What is Hammond going to do, bland out or pull some rabbits out of the hat?
I think Gove is behind the plastic packaging tax initiative & I'm for it myself, we create too much rubbish, its unsustainable, I see it like the clean air acts of the 60's.
What do you think he'll do? I think.
Plastic tax - as above.
Car tax - above inflation increases, easy hit.
Fuel Duty - Diesel to be hit most.
VAT & NI - no changes
Income tax - allowance increases as planned
Student loans - above inflation raising of repayment threshold
Local Tax - make students landlords liable for their tenants
Stamp Duty - some cuts aimed at 1st time buyers
Housing - more building, probably a little disappointing
Pension- reduction in annual relief threshold (currently £40K/pa gets tax relief)
Public sector pay - above 1% but not as much as 3%, say 1.5%
Brexit - extra spending
What is Hammond going to do, bland out or pull some rabbits out of the hat?
I think Gove is behind the plastic packaging tax initiative & I'm for it myself, we create too much rubbish, its unsustainable, I see it like the clean air acts of the 60's.
What do you think he'll do? I think.
Plastic tax - as above.
Car tax - above inflation increases, easy hit.
Fuel Duty - Diesel to be hit most.
VAT & NI - no changes
Income tax - allowance increases as planned
Student loans - above inflation raising of repayment threshold
Local Tax - make students landlords liable for their tenants
Stamp Duty - some cuts aimed at 1st time buyers
Housing - more building, probably a little disappointing
Pension- reduction in annual relief threshold (currently £40K/pa gets tax relief)
Public sector pay - above 1% but not as much as 3%, say 1.5%
Brexit - extra spending
A better idea for student loans would be to decrease or remove the interest charged, rather than increasing the threshold.
I also think the plastic tax is a great idea. So wasteful the amount created that then can't be effectively recycled.
You are a fool, most students will never earn enough to pay back the full debt therefore cutting the interest ensures that the better paid will be taxed less in the long run.
Why cutting the student loan interest rate will only help richer graduates… - Martin Lewis' Blog...
May as well have a more progressive tax system, and do away with the loans...You are a fool, most students will never earn enough to pay back the full debt therefore cutting the interest ensures that the better paid will be taxed less in the long run.
Why cutting the student loan interest rate will only help richer graduates… - Martin Lewis' Blog...
I'm going to take a wild guess it means more money to Birmingham and nothing for us.What does the "second devolution deal for West Midlands" entail?
Part 1 FYII'm going to take a wild guess it means more money to Birmingham and nothing for us.
:beaver:Any pay rises for public sector?
Bit of a nothing budget really. Other than confirmation that the magic money tree has sprouted a couple of more branches. Hardly surprising given the amount of horse shit the government feed it.
Tony, if I thought for a second that you understood the economic environment that Hammond is facing, then I'd debate with you. As it is, I'll just point out that you complain constantly that not enough is being spent and then complain when more is spent, albeit without throwing everything into the air and abandoning necessary constraints.
Anyway, the big positive for me is that even with the OBR's dour predictions on growth, borrowing will reach an apex versus GDP this year and start to fall soon.
"OBR's dour predictions on growth"
I wonder why that is?
"borrowing will reach an apex versus GDP this year and start to fall soon."
Good news, as long as the projected growth and revenues stay on target, there seems to be a lot of downgrading going on at the minute
They explained in their report why that was - productivity. These have been out for a while - read several articles over the last weekend on their predictions. They may be overly pessimistic - we will see.
I read these are the lowest ever growth predictions over the course of an entire budget but it was on Twitter so may not be true.
Lack of productivity is a double edged sword. It won't improve without spend on things like training and infrastructure but that means more borrowing or more cuts elsewhere.
When they're constantly missing targets, juggling the forecasts from one session to the next, plus all the dilemmas around Brexit...how anybody (not just the tories, the independent advisory bodies) can predict the growth by 2022 amazes me. Phil's going on about balancing the books by 2025 now - thought all the pain we've had to endure with Osborne was supposed to have virtually wiped that out by now?.....
Anyway, the big positive for me is that even with the OBR's dour predictions on growth, borrowing will reach an apex versus GDP this year and start to fall soon.
There are huge investments in infrastructure (HS2 and crossrail) but they aren't there yet. But I agree. And yet the majority of the investment has to come from private commerce.
I think the biggest factor is all tied up with low-skilled labour and pay. Because labour is cheap, firms have no incentive to invest in tools to increase productivity. I think this is tied up with an over-supply of cheap labour from the EU, but... given unemployment is so low and net immigration is starting to fall (but still positive), I'm more optimistic that higher wages will come and that in its turn will increase investment and productivity. So I'm more optimistic than the OBR: but only if a) Brexit talks go well b) the government can hang on. I know we differ on the effects of the Labour party's plans so let's take it as a given that you disagree with me on the Tories hanging on being a prerequisite for improved productivity and growth.
