DennisNedry Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 So, what do you make of it, and how will the changes affect you?
Webbo Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Prediction: Us righties will think it's great, the lefties will say it's a disaster.
The Blur Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 I thought the conversion of student grants to loans was harsh and would put students from poorer backgrounds off from going to universities even more. This is even more bizarre when Osbourne said afterwards that this budget will aid training in this country. I have mixed feelings about benefit cuts- I agree with children tax credits for up to two kids cap but I am not too keen on cutting housing benefits for under 21s on JSA allowances- what if people in these age brackets live in unsafe or undesirable home environment or if a 21 years old lose his/her job and have to claim JSA in the search for a new job or a family can not afford all of their children living at the home so they can not take their kids who have left home back home (in the event of parents losing their jobs and cannot afford to feed their kids etc)? I have not did the maths but it will be interesting to observe the effect of the rise in living wage when it is contrasted against cut in tax credits threshold because it could mean for people in low paid jobs' lifestyle will not be improved by the rise in living wage as their tax credits will be cut? It is pretty smart to offload tax credits on employers though.
Guest MattP Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Only had a quick glance as the Cricket has been on but no huge surprised apart from the living wage introduction, confrirmation that "Real party of the working people" and "Northern Powerhouse" will be the "Long term economic plan" of the next five years, you'll be hearing it every speech, Tories have the chance to grab the working vote (excluded those that would never vote for them whatever) once and for all and I don't think they'll let it slip by. Like the fact the rate you'll pay tax later again (until 11k) and hope that does rise to 12,500 by the end of parliament, the commitment to the living wage is great as well, George has been saying Britain needs a payrise for years and he needed to back it up with actions. Like the "learn to earn" stuff directed at 18-21 year olds instead of just throwing housing benefit at them, time to stop the "I'm an adult now get me a house rather than a job" entitlement too many have. Corporation tax cuts will put in more in line with the more progressive and business friendly European countries. 2% commitment to defence a positive given the state of the World currently and about time the Oyster Card started to be expamnded around the country for cheaper travel. Always great to see the BBC picking up the tab for something, looking forward to the full license fee review later this year. Delighted the cuts will mainly be coming from welfare and departmental, two children is more than enough to be paid to have, working age benefits being frozen is fine for me as long as the disabled are exempt. Benefit cap reduction essential. The debt predictions are a welcome target but I still think clearing a 90billion deficit by 2020 is pretty much impossible, fair play for aiming high rather than low though. 8 billion for the NHS also seems that but again, why not aim for the moon?
Guest Kopfkino Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 I thought the conversion of student grants to loans was harsh and would put students from poorer backgrounds off from going to universities even more. This is even more bizarre when Osbourne said afterwards that this budget will aid training in this country. I have mixed feelings about benefit cuts- I agree with children tax credits for up to two kids cap but I am not too keen on cutting housing benefits for under 21s on JSA allowances- what if people in these age brackets live in unsafe or undesirable home environment or if a 21 years old lose his/her job and have to claim JSA in the search for a new job or a family can not afford all of their children living at the home so they can not take their kids who have left home back home (in the event of parents losing their jobs and cannot afford to feed their kids etc)? I have not did the maths but it will be interesting to observe the effect of the rise in living wage when it is contrasted against cut in tax credits threshold because it could mean for people in low paid jobs' lifestyle will not be improved by the rise in living wage as their tax credits will be cut? It is pretty smart to offload tax credits on employers though. Why will it? To me it should make them more likely to go as the amount you can get is going up so it actually makes living at uni more affordable. The fact it is now a loan makes no difference to them whilst at uni and in most cases little difference anyway. If the fact it is now not a grant puts people off going uni then they shouldn't be going to uni anyway
Alf Bentley Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Prediction: Us righties will think it's great, the lefties will say it's a disaster. You might be disappointed, Webbo. I'll wait till I've consulted Larry Elliott (Guardian economics guru) so as to understand the full implications before opining properly, but first reaction from a lefty perspective: A lot better than expected, at least in some ways. Politically, it always made sense for them to do something on pay rates if they were going to slash in-work benefits (tax credits), otherwise it would have just looked like they were piling all the burden on the working poor. But I had the impression they were going to be vicious enough to slash tax credits without boosting pay. So the "national living wage" (increased minimum wage) makes sense - economically, as well; why should the taxpayer be subsidising low-paying employers? It is funny, though, because if a Labour government had raised employers' costs like that, the Tories would have been bleating about making British business uncompetitive, causing unemployment & inflation etc. (as they did when they opposed the creation of a national minimum wage in the first place). What they've done with housing benefit / cuts in rents for social housing also sounded interesting and potentially benefiting tenants at the expense of buy-to-let landlords, though there's the risk of social housing just becoming a ghetto for the very poor. They've moderated their plans for eliminating the deficit, too - basically delaying their planned surplus by a year. So, they've talked tough before the election but acted a bit more softly after it - the opposite of what governments usually do. The Lib Dems must be banging their heads against the wall, having lost millions of votes due to their association with the coalition's grim pre-election plans for slashing the deficit. I'd also have thought that this budget will increase the chance of Osborne becoming the next PM rather than Boris (though the EU referendum could change all that). He's a cunning operator, much as I don't like his politics. Raising defence spending to 2% of GDP and slashing inheritance tax on homes will please their electorate (though the latter is delayed until 2017 - have to look at the small print and political calculations, as always).
Merging Cultures Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 People in my world complain International Aid has gone down to £7.4bn I had to point out, it is still £7.4bn and higher than it was a few years ago.
Voll Blau Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Why will it? To me it should make them more likely to go as the amount you can get is going up so it actually makes living at uni more affordable. The fact it is now a loan makes no difference to them whilst at uni and in most cases little difference anyway. If the fact it is now not a grant puts people off going uni then they shouldn't be going to uni anyway I think that's a little unfair. Granted ('scuse the pun) I knew a few during my time as a student who were quite blatantly abusing the grant system and weren't really in it for the right reasons (but when the schools do so much to push anyone who stays beyond GCSE towards further education regardless of whether it might actually enhance their prospects or not, who could blame them?) There are academically talented kids from poorer backgrounds who will really take this factor into consideration when deciding, in these days of higher tuition fees, whether or not it's all going to be worth it.
Christoph Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Students have been predictably shafted once again by the conservatives. I'm just happy I've got my degree out the way.
Benji Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 I thought the conversion of student grants to loans was harsh and would put students from poorer backgrounds off from going to universities even more. This is even more bizarre when Osbourne said afterwards that this budget will aid training in this country. I have mixed feelings about benefit cuts- I agree with children tax credits for up to two kids cap but I am not too keen on cutting housing benefits for under 21s on JSA allowances- what if people in these age brackets live in unsafe or undesirable home environment or if a 21 years old lose his/her job and have to claim JSA in the search for a new job or a family can not afford all of their children living at the home so they can not take their kids who have left home back home (in the event of parents losing their jobs and cannot afford to feed their kids etc)? I have not did the maths but it will be interesting to observe the effect of the rise in living wage when it is contrasted against cut in tax credits threshold because it could mean for people in low paid jobs' lifestyle will not be improved by the rise in living wage as their tax credits will be cut? It is pretty smart to offload tax credits on employers though. About time in my opinion. Treating it as a loan simply puts everyone on a level playing field as repayments are based on salaries post-education. It has no effect on your pre-earning position; if you convert your degree into a job that pays over the loan repayment threshold you pay it back and if you don't the State takes the risk and it's eventually written off. The State should foot the risk that you don't hit the repayment salary, but it shouldn't be a freebie. This change would only be an issue if you were forced to repay the grant that is now a loan regardless of what you earn, but that's not the case. I do agree generally that the opportunity should be there for people from lower income families to request greater manitenance sums - perhaps even the repayment threshold should be increased for the extra amount to hedge against the burden for taking a bigger loan and accumulating more interest (which arises simply by reason of them being from such a background - or even make it interest free for X years). The cut off of "who deserves the grant" is ridiculously arbitrary as if a family earning £10 over the threshold will openly chuck an extra few thousand of cash to their kid to spend at uni.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Students have been predictably shafted once again by the conservatives. I'm just happy I've got my degree out the way. No, we really haven't. They made the system better in 2011 and ensured the future bankers, lawyers, consultants etc actually pay for the education that has afforded them the chance to earn good money.
Guest MattP Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Blimey, what price Alf to be standing for the new compassionate Conservatives in 2020?
purpleronnie Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Alf has gone over to the dark side. Oh and compassionate conservative, that phrase always makes me chuckle..
ousefox Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 No, we really haven't. They made the system better in 2011 and ensured the future bankers, lawyers, consultants etc actually pay for the education that has afforded them the chance to earn good money.Not if they are rich enough to pay it up front meaning they'll pay less than many people in jobs that aren't as well paid as them. Hardly a level playing field.
Benji Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Not if they are rich enough to pay it up front meaning they'll pay less than many people in jobs that aren't as well paid as them. Hardly a level playing field. If someone pays up front they will pay a significant amount more than the majority of people who never pay it back through PAYE. The only people who suffer are those who earn enough to pay back the loan and have to incur 10+ years of interest. These are people on salaries who generally wouldn't get much sympathy for tax breaks.
Alf Bentley Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Glad you're coming round to our way of thinking Alf. Blimey, what price Alf to be standing for the new compassionate Conservatives in 2020? Alf has gone over to the dark side. Oh and compassionate conservative, that phrase always makes me chuckle.. "Compassionate conservatism" was a concept first used by George W. Bush, wasn't it? I need Larry Elliott to explain to me all the filthy regressive tricks they're bound to be playing here. In the meantime, here's a brief intermission:
Freesolo Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 In my opinion way too many students are going to university as it is, Its almost seen as a right of passage to got Uni get a degree in some bullshit course spend most time getting pissed. Alot of Kids don't have any career in mind before they go and scrape by there A levels and just go for the experience, after all is said and done they are 30 working in a office somewhere earning £25k a year in a shitload of debt
Frank to be Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Minimum wage will still apply to under 25s. So employers who employ staff on less than £9 per hour will employ u25s, which will be great for youth unemployment, but a disaster for anyone over 25 who earns less than £9 per hour, because they'll have no chance of finding a job and no welfare to fall back on. This will lead to massive increases in adult as well as child poverty. Terribly thought out idea designed to appeal to idiots.
Webbo Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 "Compassionate conservatism" was a concept first used by George W. Bush, wasn't it? I like to think Mrs thatcher was the first.
ousefox Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 If someone pays up front they will pay a significant amount more than the majority of people who never pay it back through PAYE. The only people who suffer are those who earn enough to pay back the loan and have to incur 10+ years of interest. These are people on salaries who generally wouldn't get much sympathy for tax breaks.Somebody averaging £40,000 a year over 30 years having to pay 9% on 19k of that = £1710 a year and £51,300 over 30 years.That doesn't seem fair to me when the highly qualified in London, on £100k, with parents who've paid it off will pay £27k. I can't imagine the government will be very keen to raise that 21k with inflation either. A graduate tax would have been a lot fairer. The rich paying less than than the middle is ridiculous.
Webbo Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Somebody averaging £40,000 a year over 30 years having to pay 9% on 19k of that = £1710 a year and £51,300 over 30 years. That doesn't seem fair to me when the highly qualified in London, on £100k, with parents who've paid it off will pay £27k. I can't imagine the government will be very keen to raise that 21k with inflation either. A graduate tax would have been a lot fairer. The rich paying less than than the middle is ridiculous. You're assuming that somebody with rich parents will automatically get a job with a huge salary and somebody with poor parents will automatically get a not so good paying job. I'm sure their are a lot of rich kids who do art degrees and end up as teachers or working in a museum and there are working class kids who end up working in the city.
ousefox Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 You're assuming that somebody with rich parents will automatically get a job with a huge salary and somebody with poor parents will automatically get a not so good paying job. I'm sure their are a lot of rich kids who do art degrees and end up as teachers or working in a museum and there are working class kids who end up working in the city. I think it's fair to say that a large proportion of people likely to end up in those jobs without me having to go and look up the stats. Perhaps those rich kids who end up working in museums also have clever enough parents to realise that getting a student loan will be more beneficial for them too. Plus those working class kids who do end up in the city will pay a hell of a lot more than their colleagues from a privileged background, even if it has been pointed out that by that time they won't get much sympathy. Having a system where the richest are paying less than a considerable amount of people instead of a graduate tax is indefensible.
Webbo Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 I think it's fair to say that a large proportion of people likely to end up in those jobs without me having to go and look up the stats. Perhaps those rich kids who end up working in museums also have clever enough parents to realise that getting a student loan will be more beneficial for them too. Plus those working class kids who do end up in the city will pay a hell of a lot more than their colleagues from a privileged background, even if it has been pointed out that by that time they won't get much sympathy. Having a system where the richest are paying less than a considerable amount of people instead of a graduate tax is indefensible. It is a graduate tax in all but name. It's a percentage of your wage after you're earning a certain amount.
ousefox Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 It is a graduate tax in all but name. It's a percentage of your wage after you're earning a certain amount. Yeah but not for those that are rich enough to have paid it off. That's the main point I've been making.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.