It's been pointed out in the Commons several times, no one cares. Or rather no one is surprised.
The Budget™ 2009
- Thread starter cheets64
- Start date
More complex than that, it will devalue less than 10 year old cars, as soon as the car hits 10 it is effectively worth £2000, even an old rust bucket that used to be worth £200. If I were going to buy a new car in a month or so I would go out and buy an old banger to save myself a couple of thousand, problem is, that banger will probably have gone up in price because everyone else will be thinking the same..
Cue a £200 15 year old car suddenly shooting up to £1000 or more.
(unless there is some clause in the scheme about having owned it for a certain amount of time.)
You have to have owned it for a year. Given that the scheme ends on 31 March next year, you'd have to own it already, and have done so since the start of this month.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
The current mess will take some repairing. Public sector inefficiency has to be tackled and I hope the nexy government are prepared to do that.
You would be wrong, we are officially in the worst recession since 1945.
But dont let that stop you blindly following this bunch of commies into moneygeddon.
Worst spending cuts for 40 years being reported on the BBC - thought that's exactly what you've been arguing for?
No, that figure would be wrong as well, since labour have decided they dont count a great deal of the people out of work as "unemployed" the figure you get is massively incorrect.
The actual amount of people either unemployed, on sick or disability or economically inactive and UNDER the age of 65 and OVER the age of 16, is nearly 9 million.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/304
IFS reaction to the budget. The presentations on the bullet points under the section "Reactions to Budget 2009" are absolutely fantastic. They cover every possible angle I can think of.
I think you can understand about 50% of it without needing to take a microeconomics or public economics course. So I recommend reading it. Also it is easy to misread it if you go in with prejudices, so try and understand exactly what the writers are saying.
We can now close the thread.
IFS reaction to the budget. The presentations on the bullet points under the section "Reactions to Budget 2009" are absolutely fantastic. They cover every possible angle I can think of.
I think you can understand about 50% of it without needing to take a microeconomics or public economics course. So I recommend reading it. Also it is easy to misread it if you go in with prejudices, so try and understand exactly what the writers are saying.
We can now close the thread.
The Tories arguably created the basis for this entire crisis by introducing 'right-to-buy' in 1980 and deregulating the banking industry in 1987.
Sure, Labour should have put things right with what, at the time, would likely have been highly unpopular measures but arguably it's two of the Tories most fundamental policies (deregulation, right to buy) which are at the root of the problems.
Sure, Labour should have put things right with what, at the time, would likely have been highly unpopular measures but arguably it's two of the Tories most fundamental policies (deregulation, right to buy) which are at the root of the problems.
Well put.
I've voted labour in the last two general elections (I was too young to vote prior to that), but I won't be doing so again this time around. I just wish it were Ken Clarke rather than David Cameron in charge of the tories. I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Cameron's tories either, and the lib-dems are rudderless.
Anyway - scale back public spending, scale back borrowing, and stop providing disincentives to success.
I agree that the introduction of right to buy was a bad policy decision, but it had nothing to do with the economic problems currently facing the country, which have been caused by labour squandering a boom period by continuing recession level borrowing levels through it and hiding unemployment by massively increasing the amount of public sector workers.
In addition, given that Labour carried out far more changes in the financial sector (including the creation of the FSA, independance of BoE etc), I think blaming the tories for poor regulation (I won't say lack of regulation, because a genuine lack of regulation would have been better) is somewhat misplaced.
This happened under Labour's watch, not the tories, and they had more than enough time to make changes if they disagreed, indeed they did make a great many changes, they were just not beneficial ones. Labour lived up to their historical reputation for financial incompetance.
The new tax rate is a complete waste of time because (a) there's not enough people in that tax bracket to make it worthwhile, and (b) most of the people liable for it will never pay the full rate anyway (thanks to tax avoidance), so the resulting "windfall" will be too small to make any substantial difference.
Meanwhile, it only gives the top earners another excuse to falsely claim that they're being victimised. If you're liable for the rate and not doing anything to minimise your liability, you've got only yourself to blame.
Oh, and all this talk about a City "brain drain" as a result of high flyers fleeing the country to avoid the new tax rate is just so much hot air. Can anyone really see high level commerce magnates abandoning the world's largest and most influential money market? No, neither can I.
Meanwhile, it only gives the top earners another excuse to falsely claim that they're being victimised. If you're liable for the rate and not doing anything to minimise your liability, you've got only yourself to blame.
Oh, and all this talk about a City "brain drain" as a result of high flyers fleeing the country to avoid the new tax rate is just so much hot air. Can anyone really see high level commerce magnates abandoning the world's largest and most influential money market? No, neither can I.
I think people have lost sight of what Taxes represent, particularly in these modern times.
Go back just 150 years or so and there was no welfare state, there was no NHS. There was no income tax. People paid for the services that they used, directly. This did mean that the poorer folks didn't get much in the way of medical treatment, and if you were out of work, tough - you'd have to beg or steal.
Income tax was introduced to fund war. It was originally intended to be a short term thing, but the government realised they were onto a winner. It was ceased, but then reinstated shortly thereafter, helping to swell the coffers of whoever was in power at the time.
We didn't really have any form of welfare state in the UK until the 1930s. The NHS wasn't created until 1948.
You ask why the rich should pay the same rate of tax as everyone else. I think people should bear in mind that the rich often have private health care, and have no need of benefits. They're getting a lot less out of the system than they put in - is it fair to arbitrarily charge them for things that other people need?
Once upon a time, people got what they paid for. When I was younger I remember hearing of several of my Dad's friends who were too proud to take benefits while looking for work (even though they'd been paying tax and NI all of their lives) - these days there's none of that. It seems that far too many people have their hands out, eager to get whatever they can, no matter the cost.
We resent those who earn more than us, so they're fair game, it seems. I can't say that I like the way society is changing...
(disclaimer: I'm not rich - I currently earn less than £20k pa. I still don't think it's fair to charge people more for earning more, particularly if they're using less services)
(further disclaimer: one day I would like to be rich
)
Go back just 150 years or so and there was no welfare state, there was no NHS. There was no income tax. People paid for the services that they used, directly. This did mean that the poorer folks didn't get much in the way of medical treatment, and if you were out of work, tough - you'd have to beg or steal.
Income tax was introduced to fund war. It was originally intended to be a short term thing, but the government realised they were onto a winner. It was ceased, but then reinstated shortly thereafter, helping to swell the coffers of whoever was in power at the time.
We didn't really have any form of welfare state in the UK until the 1930s. The NHS wasn't created until 1948.
You ask why the rich should pay the same rate of tax as everyone else. I think people should bear in mind that the rich often have private health care, and have no need of benefits. They're getting a lot less out of the system than they put in - is it fair to arbitrarily charge them for things that other people need?
Once upon a time, people got what they paid for. When I was younger I remember hearing of several of my Dad's friends who were too proud to take benefits while looking for work (even though they'd been paying tax and NI all of their lives) - these days there's none of that. It seems that far too many people have their hands out, eager to get whatever they can, no matter the cost.
We resent those who earn more than us, so they're fair game, it seems. I can't say that I like the way society is changing...
(disclaimer: I'm not rich - I currently earn less than £20k pa. I still don't think it's fair to charge people more for earning more, particularly if they're using less services)
(further disclaimer: one day I would like to be rich
)Maybe that's what the government want - get rid of all the city white men in suits who have got the country into this mess.
Having thought about it a bit more - one thing I would like to have seen in budget would be a citizenship income tax, a bit like the federal income tax US citizens have to pay whether they earn money in the USA or not.
There is when it adds just more pointless bureaucracy and more high salaried, well pensioned civil service jobs.
And all the money with it? No. The government doesn't want all those guys out of the City, and neither does any sane person.
Taxed for being a citizen? No chance.
LOL
