off VAT rises pre election!



I bet rank and file Lib Dems are squirming with Embarrassment!

[bobjimwilly]

Rigoglioso

I'd rather have the VAT rate of 20% as a permanent feature than ever have Labour back in power anyway!!

Really Rigo? What on earth did Labour do to upset you so much? And you'd be happy to raise the price of (pretty much) everything just to spite a political party? hmmmmmmm.....

MrFrost wrote:

I also like the fact those claiming incapacity will have to face a medical. That way we might only get those who actually are incapacitated claiming it!

I agree, althought probably could have been brought in sooner than 2013?

[I-was-there1976]

I dont really follow politics that well but i know both parties talk a good game and then the oppositon talks them down but in todays budget all i heard was a group of people sounding more like a bunch of cows moooooooooooooooooing.

Is this how grown men and women act in the commons all the time ? Are they really in charge of our country ?


Mooooooooooooooooooooooooo !!!!!

[Filo]

The recession was a global recession created by the greed of the bankers, did Labour throw every other country in the world into recession as well?

[jucyberry]

People claiming incapacity have ALWAYS had to have medicals.

Crooked people screwing the system will always find a way to get around them. Don't tar everyone on incapacity with the same crap dipped brush.

 Many, many genuine people are in need of these benefits.. You will know which ones they are, They won't have the plasma t.v's and other accroutriments. They use the money they get to live on.

[Thinwhiteduke]

Filo wrote:

The recession was a global recession created by the greed of the bankers, did Labour throw every other country in the world into recession as well?

Let 'em off with the recession then....what about the other points Rigo mentioned. All fair enough?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Rigo,

You're a smart lad. You can do better than trot out trite soundbites.

1) We did NOT have a boom and bust economy. That is a simple economic fact. Under Labour, we had the longest unbroken spell of sensible, stable economic growth that any of us alive have ever known, followed by a worldwide economic collapse. Gordon Brown has been pilloried for saying that Labour had ended boom and bust. Pilloried by idle people who can't be arsed to actually look beyond a headline into the real argument. What he actually said was that Labour was not going to allow the sort of boom and bust cycle that had gone on for decades before, with rampant inflation leading to hikes in interest rates and a sudden contraction in economic performance. That's what caused the last two recessions (both of which were far more painful than this one has been by the way, although you're only a bairn so you won't remember). He delivered 100% on that promise. This recession has been entirely different in cause and nature.

2) Of course the recession led to job cuts. That's what recessions do. That's what has happened in every single major economy in the world, from USA, to Germany to Japan. Was all that Labour's fault too? And by the way, we have just had a decade where our unemployment rate has been lower than that of pretty much every other major developed economy.

3) You think the current Government wouldn't have gone into Iraq? Really? f**k me, the Tories engineered a war over a couple of lumps of rock at the South Pole in 1982, so they'd have been chomping at the bit to rush into Iraq.

4) You think the current Government wouldn't have brought in tuition fees? Really? In which case, why don;t they abolish them now?

[Savvy]

Rigoglioso wrote:

Labour never properly ended boom and bust though. The country was growing but it was living beyond its economic means. The recession and the problems that came along were the size of the biggest atomic bomb imaginable that nobody could have envisaged. However, Labour were guilty of \"boom and bust\". To think otherwise is naive.

As regards Iraq, it's irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they weren't in power. Labour, however, were in power. And to declare a war to get \"weapons of mass destruction\" which never existed anyway, is absolutely scandalous. Tony Blair declared the war on Iraq to get pally with America and to get the oil. And what about the David Kelly saga that followed? Was it a cover up? Either way how can you trust a government that goes ahead with this.

What do you actually mean? Boom and bust is a term used to describe a cyclical economy which was exactly what Labour were trying to come away from.

Bet your waiting for some bailiff to knock on the door of number 10 to collect this national debt aren't you?

[Boomstick]

Country in debt>

'worldwide' economic collapse (well spotted gordo, NOT!), hours away from serious meltdown. Tories and nulab work togehter to sort it>

Nulab continue to spend spend spend, the budget deficit gets bigger and bigger, and so therefore debt gets bigger and bigger, simply cant continue>

The people vote out incompitent nulab, and the Tories are left to sort the economy out PROPERLY.

[Boomstick]

Rigoglioso wrote:

You honestly believe Labour wouldn't have upped the VAT, Dave. Really, genuinely 100% believe that????

The budget wasn't as harsh as I expected it to be. As has already been said, most of it seems to be harsh to the scrounging \"I'd rather sit at home than get a job\" types, but perfectly fair at the same time and giving more incentives to folk to get off their backsides and find a job.

I'd rather have the VAT rate of 20% as a permanent feature than ever have Labour back in power anyway!!

Well done the Tories. They've come up with a sensible, efficient and workable budget that doesn't batter any particular group of people too badly.

+1

[Filo]

MrFrost wrote:

I also like the fact those claiming incapacity will have to face a medical. That way we might only get those who actually are incapacitated claiming it!

I think you`ll find that it`s Disability Living Allowance that was mentioned in the Budget not incapacity benefit, there is a difference

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy wrote:

Rigoglioso wrote:

Labour never properly ended boom and bust though. The country was growing but it was living beyond its economic means. The recession and the problems that came along were the size of the biggest atomic bomb imaginable that nobody could have envisaged. However, Labour were guilty of \"boom and bust\". To think otherwise is naive.

As regards Iraq, it's irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they weren't in power. Labour, however, were in power. And to declare a war to get \"weapons of mass destruction\" which never existed anyway, is absolutely scandalous. Tony Blair declared the war on Iraq to get pally with America and to get the oil. And what about the David Kelly saga that followed? Was it a cover up? Either way how can you trust a government that goes ahead with this.

What do you actually mean? Boom and bust is a term used to describe a cyclical economy which was exactly what Labour were trying to come away from.

No they weren't. That's an impossibility. Economies will ALWAYS be cyclical. What Labour  did superbly well for a decade was to smooth out the cycles.

Compare and contrast with what Nigel Lawson did in 1988. At the height of an economic upswing, he slashed income tax, effectively throwing petrol on a fire. The result was that inflation exploded, interest rates went up to 15% to compensate and the economy collapsed. THAT is boom and bust. To be fair, both Labour and the Tories had been guilty if that sort of economic mistake for decades. What Brown meant when he spoke about boom and bust was that he wouldn't make that mistake. And he delivered on that promise. It's intellectual bone idleness to trot out a soundbite and not think about the context, but that us what everyone does now when they make jibes about that boom and bust quote.

My huge worry now is that the Tories are implementing policies that you would normally use to dampen down an economy after a classic inflation-led boom and bust cycle. But we haven't had that problem to deal with. We have a FAR more dangerous problem, which is the threat of DEFLATION. The answer to that is to encourage growth, even at the cost of increasing Governent debt. If Osbourne has mis judged the root of our current economic problem then this massively deflationary budget will be judged by history to be a catastrophe. And there's a precedent. The Government response to the last deflationary recession we had turned the 1929 recession into the 1930s Depression.

[Nudga]

Filo wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

I also like the fact those claiming incapacity will have to face a medical. That way we might only get those who actually are incapacitated claiming it!

I think you`ll find that it`s Disability Living Allowance that was mentioned in the Budget not incapacity benefit, there is a difference

Who cares what it's called, as long as it f**ks up my dads life style. He might actually have to get a job now the idle t**t.

[Savvy]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

Rigoglioso wrote:

Labour never properly ended boom and bust though. The country was growing but it was living beyond its economic means. The recession and the problems that came along were the size of the biggest atomic bomb imaginable that nobody could have envisaged. However, Labour were guilty of \"boom and bust\". To think otherwise is naive.

As regards Iraq, it's irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they weren't in power. Labour, however, were in power. And to declare a war to get \"weapons of mass destruction\" which never existed anyway, is absolutely scandalous. Tony Blair declared the war on Iraq to get pally with America and to get the oil. And what about the David Kelly saga that followed? Was it a cover up? Either way how can you trust a government that goes ahead with this.

What do you actually mean? Boom and bust is a term used to describe a cyclical economy which was exactly what Labour were trying to come away from.

No they weren't. That's an impossibility. Economies will ALWAYS be cyclical. What Labour  did superbly well for a decade was to smooth out the cycles.

Compare and contrast with what Nigel Lawson did in 1988. At the height of an economic upswing, he slashed income tax, effectively throwing petrol on a fire. The result was that inflation exploded, interest rates went up to 15% to compensate and the economy collapsed. THAT is boom and bust. To be fair, both Labour and the Tories had been guilty if that sort of economic mistake for decades. What Brown meant when he spoke about boom and bust was that he wouldn't make that mistake. And he delivered on that promise. It's intellectual bone idleness to trot out a soundbite and not think about the context, but that us what everyone does now when they make jibes about that boom and bust quote.

My huge worry now is that the Tories are implementing policies that you would normally use to dampen down an economy after a classic inflation-led boom and bust cycle. But we haven't had that problem to deal with. We have a FAR more dangerous problem, which is the threat of DEFLATION. The answer to that is to encourage growth, even at the cost of increasing Governent debt. If Osbourne has mis judged the root of our current economic problem then this massively deflationary budget will be judged by history to be a catastrophe. And there's a precedent. The Government response to the last deflationary recession we had turned the 1929 recession into the 1930s Depression.

Think we're arguing semantics here, I say move away from, you say smooth out, but would be interested in hearing how its an impossible, sure you can enlighten..over to you Adam.

[BobG]

This is downright dangerous. Although I don't vote Tory, I hope it works, 'cos if it doesn't, every single one of us is royally f**ked. In the depths of a worldwide recession, of a cause never seen before, we are deflating the economy. It doesn't matter which side of the political fence you sit on, this country is now intent upon removing money from circulation. A lot of money. The bleedingly obvious result of that will be demand falls further. And the even more bleedingly obvious results of that will be more unemployment, less tax revenue and bigger budget deficits.

I'm glad I'm not in my 20's or 30's. That would be just about the most depressing thing of all time - 1930's excepted of course.

And Rigo, for a bright lad you don't half come out with some shite. Let's for the sake of argument, agree that there's millions and millions and millions of 'scroungers' kicking about the place shall we? Ok. It's hardly a new phenomenon is it? Maggie Thatcher won the polls for years making that sound bite and promising to kneecap the sods. Honestly Rigo, she did. John Major ditto. Even the Labour Party trod the same path. So we have had almost 30 years now of governments, of all persuasions, promising to smash the scroungers. Yet the same old, same old argument comes out even now. So, consider for a second, just why do politicians and papers make that argument? Either they are saying all the previous governments, including 20 years of Tory rule, were totally f**king incompetant, or, THEY KNOW IT'S A VOTE WINNER! It don't have to be true. Come on Rigo: even Josef Goebbels knew this: tell a big enough lie often enough and enough fools will believe it to vote you in.

So, to conclude, either your beloved Tories are so f**king incompetant that in 20 years of Govt and 10 of opposition they have failed to solve the problem, or, they're telling you bare faced lies. And you are believing them. if you'd just stop to think occasionally before you open your mush, you'd get on a whole heap better.

BobG

[bobjimwilly]

Nudga wrote:

Who cares what it's called, as long as it fcuks up my dads life style. He might actually have to get a job now the idle t**t.

LOL!  

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy wrote:

Think we're arguing semantics here, I say move away from, you say smooth out, but would be interested in hearing how its an impossible, sure you can enlighten..over to you Adam.

Aye, maybe it was semantics. I take it then that you agree that Labour managed to do what no-one had thought possible for 50 years - move the British economy away from the classic inflation-led boom-bust cycle?

Simple to see why it's impossible to entirely eliminate cycles in a capitalist economy. Macro-economic policy is imperfect. It gives a general steer to the economy, but the key thing is the way in which people and businesses respond to that steer. Since that response is the sum of many millions of individual, often irrational decsions, it defies precise prediction. And therefore, the macro-economic decisions are themselves blunt instruments. Sometimes they over-stimulate the economy, sometimes they under-stimulate it. And the result is oscillations in economic performance away from the ideal long-term stable growth trend.

The Tories royally f**ked this up in 1988. They panicked after Black Monday and thought that a macro stimulus was required to maintain confidence in the economy. But they didn't take into account the fact that the economy was fundamentally very buoyant. So they massively over-stimulated the economy, leading to the huge bust of 1990-91. At root, that was what did for Thatcher. And the consequences of that mistake, the f**ked up economy that Major inherited was what did for him in the long run too.

Brown learned that lesson and applied a very steady hand to the tiller for 10 years. The result was an unprecedented period of steady, unspectacular solid growth. Better than any other developed nation, all of which had big-ish booms and receesions in the late 90s, early-mid 2000s.

Brown also knew that when the current crisis struck, the game was fundamentally different. Labour's policy was to try to maintain growth (or at least minimise contraction) through the recession. That meant running up a high deficit, sure, but the alternative was much, much worse.

Fundamentally, there are two ways of getting yourself out of the defecit that was needed to minimise the severity of the recession. The Tories are sticking to the Thatcherite model of sound finance and to hell with the consequences for the economy. But there's another, older method, which is to go for growth. Allow some inflation back in the system and try to grow the economy quickly. Get people back to work and paying taxes. Get GDP rising quickly, so the debt as a apercentage of GDP falls, even if the total debt doesn't. That has risks on the inflation front but there has not been a time in the last 70 years when inflation is less of a problem than it is now. Unfortunately, we've chucked our eggs in the first basket with a viciously deflationary budget.

Let's hope the Bullingdon Club know what they are doing eh, because as Bob G says, if they don't, we are in for a f**ker of a decade.

[BobG]

You'll all probably think I'm scare mongering, but one possible consequence of the news today is that the only way out of the depression is to resort to the eventual solution found in 1939.

There are other possible consequences of course.

BobG

[donnyjay]

Talking of MPs, look at this opportunistic Kitson. Maiden speech and already he's talking b*llocks.

http://news.aol.co.uk/mp-hits-out-at-england-footballers/article/20100622111333580688435