Tony, if I thought for a second that you understood the economic environment that Hammond is facing, then I'd debate with you. As it is, I'll just point out that you complain constantly that not enough is being spent and then complain when more is spent, albeit without throwing everything into the air and abandoning necessary constraints.
Anyway, the big positive for me is that even with the OBR's dour predictions on growth, borrowing will reach an apex versus GDP this year and start to fall soon.
Would the HS2 budget, which is huge, be better spent on improving current infrastructure and training?
I worked with a contractor who lived close to part of the route so he'd looked into it quite a bit and though HS2 was a massive waste of money that would be better spent in the areas I've mentioned. It's not something I know a great deal about.
Why on earth are they questioning McDonnell on nationalisation, which would be years after a Labour win with no election due until 2022, on the day of a Conservative budget?
It would be better spent on almost anything than hs2 which is a government way to move cash into their mates businesses, I bet they wouldn't dare ask the people if they think it's a good use of money as they no the answer will come back no
McDonnell talks complete nonsense & can't explain how he is going to raise money for all his hare brained schemes. Neil owns him.
HS2 is infrastructure (replying to Clint). And taking the opinion of some bloke who lives near to the route as an expert voice doesn't cut it for me. I also know next to nothing about the economic benefits from a faster train service; although I'm pretty sure I could build a model I don't know the value of realistic input parameters*. Has it been done? Does anyone have any links? Because a proper independent model of the benefits is the way to determine if it's worth it. What I will say, is that it's an attempt to encourage economic growth beyond London - and so it cannot be all bad.
I'd take you more seriously Terry if you avoided daft conspiracy theories.
--
* Project productivity benefits over 50 years. Project wealth and GDP benefits over 50 years (and importantly the distribution of that: does it mean that more jobs stay in the UK because instead of off-shoring firms choose onshore remote sites? Does it mean that better paid jobs in the Midlands and the North mean fewer people are dependent on benefits?)
Take all this data and project the benefit to tax income for each year. Discount that benefit to a total as of completion date. How many years of the discounted projection are needed to equal the project investment cost?
Note that this is slightly different from a standard Return on Investment (RoI) calculation because the benefits will differ each year following completion.
I'd be suspicious of any claim that it wasn't worth the investment that didn't quote the payback time in years. That includes people who think that it's a conspiracy to pay money to the rich... even though it was an initiative started by Labour.
You seem to be implying a bit of nimbyism and to be honest it did cross my mind when I was talking to the guy.
Just dipping by, but my answer is... yes, yes it is appropriate.I know the theory but I don't know realistic numbers - but is it a good thing to borrow even more just now for nationalisations when it could put even more significant pressure on public finances? What benefit would renationalising have for the public purse (I understand that if they could cut prices by 20% it would benefit users of the services - but for how long if government finances are under the cosh)?
Just dipping by, but my answer is... yes, yes it is appropriate.
Personally I wouldn't cut prices. You talk about ideological, but certain industries were definitely privatised because of an ideological crusade, not for any long-term sense... and certainly the income was a short-term gain as the family silver was sold off.
The idea is that if industries make a profit, that money is then channelled into other services as the profit goes back into the public purse, rather than to outside investors. In the case of utility companies, the irony is that often the money in the form of dividends gets channelled back into other countries' nationalised industries, as they have been allowed to buy ours!
When it comes to the railways, it was absolute madness to end up in a situation where we have to subsidise loss-making routes, whilst profits on the popular ones end up not cross-subsidising those loss-making elements, but instead half the time go to outside investors.
When our industries were privatised in the 80s, you could make a case for some of them (British Leyland being a case in point, although arguably we'd have been better off following the French model with Renault, investing in new tooling and new models, and therefore still having a national car making industry, as opposed to profits going to other countries) but areas such as the public utilities and the rail service were utterly bonkers.
Long term, we're far far better off bringing them in-house.
And yes, I will add the ideological element that it's scandalous to make money out of people staying warm and drinking water. That should be about the service first, and profit second.
And as an aside, if you do cut prices of utilities, then that means people have more disposable income to spend elsewhere, therefore boosting the economy.
Or... they have more disposable income to swallow a tax hike to pay for other services, therefore allowing it to be a relatively painless redistribution of finances.
And I've explained why it's a good idea.If debt were 40% of GDP and we were adding 1% on top I could agree with you. But it isn't, and I have explained why it's a bad idea now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?