March Budget 2016

Caged · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:05

Glaucus said:
But you can't guarantee growth in this global climate and it looks unlikely it will change in the coming decade or two. It also leaves no room for massive infrastructure budgets, which have to be a deficit.

You can not compare it to the last 40years, change is happening. Just because that's what happened before doesn't mean that's what can continue to happen.
If we went with well that's what's always happened, then the stabilising population, ageing population would screw us, as the next generation would be unable to pay for the pensions which has been the model for generations. This is something that still isn't being addressed fast enough.

What's changed since November?

estebanrey · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:07

Spook187 said:
The 40% tax threshold should have been set at £60 000.

helpimcrap said:
I agree. To encourage people to succeed...

But tax actually makes no difference to your pay rise proportionally.

For example, and I'll use simple extremes, your employer is willing to pay £20,000 for your current role, but £30,000 for your supervisor. A supervisor role comes up, do you apply for it?

0% Tax
£20,000 Current Take Home
£30,000 Potential Take Home
50% Rise in Potential Take Home Pay

40% Tax
£12,000 Current Take Home
£18,000 Potential Take Home
50% Rise in Potential Take Home Pay

Most people are happy to state a pay-rise as a percentage increase in any other situation, why change to using absolutes when talking about tax?

scorza · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:07

A budget surplus means that you're taxing the people too much.

Glaucus · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:08

Freakbro said:
But running the miniscule amount of surplus he is talking about isn't going to change anything. If we sustained that every year it would still take us over 500 yrs to pay the debt off.

And yep, the world's economy is on a knife edge due to China, but if it goes pop, it goes pop for all of us, so we're all ****** anyway, and who is going to call the ticket in then. It's the old adage of "if you owe the bank a thousand pounds it's your problem if you owe them a million pounds it's their problem"

But you aren't making it worse, and if it goes pop your in a far better position, as you haven't ran up massive debt and get your international ratings sliced. You can borrow to help maintain the economy temporarily.

So no I still don't agree with the lets just spend mentality, we aren't going to grow are way out if it anytime soon, it's also not just china, it's a large piece of a large puzzle, but there is far more than just china that makes the global economy shaky.

Sliver · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:09

scorza said:
A budget surplus means that you're taxing the people too much.

Or not spending enough on said people.

Caged · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:09

We'd be totally screwed either way so why make things more painful in the years running up to the event of being screwed?

Freakbro · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:10

Caged said:
What's changed since November?

Ahh those heady days of 4 months ago, when everything was rosy and budgets were overflowing, oh how I hark back to those halcyon times...

Glaucus · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:10

What do you mean what's changed since November? Nothing.
Global economy was shaky then and has been for a long time, same as with the uk forecasts.

Caged · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:12

Tell that to this guy then

https://www.gov.uk/government/speec...nding-review-and-autumn-statement-2015-speech

Freakbro · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:13

It's all mute anyway Glaucus, because no matter what he says, we won't be running a surplus in 19/20

danielanthony · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:14

estebanrey said:
But tax actually makes no difference to your pay rise proportionally.

For example, and I'll use simple extremes, your employer is willing to pay £20,000 for your current role, but £30,000 for your supervisor. A supervisor role comes up, do you apply for it?

0% Tax
£20,000 Current Take Home
£30,000 Potential Take Home
50% Rise in Potential Take Home Pay

40% Tax
£12,000 Current Take Home
£18,000 Potential Take Home
50% Rise in Potential Take Home Pay

Of course the same is true of tax bands etc. Most people are happy to state a pay-rise as a percentage increase in any other situation, why change to using absolutes when talking about tax?

Because you might be willing to put in the extra work for £10,000 but not for £6,000?

It's like we get offered on call payments of £60 per day at work, after tax its just over £30 quid. Would do it for £60, not for £30. Understand?

Glaucus · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:14

Why, you were questioning me not Osborne. My stance hasn't changed in the slightest.

Forecasts are that, forecasts and the more turbulent global economy is, less precise they are.

Caged · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:15

danielanthony said:
Because you might be willing to put in the extra work for £10,000 but not for £6,000?

It's like we get offered on call payments of £60 per day at work, after tax its just over £30 quid. Would do it for £60, not for £30. Understand?

Then you're just lazy though aren't you, to apply the same logic used to beat certain sectors of society down with.

Glaucus · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:15

Freakbro said:
It's all mute anyway Glaucus, because no matter what he says, we won't be running a surplus in 19/20

Not at all, I agree we wont, but we should be spending less on day to day running, and reducing that gap.
It's an extremely silly comment, it's not going to happen in a few years, therefore, lets not try. Just spend everything. Lets get the country into huge debt, and then when the next big slump happens, we have no back up, no available debt.

kitch9 · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:16

scorza said:
A budget surplus means that you're taxing the people too much.

National debt is at 1.5 trillions. It's fair to say by your logic that they haven't been taxing enough no?

scorza · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:17

kitch9 said:
National debt is at 1.5 trillions. It's fair to say by your logic that they haven't been taxing enough no?

That's what I've been saying since 2010

estebanrey · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:18

danielanthony said:
Because you might be willing to put in the extra work for £10,000 but not for £6,000?

It's like we get offered on call payments of £60 per day at work, after tax its just over £30 quid. Would do it for £60, not for £30. Understand?

What you're missing is the proportion though. You're thinking about your current take home then adding £30 vs £60 to it. But if the tax was, say 0, and you got the full £60 you'd also be getting double the take home pay in the first place, so that £60 is worth the same to you as £30 is on your current pay.

Dr Jack · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:21

Glaucus said:
But you aren't making it worse, and if it goes pop your in a far better position, as you haven't ran up massive debt and get your international ratings sliced. You can borrow to help maintain the economy temporarily.

The government has made it worse. Austerity has cost us growth*, and it has cost us the investment for future growth. A healthy recovery would have put us in a much better position for future shocks than the anaemic recovery Osborne inflicted and the ever growing store of problems in the NHS, education, student debt, social care, etc.

* - as Osborne's own lapdogs the OBR agree.

Freakbro · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:21

Glaucus said:
Not at all, I agree we wont, but we should be spending less on day to day running, and reducing that gap.
It's an extremely silly comment, it's not going to happen in a few years, therefore, lets not try. Just spend everything. Lets get the country into huge debt, and then when the next big slump happens, we have no back up, no available debt.

No, don't jump to the extreme of what I'm not saying.

A country like ours, who controls it's own currency has has its own central bank, can run a (controllable) deficit ad infinitum, a surplus to 'hold a reserve of money for bad times' or 'to pay back the debt' is irrelevant and of the small thinking that a countries economics is like a household budget, which I'm surprised of you to be expounding

Dr Jack · 16 Mar 2016 at 21:23

Glaucus said:
Not at all, I agree we wont, but we should be spending less on day to day running, and reducing that gap.
It's an extremely silly comment, it's not going to happen in a few years, therefore, lets not try. Just spend everything. Lets get the country into huge debt, and then when the next big slump happens, we have no back up, no available debt.

Austerity hasn't worked and won't work to clear the deficit. Osborne promised he'd clear the deficit by 2015 - he didn't - he said he'd have debt-to-GDP falling each year - he isn't. A growth and inflation based plan wouldn't leave us with a worse debt problem; it'd deal with it more effectively.