The Budget 2013 - 12:30

MrMoonX said:
nope cos the budget is perhaps the one day we actually see and hear how the government will make our lives even worse in the name of capitalism
Click to expand...

It's the International Day of Happiness bro. Hold onto that thought rather than the budget from our capitalist oppressors. You can revert to the Uncle Joe rhetoric tomorrow.
 
Well so far the little snippets that keep dripping through on the news don't bode well.

He's missed his target on borrowing by 8 Billion so up to 128 Billion.

Unemployment is up to 2.52 million

Projected growth has been revised to 0.6% so under even the meagre 1% he though was a good number.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21690473

Tripple AAA rating is up the creek.

Of the 8 benchmarks he set himself most have been missed, pretty much makes him look clueless.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/osbornes-missed-targets-from-aaa-to-z-factcheck/12880

Now I don't know how the economy works. Just exactly who do we owe all these trillions of pounds to? Countries, banks? If the lending rate is at an all time low why can we not just re-borrow the money at a better rate and save a few billions? Also do we not have some debts that will simply cancel out? They owe us, we owe them, call it quits?
 
Last edited:
MrMoonX said:
low/middle income = prepare for rape

rich = prepare for tax cuts

Businesses = Prepare for government to throw money at pointless infrastructure and probably a corporation tax cut

disabled/unemployed = poor house law
Click to expand...

Funny because by demographic of wage the effect of tax and benefit changes has hit the top 10% hardest of all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21740450
 
aardvark said:
i'm always confused by people thinking that borrowing and spending will somehow create growth - its moronic.
Click to expand...

Problem is the adopted "growth" measure we use DOES show an increase in "growth" because its heavily weighted for a service economy that relies on spending.

This is exactly how Balls gets to make out hes got a magic wand, he knows that if he borrows more and spends it, we get "growth".

How the hell do you think the last Labour government managed to keep "growth" going for so long, yep they spent other peoples money.

There isn't really a better measure tbh with our economy but every single time I hear a politican (from all sides but particularly Balls) talk about "growth" I want to punch them in the face for being able to brainwash the ignorant majority of voters.
 
Freakbro said:
And then if you scroll down lower in that same article you will find another graph, that shows reduction in household income being greatest by those who don't work.

So, just depends on how you want to present the figures.
Click to expand...

Quite, so it just goes to show plenty of workers must be earning less than some on benefits or the data just wouldn't work.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Funny because by demographic of wage the effect of tax and benefit changes has hit the top 10% hardest of all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21740450
Click to expand...

......

So on this analysis, there is little sign of the so-called squeezed middle.
Click to expand...

Something I've thought for a while. Whilst the media is owned by the rich, it's day to day running is by the middle and upper middle classes who I always felt inventing this "squeezed middle" moniker before any cuts that would affect them even were announced. Even today the child benenfit cap for those earning over £80k is the only one I can think of that affects them.

And they get some of that back through the new higher income tax allowance anyway (which benefits all tax payers under £150k p.a. and not just the poor as the Lib Dems try and make out whenever they talk about it).
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Quite, so it just goes to show plenty of workers must be earning less than some on benefits or the data just wouldn't work.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't mean that at all, it just means the people who rely on benefits for a higher portion of their income are receiving a larger % drop in income.

Which is obvious when the greater reductions are in benefits rather than tax rises.
 
estebanrey said:
And they get some of that back through the new higher income tax allowance anyway (which benefits all tax payers under £150k p.a. and not just the poor as the Lib Dems try and make out whenever they talk about it).
Click to expand...

Benefits everyone under £100k p.a. Unless that's changing in half an hour.

Sadly this is the most exciting time of the year for the profession I work in :( We even have a TV set up in a boardroom so we can all watch it together...
 
Freakbro said:
And then if you scroll down lower in that same article you will find another graph, that shows reduction in household income being greatest by those who don't work.

So, just depends on how you want to present the figures.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it also doesn't take into account that to be in the top 10% you don't have to earn that much, neither does it factor in the fact that the higher you earn - the greater on average you as an increase in salary PA (with those at the bottom getting no pay rise at all, with those at the top getting huge annual rises in pay).
 
Where is the divide between the low/middle income earners? I'm always confused when you here this mentioned in the press, how on earth do you go about evaluating this? Is there some kind of rough ballpark figure they use?
 
Pudney said:
Benefits everyone under £100k p.a. Unless that's changing in half an hour.
Click to expand...

Well to be accurate it benefits on anyone under £116,030 (2012-2013). You don't lose your allowance at 100k, it starts reducing, by a quid for every two quid earnt, so it you only lose it completely once you're earning £100k plus two times the allowance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom