Budget 2015

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I'm a little surprised that more on here haven't pointed out the new 'Diverted Profits Tax' - a small but good step in the right direction IMHO.

As we speak there will be multinationals exploring all the loopholes

 

[joeinbrighton]

The focus on things like savings and pensions for the second year running suggest to me that the target audience of the Budget are OAPs because the Conservative Government believe that the election will be won or lost by their votes because the turnout among younger people will be lower.

 

[melias shoes]

Apparently increasing the 10k b4 u start paying tax to 11k Ed Ballsup says that doesn't go far enough, let's be honest Gideon could move it to 20k and that **** would bear issue

Is the correct answer.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Bit disappointed they haven't increased the NI thresholds...the big headline over the last few years has been the personal allowance having been pushed to 10k and beyond...with Osbourne championing people paying no tax...but national insurance is still a fair whack and apart from sorting out class 2 (which i will be a beneficiary) zilch has been done.
Think of all that admin cost savings for government and business alike if it could be say merged with income tax in some way ? Of course no party is going to like the headline that would create.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The focus on things like savings and pensions for the second year running suggest to me that the target audience of the Budget are OAPs because the Conservative Government believe that the election will be won or lost by their votes because the turnout among younger people will be lower.

I'd suggest that one of the biggest bonuses and probably most expensive policies was actually targeted at the younger generations .... namely the 1st Time Buyer ISA.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

In my local paper today they are reporting the unemployment figures in N E Lincs have dropped by 27% in the last 12 months. A readers comment sums it up succinctly - "Zero hour contracts, workfare and illegal sanctions. Anything to clear the books to make the figures look good. If you believe these figures you really will believe anything. The management and staff at the Job Centre should hang their heads in shame for their complicity in this."

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I'd suggest that one of the biggest bonuses and probably most expensive policies was actually targeted at the younger generations .... namely the 1st Time Buyer ISA.

If you read the small print about these first time buyer ISA to get the maximum top up which Osborn mentioned this afternoon you have to save for 4½ years if opening with a £1000 deposit followed by saving £200 a month or 5 years from scratch.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

If you read the small print about these first time buyer ISA to get the maximum top up which Osborn mentioned this afternoon you have to save for 4½ years if opening with a £1000 deposit followed by saving £200 a month or 5 years from scratch.

Oh yes, agreed, there are some conditions and I know plenty of people won't have £200 just lying around each month but a 25% bonus is very generous. So after 5 years you'd still have less than £15k so anyone hoping to buy a place in the next 10 years is still going to have to save more than £200 a month to stand a chance of getting on the ladder.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Really? I'm 41 this year, and I don't remember the Tories managing the economy through the 80's and early 90's any better than Labour did from late 90's to 2010. I think this whole Labour can't manage the economy is a complete fallacy, because frankly neither party has managed the economy that well.

In 2010 were the foundations not already laid for a recovery faster than we've had over the last 5 years? Hypothetically we can't know, but it is the same argument you could apply to 1997 when we were coming out of the Tories financial chaos at the start of the 90's.

Does either party really have a great track record with the economy? At the end of any recession, you have to rebuild. A lack of investment in the state from pretty much the '70's required any government recovering in the mid '90's to start rebuilding schools, hospitals, infrastructure. The same will be required at the end of this recovery, it's all very good reducing the state and saving money, but by 2020, all our schools and other buildings and infrastructure are going to again require massive building programmes and expenditure. Even before Labour got in in 1997, the Tories were already making massive spending plans as so much needed to be done.

If we start from my year of birth 1974, the Tories have had 23 years in power compared to Labours 18 years, and there is no real evidence to suggest the Tories have managed their 23 any better than Labour did their 18. Interest rates at 15% above at the end of the '80's, people you knew left right and centre losing their homes or in massive negative equity were the scariest times I can remember - even compared to this recession.

This election I think is going to be fought more on ideology. It is going to be about a core belief in who is fairer, what is important, and what party shares those principles.

Completely disagree, the Tories inherited a country on its knees in 79 and brought it back from the dead in the 80's. Of course you can argue the 80's were boom/bust economics, but when Labour took over they inherited a far more prosperous economy than what they had left.

Fast forward to 2010, the Tories inherited a completely mismanaged economy on the brink of economic ruin and have started and developed faster growth than anyone else in the euro zone. So yes, I think it's fair to say they have a much better track record.

However, when considering the NHS, they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with competition, which just does not work.

EDIT. Apologies Bold Seagull, was on my phone and missed your last para - I would agree it will largely be idealology, and who gets their message across. I would have thought the budget might have been 'spun' towards the NHS to counteract the 'Tories can't manage health' argument, but it wasn't.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Oh yes, agreed, there are some conditions and I know plenty of people won't have £200 just lying around each month but a 25% bonus is very generous. So after 5 years you'd still have less than £15k so anyone hoping to buy a place in the next 10 years is still going to have to save more than £200 a month to stand a chance of getting on the ladder.

A couple can have an individual FTB ISA each so if they both save £12k their total will be £24k with a £6k top up from the Government making it £30k. Outside London the maximum price of a property they can purchase under the scheme will be restricted to £250k.

 

[beorhthelm]

The bit I've highlighted is complete and utter tripe. Totally laughable. Good grief. Tax is a part of civilised society. If you don't like it, I guess you could always go and live in Haiti or some other third world dump?

touched a button? i said we accept tax, the highlighted part was observation that IHT seems to create a strong opinion that we dont see with other taxes - not tripe, you've demonstrated the point so well. i didnt say anything for or against IHT, i find myself torn as i instinctivly dont like it on principle but find the arguments for it, such as you've put, difficult to argue against. i think it gets unnecessary focus, because it affects such a small number of people, and most of with enough wealth to be affected can plan to avoid it. i know ive been the beneficiary of such planning, the wealth of redistributed amongst the younger generations, so as to avoid the tax man having. a sweet irony.

 

[LamieRobertson]

If you read the small print about these first time buyer ISA to get the maximum top up which Osborn mentioned this afternoon you have to save for 4½ years if opening with a £1000 deposit followed by saving £200 a month or 5 years from scratch.

Devil in the detail with most budget announcements....it's the headlines that appeal to the masses

 

[beorhthelm]

Osborne say's that 80% of new job's are full time, yeah either below minimum wage or a zero hour contract, how can you live like that, the budget is totally laced with Tory Propaganda to try and win the sheep over for more votes in May, Well they haven't duped me, only a fool would vote Conservative...only Labour will look after the working class...vote labour if you have any sense... It's Labour or bust in May for the working class...

so you dont dont like the statement, since they cant be zero hours (as its contradiction in terms) just how many jobs are full time then, how many min wage, who says so? if you are going to claim something is wrong and propaganda, then its best not to use propaganda nothing else. why is it that some people dont want to believe that jobs are being created, people are finding employment? its the wrong sort of employment.

Does anyone on this planet believe this?

Borrowing set to fall from £97.5bn in 2013-14 to £90.2bn in 2014-15, £75.3bn in 2015-6, £39.4bn in 2016-7, £12.8bn in 2017-8 before reaching a £5.2bn surplus in 2018-9

Pretty much same as they said 5 years ago and they've put on almost as much debt as every other government in history

if you dont believe it then can we have the alternative forecast. all economic forecasts are always wrong, but thats what the ONS, Treasuray and anyone else who knows is predicting right now, give or take a few %

Yep, those are just numbers plucked from the air with very little basis in reality. Osborne has borrowed like there has been no tomorrow. If FFP applied to governments then he would be facing a transfer embargo or a large fine at the very least.

so what your saying here is Osborne needs to cut more to stop the borrowing. you do realise this is the consequence of all collective spending commitments and policies going back? or we could raise extra 10bn's of taxes, but you wouldnt like that either (and a few billion here and there from 50% income tax and mansion taxes would only dent it). its like blaming Hughton being overbudget on wages because we signed Kemy.

 

[Ernest]

I wonder how long it will be before the budget falls apart ?

 

[Bozza]

I wonder how long it will be before the budget falls apart ?

Good point.

However, the bookies still have David Cameron as their favourite to be the next PM, so it could just be that we won't have to put up with Labour trashing things. Again.

 

[maltaseagull]

Because it does nothing to address the wealth distribution problem we have in this country. I don't care that it is money that has already been taxed. What difference does it make if every £1 in tax is paid for by 80p income tax and 20p inheritance tax or 90p income tax and 10p inheritance tax?

Inheritance tax is by far the fairest tax of all as nobody is being penalised because the person paying it is dead!

Disagree. The threshold does not reflect property prices and punishes a family where the parents have saved and paid for their house so that they can leave a decent amount for their children.Completely agree with the million pound estates being taxed though.

 

[soistes]

Somewhat this but they WILL still get a extra windfall won't they, just less a bit of tax to share around a bit! Funny the sense of entitlement the middle classes have isn't it.

Yes they will, but there's no sense in which they have a right to such a windfall, and if the government chose to tax it even more, further reducing their unearned windfall, I'd have no problem with that. What I cannot understand is why people think that someone has a right to inherit massively, simply because of the 'luck' of being born into a rich family.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'd suggest that one of the biggest bonuses and probably most expensive policies was actually targeted at the younger generations .... namely the 1st Time Buyer ISA.

deck chair manouvers if they dont do something to increase supply. 2nd or 3rd time he's given a prop to help people pay more without addressing the problem. Clegg's rent to buy developments on ex-government land is the only policy ive heard is attempting to do this, dont hear anything about it today though so assume its gone into the long grass.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Completely disagree, the Tories inherited a country on its knees in 79 and brought it back from the dead in the 80's. Of course you can argue the 80's were boom/bust economics, but when Labour took over they inherited a far more prosperous economy than what they had left.

Fast forward to 2010, the Tories inherited a completely mismanaged economy on the brink of economic ruin and have started and developed faster growth than anyone else in the euro zone. So yes, I think it's fair to say they have a much better track record.

You cannot simply take a 5 year period of Labour rule to '79, without having recourse to Ted Heath's own government prior to that. You couldn't argue the the state of the country inherited in '79 was any worse than that left in '74.

You cannot then judge 18 years of power by saying the balance of that is weighed by what Labour left in '79 to what they inherited in '97 - that is just nonsensical. If your judging economics, you have to judge it on objective performance over 18 years, not just what the other party did after or left before.

From '97 to '08, we had 11 years of relatively calm economic stability. Simple in hindsight to say more should have been put away, but as anyone who knows their figures will know, the global financial crash would have taken out any surplus anyway, it would have been a drop in the ocean. The Tories could have no more prevented the huge extent of the financial collapse anymore than I could score a hat trick at 40 yrs old away to Blackburn if Hughton rang me up and told me to clean my boots!

I agree about unhealthy competition for the NHS, and also the dangerous obsession with 'free' and 'academy' status schools. If the trojan horses in Birmingham schools should have proved one thing, is that freedom to create free schools outside of local authority or societies control, we are asking for serious trouble. The obsession with a smaller state is not always a good one.

 

[Ernest]

Good point.

However, the bookies still have David Cameron as their favourite to be the next PM, so it could just be that we won't have to put up with Labour trashing things. Again.

Problem with that is the bookies do not vote Cameron in