Budget 2011

[Mark]

Well the headline is that the planned 4p rise in fuel duty has given way to a 1p (1.20 Incl VAT) cut. Which means I'll buy my fuel tomorrow morning instead. Not that it will make much difference considering the rises we've had recently. About 6p per litre in just the last few weeks.

[Mark]

Alex Salmond pointing out that it's gone up by 20p in the last year so 1p is meaningless. Of course he's not happy because of the increased tax on North Sea oil.

[Dave B]

The VAT rise in January increased the price of fuel, but the main rise of course is the pre-tax cost of the stuff itself. So the 1p cut makes near as dammit no difference and in any case will likely be negated by the rise in oil prices in the next few weeks. Plus the oil companies are being forced to pay more so are likely to pass that on to their customers anyway. Thanks for nothing, Osborne!

[Dave B]

Aside from the fuel duty, we also have a "green tax" on energy bills with the carbon price rising to £30/tonne - so higher bills. Then subsidies for some SW water customers (http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/20110323/pennon-welcomes-budget-help-for-sw-water-bills.htm)even though their privatised supplier made £132M profit last year (http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/news_story.asp?id=158235&title=Profits+surge+15.3+per+cent+at+South+West+Wa ter's+parent+Pennon).

Tax cut is <50p/week in real terms, easily outweighed by the VAT rise and escalating fuel costs. All of this in a budget where the Chancellor had to admit that his growth forecasts were flawed.

[Dave B]

Nice dodge from the Chancellor on alcohol prices, bringing in a 7.2% rise on duty (http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=69257&c=1)planned under the previous government but barely mentioning it - adding around 4p to a pint. They talk of cutting the duty on a pint with less than 2.8%ABV, but when's the last time you saw such a weak beer? That's not even a shandy!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

According to the BBC website caluclater I'll be paying over £300 less income tax/national insurance per year.

[wedge]

Much ado about nothing

[Mark]

Diesel was the same price this morning as it was last night :hmph:

[Dave B]

BBC Breakfast were saying that many of their viewers noticed garages increasing the price over the last day or so in preparation for passing on the 1p cut yesterday. The Chancellor dismissed this with a vague nod to the "free market" and saying that consumers were free to shop around.

Anyway, it's a masterstoke, this budget. We're all talking about fuel prices and nobody's really discussing the fact that the Treasury have had to downgrade their growth targets because their austerity measures simply aren't working. If you're one of the hundreds of thousands facing redundancy you have bigger things to worry about than whether petrol is 131.9 or 132.9 per litre.

[Dave B]

According to the BBC website caluclater I'll be paying over £300 less income tax/national insurance per year.
How much more VAT will you be paying since it went up to 20%?

[Mark]

Indeed, no mention of that fact that our department at University alone is facing a £300,000 shortfall this year so jobs have to go, mine included.

[ArrowsFA1]

Anyway, it's a masterstoke, this budget. We're all talking about fuel prices and nobody's really discussing the fact that the Treasury have had to downgrade their growth targets because their austerity measures simply aren't working. If you're one of the hundreds of thousands facing redundancy you have bigger things to worry about than whether petrol is 131.9 or 132.9 per litre.
:up:


Mr Osborne's real hope for an economic renaissance is just that – a hope. He is betting the farm on the Bank of England keeping interest rates ultra-low for a long time to come, and for private businesses to thrive and expand...This is not so much a growth strategy as a hope-for-growth strategy; an epic gamble that is already failing to pay off...Sticking to Plan A when the economy is weakening so fast will look less like necessary toughness and more like political dogma.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/budget-osborne-growth?intcmp=239

[Mark]

Low base rates matter not one bit while banks lending charges remain high.

Before the current low rates we had a very high rate of interest (which is partly what caused the downturn IMO) a lot of banks, building societies etc didn't reduce the cost of their products in line with the decreases, so even now we're still paying based on what the interest rates were over 3 years ago.

[ArrowsFA1]

Mr Osborne said ministers would be "watching like hawks" and would be wanting to "make sure" the tax rise was not passed on to motorists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12844157?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

That's alright then :dozey:

[Bezza]

To be fair, what did you want the budget to be, and what would it have been were it Labour in charge?

I am undecided on the new budget at the moment, but would be interested in seeing what the posters above think about my question.

[Retro Formula 1]

I think we just need to deal with whatever comes at the moment until things pick up.

Lets just hope that these measures work.

[Dave B]

To be fair, what did you want the budget to be, and what would it have been were it Labour in charge?

I wanted a budget (rather, a government) that would tackle the deficit at a far more sensible rate while investing for the future, rather than slashing and burning with ideological zeal. Sod the price of petrol, it's irrelevant if you haven't got a job.

[Dave B]

Lets just hope that these measures work.
Quite. I desperately want to be wrong. I want the economy to pick up, and will be the first to praise the government if it turns out they had the right plan.

[Retro Formula 1]

Quite. I desperately want to be wrong. I want the economy to pick up, and will be the first to praise the government if it turns out they had the right plan.

There is no right or wrong here. No moral high ground or Party alliance.

We really are "all in this together" and better just hope that the current bunch have the right idea and wont make it any worse. I'm nervous and I think we all know we're in the sh*t as the next couple of years will be hard but hopefully it will be worth it and we can breathe again.

[Dave B]

There is no right or wrong here.
The way I see it, if the economy improves then - regardless of who is in Number 10 - that is "right". :)

[Mark]

I think there were two competing strategies, Tory of get rid of the deficit (or at least back to pre-disaster levels) in this parliament, or Labours halving of the deficit in this parliament.

They both have merits, with Labours it would take longer to pay off but it would hurt the economy less in the process. The Tories seem to be based around the idea that if we are seen to be getting our finances under control quickly then the cost our debt will be lower as our debt rating will be better.

It does remain to be seen what happens. But I disagree that 'we're all in it together', as some of us will lose our jobs and some won't. i.e. The pain will be spread around disproportionately.

I think we're unlikely to see a Labour government returned in the next election, so we're with this lot (perhaps without the LibDems support) until 2020.

[SGWilko]

Fact of the matter is thus;

Inflation is high because -

Miidle East Uncertainty pushing up crude prices, which in turn push up fuel prices. Higher the fuel price, the more public transport, flights, food (transported primarily by road) car travel etc will cost the consumer.

VAT rise.

Clothing - Chinese demanding better wages.

All these factors are putting strain on the buying power of the public.

The less we spend, the less the Govt takes in VAT.

The less the Govt takes, the more cut backs we have to face.

Upping the interest rate to curb inflation will not work, because most inflationary pressures are due to outside factors.

No one is buying houses, folk are cutting back, oap's are eating into their savings.

Until the housing market goes bang, we are in a stalemate.

Fuel will never again fall below £1/litre.

Batten down the hatches and brace yourselves, because it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better.

On a lighter note, cheer up - soon be Friday....... ;)

[Dave B]

I thought I'd tack this on the end of an existing thread rather than start another...

GDP figures were out this morning and growth's almost stangant at 0.2%. Apparently it's partly due to the Royal Wedding (which I'm sure we were told would stimulate the economy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11766777)); and amazingly the Chancellor is also blaming the good weather we enjoyed earlier this year.

That's right, good weather is partly to blame for the stagnation of our economy.

Except... except.. hang on: didn't Osborne blame the poor weather for the contraction of the economy last quarter? Let's check:

nKmvIjifv-o

Yes, he did.

[Daniel]

I thought I'd tack this on the end of an existing thread rather than start another...

GDP figures were out this morning and growth's almost stangant at 0.2%. Apparently it's partly due to the Royal Wedding (which I'm sure we were told would stimulate the economy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11766777)); and amazingly the Chancellor is also blaming the good weather we enjoyed earlier this year.

That's right, good weather is partly to blame for the stagnation of our economy.

Except... except.. hang on: didn't Osborne blame the poor weather for the contraction of the economy last quarter? Let's check:

nKmvIjifv-o

Yes, he did.

What a monumental cock.

[Dave B]

Even The Telegraph, a newspaper which practically oozes Tory blue blood, is turning on the Chancellor:



In all, the Office for National Statistics estimates that special factors – which it lists as the additional bank holiday for the royal wedding, the royal wedding itself, the after effects of the Great East Japan earthquake, the first phase of Olympic ticket sales, and record warm weather in April – cost approximately 0.5pc points of growth. If this is added back, then the 0.2pc growth announced on Tuesday for the second quarter doesn’t look so bad.

All the same, it’s quite bad enough, and the truth of the matter is that there are always once off special factors battering the economic statistics. They were not obviously more intense in the last quarter than any other. Why not just put the whole economic crisis down to special factors and be done with it?

