The Budget 2013 - 12:30

do_ron_ron said:
I would like to have seen no childcare cost subsidy at all. Why subsidize two people in a household to have jobs? You have to work out if you can afford children before you have them, nobody forces you to have children.
Click to expand...

Does that include people on benefits too? :D


do_ron_ron said:
If one person per household is looking after a child that normally helps the child develop better.
Click to expand...

Does the science support that?
 
Herald Scotland said:
Budget 2013: political analysis - how indyref is the elephant in the room

The first George Osborne budget since the launch of the Yes Scotland and Better Together campaigns failed to mention the independence referendum, but it is hugely important to both sides.

For whatever Unionist critics might say about independence - economic uncertainty, oil price volatility, the strictures of a currency union - Yes Scotland can now turn and point to the epic failure of Osborne’s economic policy and ask: "Would more of the same really be better?"

The Chancellor's austerity programme has failed to cut the deficit as quickly as promised; seen public borrowing rise not fall; hobbled rather than stimulated growth; seen the UK lose its AAA credit rating; coincided with a double and possibly a triple-dip recession; and led to welfare cuts which are splitting the Coalition.

Not to mention cutting the top rate of income tax for the wealthy, while kack-handedly trying to tax grannies, caravan owners and pasty munchers. If you want infallibility, try the Vatican.

Today's Budget also included the admission that national debt as a % of GDP will not fall until 2017-18, two years later than forecast, and will peak at an eye-watering 85.6% in 2016-17.

With a never-ending Eurozone crisis, and exports struggling, the Office of Budget Responsibility halved next year's growth forecast to 0.6%.

In addition, voters can look forward to a further £11.5bn of public service cuts, and the Bank of England experimenting with "unconventional" instruments thanks to a changed remit for the Monetary Policy Committee, perhaps a hint at zero or possibly even negative interest rates.

The £130bn of mortgage guarantees for those unable to find a deposit, while welcome for those trying to buy a roof, also sows the seeds for the next housing boom and bust.

So you can be sure Yes Scotland will be seeking to capitalise on Mr Osborne's (mis)calculations.

For the Unionist side, the Chancellor's track record presents multiple headaches.

Not only must Better Together repackage it in such a way that it looks more attractive than the SNP's change option, they must try to maintain a united front, despite the economy and the approaching general election creating cavernous rifts between the Tories, LibDems and Labour.

True, the accompanying OBR figures maintain the downbeat predictions on North Sea oil revenue.

Where the OBR sees £33bn of income between 2012 and 2018, the Scottish Government estimates £48bn and up to £57bn.

In Better Together terms, that’s a £15bn to £24bn black hole in the SNP’s independence plans.

But Mr Osborne's decision to cut department budgets by 2% and divert £2.5bn into large-scale capital projects to boost the economy also means added kudos for Alex Salmond and John Swinney.

For on this particular argument, the First Minister and his Finance Secretary have long been on the side of the angels, warning Treasury cuts to capital spending are counterproductive, hampering growth just when growth is needed.

Now that this view has prevailed, the SNP can say their other arguments - on potential oil wealth, on greater economic flexibility outside the UK - deserve more credence.

The message going out across Scotland as a result of today's Budget from the Yes side will be: "If the Union means more of George Osborne, why bother? There is an alternative."
Click to expand...
 
do_ron_ron said:
Children are not fashion accessories to be dumped on other people when the novelty has worm off. If one person per household is looking after a child that normally helps the child develop better. It also frees up one job for the unemployed who do not then claim benefits..
Click to expand...
Children develop by interacting with other people, be it adults or other children. Keeping them with one carer/parent all the time is not the best way to bring them up.
You have to be qualified to look after children, it's not a free for all for everyone on benefits to get involved ;)

Also, my £1300 a month child care payments support many jobs.
 
Last edited:
Evangelion said:
The Torys have accomplished a remarkable feat: in less than a single term they've become more hated than Labour was after three.
Click to expand...

Only by the poor/those who are incapable of paying their own way.

Sadly, thanks to labour, this makes up a staggering amount of our population.
 
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...

Amusingly accurate preempt, although the low/middle income rape is more sustained rape in an already raping system than ramping up the rape. Its abit like saying, yes, we will continue to take you up the jacksie, but we promise not to use a pineapple, just this innocent looking black man over here.
 
Last edited:
shoes said:
Only by the poor/those who are incapable of paying their own way.

Sadly, thanks to labour, this makes up a staggering amount of our population.
Click to expand...

You really got it in for "poor people" haven't you, silver spoon guy are we.

And the second comment is just lol.
 
DampDog said:
Is that true, ie based on numbers or just an assumption? Just looking at the chart I posted above. (If I read it correctly, which I doubt lol.) The borrowing done by Brown prior to the 2008 crash, (2002-2007) doesn't look that different to the borrowing under Lamont & Clarke. 1990-96. They also had a surplus to begin with.

The above is a question, not a statement because I don't know.. But that's how I read the numbers.
Click to expand...

If you dont take into account the prevailing economic positions at the corresponding times, then no, it doesn't look any different.

If you read them against the economic situations however, it very quickly becomes clear what an utter disaster Brown was.
 
Fairly happy with the outcome of that. Increased tax free income allowance, fuel duty frozen, and support for first time buyers unable to get support from family for deposits...

The rest I wasn't bothered about at all, as long as I am no worse off!
 
aardvark said:
really annoyed about this - using tax payers money to back an already over inflated housing market - shameful.
Click to expand...


matdom said:
Why should the state fund first time buyers, oh its to keep housing high.
Click to expand...
Its a shared equity loan. So, if the value of the home has doubled by the time the loan is repaid, the value of the loan will have doubled.

More than likely the state will benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom