Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
davieG

Budget 2017

Recommended Posts

What would you like to see? What do you expect to see?

Quote

 

Budget 2017: No 'spending sprees', Hammond warns

5 March 2017

 

 

There will be no "spending sprees" in Wednesday's Budget, Chancellor Philip Hammond has warned.

Mr Hammond said any surplus cash would be used to ensure the UK had enough "gas in the tank" for the coming years.

He also acknowledged social care budgets were under particular pressure but said this was "not just about money".

Labour said the government was putting money aside to prepare for Brexit which should instead be spent on the NHS.

Speaking to the BBC's Andrew Marr Show after ruling out "huge spending sprees" in a Sunday Times article ahead of his first Budget, Mr Hammond said:

Better than expected economic figures did not represent "money in a pot" due to the UK's "huge" borrowing levels

A reported £60bn Brexit bill was "a piece of negotiating strategy" from Brussels but that the UK "abides by its international obligations"

The UK will "fight back" and not "slink off like a wounded animal" if a Brexit deal cannot be reached

He had "no intention" of publishing his tax return, criticising "demonstration politics"

 

The government has been under pressure to provide more money for the NHS and social care.

On Saturday tens of thousands of people marched in London to protest against "yet more austerity" in the health service.

Mr Hammond said the economy was "performing extremely well" but that spending reductions were putting pressure on services.

This was particularly the case with adult social care, he said, but added that some councils were performing "extremely well" while others were struggling.

The chancellor did say there was a case for taking a long-term, strategic view on how the costs of an ageing population can be met, but said that in the short term: "This is about good practice as well as budgets."

Writing in the Sunday Times, he said that calls for "massive borrowing to fund huge spending sprees" were "reckless, unsustainable and unfair on our young people who would be left to deal with the consequences".

Public sector net debt - not including public sector banks - was £1.68tn at the end of January 2017, equivalent to 85.3% of GDP, according to the Office for National Statistics.

It has increased by £91.7bn since January 2016, the ONS said.

Mr Hammond last year abandoned the timetable of his predecessor, George Osborne, to eliminate the deficit by 2020, instead pledging to invest in homes and transport.

Also on the Marr show was Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell, who said the National Living Wage should be increased to give workers a "pay rise".

He said this, along with reversing changes to disability benefits and a cash injection for the NHS, could be funded by reversing £70bn in corporation, capital gains and inheritance tax cuts.

He also said Labour wanted to abolish university tuition fees and was looking at how this could be afforded.

Meanwhile Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, suggested people might support paying more tax to support the NHS.

"People are so proud of their NHS and social care system that I don't think many people would argue with paying an extra pound or however much to ensure we actually have an NHS," she told Pienaar's Politics on BBC Radio Five live.

Wednesday's Budget takes place after the Bank of England revised up its growth forecast for this year.

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank, predicted the Office for Budget Responsibility would also revise its 2017 forecast upwards.

He said that with "an awful lot of uncertainty" in the years ahead, Mr Hammond was trying to create "headroom" to avoid extra spending cuts and tax rises to cope with any problems that arise.

He added: "However good the numbers look in a couple of days' time, we are still going to be borrowing at least £20bn more by 2020 than we were forecasting a year ago."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a fully funded social care service across the UK - This would take pressure off the NHs and in time would likely save the UK money. I'd be happy to pay for it with a slight increase in income tax or VAT or even better would be to scrap HS2 and use the money earmarked for that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

I'd like to see a fully funded social care service across the UK - This would take pressure off the NHs and in time would likely save the UK money. I'd be happy to pay for it with a slight increase in income tax or VAT or even better would be to scrap HS2 and use the money earmarked for that.  

Not very likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RobHawk said:

Not going to happen at all - but its what i'd like to see! 

 

We all know what will happen and who will be hit the hardest. The low to middle earners, self employed, small businesses  and the sick and disabled.. But I will leave that for others to discuss. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at the next Eton school reunion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would like to see:

Elimination of all subsidies, reduction of state spending, elimination/consolidation of government departments. Huge tax reform to simplify it.

 

What we will get:

Steady as it goes and a relatively small amount of money to improve 'skilling'.

 

Conclusion - nothing worth reporting on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rincewind said:

Looks like I may avoid FT for a while.

 

13 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

We all know what will happen and who will be hit the hardest. The low to middle earners, self employed, small businesses  and the sick and disabled.. But I will leave that for others to discuss. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at the next Eton school reunion.

Considering you're avoiding this, you've got more posts in this thread than anybody else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

 

Considering you're avoiding this, you've got more posts in this thread than anybody else?

I meant post budget which will be swamped with the usual arguments from the usual suspects.

There will be enough without my unworthy input. I will rep the better posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

We all know what will happen and who will be hit the hardest. The low to middle earners, self employed, small businesses  and the sick and disabled.. But I will leave that for others to discuss. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at the next Eton school reunion.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this..

> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
> The fifth would pay £1.
> The sixth would pay £3.
> The seventh would pay £7.
> The eighth would pay £12.
> The ninth would pay £18.
> And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little
problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the
principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).

> The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
> The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
> The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
> The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
> And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
> Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four
> continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10"

"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved £1 too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me"
"That's true" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money amongst all of them to pay for even half of the bill.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RobHawk said:

I'd like to see a fully funded social care service across the UK - This would take pressure off the NHs and in time would likely save the UK money. I'd be happy to pay for it with a slight increase in income tax or VAT or even better would be to scrap HS2 and use the money earmarked for that.  

 

HS2 should have been scrapped ages ago and electrification of main lines - especially Midland Mainline - should have been discussed/brought forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HS2 will be funded by borrowing so no money to spend elsewhere. I suspect (and this is only my summising) that its supporters, and those who promote the expansion of Heathrow see it as a double edged sword. Firstly providing longer term benefits and secondly providing public works to boost the economy.

 I'm open minded on HS2 but, then again, my house and life isn't going to get blighted by being in closed proximity to its intended route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re the bar bill. The 10th man will have his drink sent to his villa in Spain and claim for his share as expenses then register himself as an overseas business and deposit his money in a Swiss bank thus making himself not liable for UK bar bills. The 6-9 guys will bugger off after drinking theirs for a round of golf and the 1-5 guys will put the bill on a tab then start using another pub leaving the pub landlord with a £100 deficit in his takings. He will then increase his prices so when the family man comes in after a 12 hr s min wage shift for a swift half he will have to pay the extra.

 

There are many ways of looking at how taxes are paid but more times than not the ones that decide will have the beer that somebody has not spat in.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit more indirect taxation and not a lot else.

 

There's not much room to manoeuvre.

 

The Tory press will go overboard, The Mirror and The Guardian will crucify it. 

 

Same old, Same old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always it'll be take from one to give to the other with those in the middle (the biggest group) feeling the pinch the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this stage, i can honestly stomach a small tax rise, but as long as its being spent on the correct things. Our social care 'system' has been crippled by funding cuts to local Authorities and this is only getting worse. It has severe knock on effects to things like the NHS and education and really should be a priority. Pensioners have never had it so good, maybe the could remove the triple lock and use some of these funds to provide suitable care for those who need it. Our care system is a disgrace but continues to be ignored!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Well if this isn't proof, I don't know what is. You can clearly see "Theresa's" humanoid exoskeleton malfunctioning as it struggles to contain the alien overlord inside, attempting to escape the boredom of PMQs.

 

https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/C6ZTf-UVAAQpS6c.mp4

saw that, freaked me right out. If any more indication was needed that front-bench tories were possessed by demonic forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...