Weak growth may force Chancellor into further austerity (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100011079/weak-growth-may-force-chancellor-into-further-austerity/)

[Robinho]

there are 2 things I am blaming the state of the UK both socially and economically (apart from the Muslamic Ray guns guy) and thats these


BBC News - NHS 'ill-prepared to deal with obese patients' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14276445)

£1.4bn a year spent by the NHS on Obese folk, who now don't have enough large and reinforced beds and wheelchairs

BBC News - Tests claim few benefit claimants 'unfit to work' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14280849)

Of 1.3 million sickness benefit claimants tested, only 88k could not actually perform any work.

How are the rest of us supposed to get anywhere, regardless of which lot are in charge (only the names change, the policies are largely the same) when we are saddled with supporting an army of obese, work shy scroungers.

[Daniel]

there are 2 things I am blaming the state of the UK both socially and economically (apart from the Muslamic Ray guns guy) and thats these


BBC News - NHS 'ill-prepared to deal with obese patients' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14276445)

£1.4bn a year spent by the NHS on Obese folk, who now don't have enough large and reinforced beds and wheelchairs

BBC News - Tests claim few benefit claimants 'unfit to work' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14280849)

Of 1.3 million sickness benefit claimants tested, only 88k could not actually perform any work.

How are the rest of us supposed to get anywhere, regardless of which lot are in charge (only the names change, the policies are largely the same) when we are saddled with supporting an army of obese, work shy scroungers.

I'm sorry, but having seen a few reports of late I doubt that only 88k of the 1.3 million on sickness benefits are genuinely sick.

[tfp]

Indeed, no mention of that fact that our department at University alone is facing a £300,000 shortfall this year so jobs have to go, mine included.

Sorry to hear about that :(

[tfp]

I'm sorry, but having seen a few reports of late I doubt that only 88k of the 1.3 million on sickness benefits are genuinely sick.

Grrrr! :devil: :mad: :angryfire

[Daniel]

Grrrr! :devil: :mad: :angryfire

?

[GridGirl]

I'm sorry, but having seen a few reports of late I doubt that only 88k of the 1.3 million on sickness benefits are genuinely sick.

Robinho stated from the link that only 88,000 of the 1.3 million on sickness benefits could not perform any work at all. I would have actually thought that this figure maybe slightly higher. I interpret your post as you thinking this figure should be lower. Maybe its just the wording.

[ArrowsFA1]

How are the rest of us supposed to get anywhere, regardless of which lot are in charge (only the names change, the policies are largely the same) when we are saddled with supporting an army of obese, work shy scroungers.
That's the fat cats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_cat_(term)) you're talking about right? :p :

[Daniel]

Robinho stated from the link that only 88,000 of the 1.3 million on sickness benefits could not perform any work at all. I would have actually thought that this figure maybe slightly higher. I interpret your post as you thinking this figure should be lower. Maybe its just the wording.

Maybe the wording, what i was saying was that of those people there are probably more than 88k that can't perform any work at all.

[Retro Formula 1]

Maybe the wording, what i was saying was that of those people there are probably more than 88k that can't perform any work at all.

The whole idea ESA was to ensure that the massively inflated cost for Disability benefit was addressed so that the people that needed help received it and the people that were swinging the lead were stopped from fraudulently claiming benefit.



7% were incapable of any work[/*:m:3hqvcnd3]
17% were able to do some sort of work given the correct support[/*:m:3hqvcnd3]
39% were deemed to be fit for work and were moved onto jobseeker's allowance[/*:m:3hqvcnd3]
36% dropped out of the application process[/*:m:3hqvcnd3]
1% of applications were still in progress[/*:m:3hqvcnd3]
75% of the people claiming incapacity benefit didn't deserve it.

[tfp]

?

It just angers me how many people on benefits that I have to pay for. Theres single mothers that live near me, with 2, 3, or 4 kids and they bring in more money in benefits that what I earn at work.

[Daniel]

It just angers me how many people on benefits that I have to pay for. Theres single mothers that live near me, with 2, 3, or 4 kids and they bring in more money in benefits that what I earn at work.

Of course, but if someone is genuinely disabled?

[Daniel]

The whole idea ESA was to ensure that the massively inflated cost for Disability benefit was addressed so that the people that needed help received it and the people that were swinging the lead were stopped from fraudulently claiming benefit.



7% were incapable of any work[/*:m:1v5yvz6t]
17% were able to do some sort of work given the correct support[/*:m:1v5yvz6t]
39% were deemed to be fit for work and were moved onto jobseeker's allowance[/*:m:1v5yvz6t]
36% dropped out of the application process[/*:m:1v5yvz6t]
1% of applications were still in progress[/*:m:1v5yvz6t]
75% of the people claiming incapacity benefit didn't deserve it.
Oh I definitely don't disagree that a lot of people don't deserve it, perhaps even the majority. But if I can dig the reports up they were saying that people who were actually genuinely disabled were fit for work.

[Malbec]

I think there were two competing strategies, Tory of get rid of the deficit (or at least back to pre-disaster levels) in this parliament, or Labours halving of the deficit in this parliament.

I honestly don't think this is true TBH. In the hospital I worked at in the buildup to the election the Chief Exec had informed most departments that Whitehall had leaked to them that if Labour won they should expect an immediate budget cut across the NHS of 10% and they should assume the Tories would do the same. Even though the Tories have spared the NHS of most cuts 10% is still similar to the overall cuts made.

Regarding Osborne's latest comments I can see how the Japanese earthquake hit production in the UK and how that would have affected the economy but the weather and royal wedding? I don't think so.

[tfp]

Of course, but if someone is genuinely disabled?

Oh yeah, thats understandable. I had a family member who had MS...Gimme full time work for a crap wage over having any sort of disability and benefits any day. The trouble is, too many people abuse the system, and it ends up with us paying for people who are no less healthy or unhealthy than those of us who work full time. Thats what annoys me.

[driveace]

Carn,t or dont want to?A lot of these agency,s are now checking out a lot of these"disabled" persons,who cannot work AND find them playing football,golf,go cart racing,cycle racing etc.We the workers are paying these for these people,to not work.
i personally know a guy,an ex police car driver ,who lost his arm after a motorcycle accident,he is now a DSA registered Driving Instructor.i admire the guy as its a job where you really do need 2 arms,to be able to take "control" in an emergency,but hats off to this guy,he probably dos,nt class himself as disabled!

[Daniel]

Carn,t or dont want to?A lot of these agency,s are now checking out a lot of these"disabled" persons,who cannot work AND find them playing football,golf,go cart racing,cycle racing etc.We the workers are paying these for these people,to not work.
i personally know a guy,an ex police car driver ,who lost his arm after a motorcycle accident,he is now a DSA registered Driving Instructor.i admire the guy as its a job where you really do need 2 arms,to be able to take "control" in an emergency,but hats off to this guy,he probably dos,nt class himself as disabled!

Oh I certainly agree that there are a lot of people out there who either simply don't have disabilities or who have disabilities and could work in some way.

What's to say however that someone who is genuinely disabled and unable to find work shouldn't be allowed to enjoy themselves and perhaps take part in sport to some extent? Yes of course if someone is playing rugby or climing mountains then they're more than likely not disabled, but is it not the right of someone who is disabled to perhaps have a game of something that they enjoy or should their life be a joyless one full of staring out the window like some vegetable fearing to do anything enjoyable in case you're seen as being able bodied when in reality you're not.....

[Daniel]

Oh yeah, thats understandable. I had a family member who had MS...Gimme full time work for a crap wage over having any sort of disability and benefits any day. The trouble is, too many people abuse the system, and it ends up with us paying for people who are no less healthy or unhealthy than those of us who work full time. Thats what annoys me.

Definitely and these people need to be stopped. But for the conservatives to come out and try and clean up the welfare system is a bit of a populist move and one that will inevitably hurt a lot of genuine claimants. We have to ask ourselves, do we want people who would otherwise be hardworking and contributing members of the community to be made homeless or become a burden upon their families just to get at the people abusing the system?

[BDunnell]

Oh yeah, thats understandable. I had a family member who had MS...Gimme full time work for a crap wage over having any sort of disability and benefits any day. The trouble is, too many people abuse the system, and it ends up with us paying for people who are no less healthy or unhealthy than those of us who work full time. Thats what annoys me.

A. Define 'too many'.

B. How do you know that 'too many' do?

[Malbec]

B. How do you know that 'too many' do?

Under the current system whereby a GP or other doctor has to write a report indicating whether the patient is disabled or not, in my experience most doctors would err on the side of agreeing that the patient is disabled. This is for several reasons including preserving the doctor/patient relationship and trust and because people who know how to play the system will know of conditions that cannot be physically disproved. Hence many more people are labelled disabled than genuinely are. My GP friends have many people on their lists they strongly suspect are playing the system but are unable to do anything about it.

This is not to say that I disagree with the current method of assessment but it is definitely the case.