I'm unbelievably ill informed and stupid.

[Lola247]

Can anyone explain the budget to me in simple terms please?

And has gone back up today…

I am saying we should start from a position that every tax must be justified - unless there is justification for a tax it should not happen. Obviously there are many things the government must pay for (street lights being one possibility) and these things can justify charging tax for, so we will all have to pay some taxes.

Others seem to be arguing the there must be justification to keep money - obviously people need money for food and housing so money to pay for that shouldn’t be removed as tax. But above that we should have to justify keeping it. For example, if money is in their view ‘unearned’ then we shouldn’t be allowed to keep as much of it as if it is ‘earned’.

What do you mean by justifying a tax? The budget lays out what needs to be doesnt and where the money will come from. That’s justification, isn’t it?

Edit: on unearned income - you pay a lot less tax on that usually. That’s something that was being pushed more towards equalisation in the budget. You don’t lose more of it in tax.

None of this is actually true. We don't have high unemployment or high tax. Interest is comparable with other countries

It won't affect employees on zero hours contracts though. Only employers. Employers can't make their zero hours people self employed - that's illegal.

Don't switch if they've dropped already. Then you just bake in the loss. Wait and they'll go up again.

Also you'd be better off investing the majority outside the UK and spreading it around different countries and continents so that you aren't at the mercy of every government policy.

Actually, a large number voted strategically just to GTTO, rather than positively voting FOR another party or their aims. I'm not sure this will be the governing situation for very long, certainly not in the realms of 14 years.

I would agree with you on unemployment. Our unemployment rate using the ILO definition is around the G7 average. Higher than Germany and the US, but below France and below the Eurozone generally.

On tax, I disagree. As a percentage of GDP, our taxes are in the top ten in the world according to the World Bank. All parties were predicting a rise in tax as a percentage of GDP over the next few years. Looking at the figures in this budget, Labour are raising taxes almost twice as much as they said in their manifesto. Unless things change, we will hit a new post-war high by the end of this parliament.

Whether our interest rates are comparable with other countries depends on which countries you look at! We are nowhere near Venezuela (59.26%), Turkey (50%), Japan (0.25%) or Switzerland (1%). However, we are pretty much in the middle of the table. Whether we will stay there depends on what happens. If analysts are right that this budget will delay falls in interest rates, it is likely that we will start moving up the table (i.e. towards being high compared to other countries).

You can think what you like but enough people voted for a party that believes in taxes and government planning to allow them to form a government.

Only 20% of the electorate did. It is crazy that was enough.

33.7% of the vote though. And I know many, many people who wanted to vote Labour but voted tactically to get Tories out (and some who voted Labour for similar reasons) so the absolute figures are a bit misleading this year.
We’ve been endlessly told you can’t use the whole electorate figure with regard to Brexit because you can’t assume who would have voted which way. Maybe the 40% who didn’t boat at all would all have voted Labour but didn’t bother because their victory looked certain? For sure I think people who wanted Tories would have turned out because it was clear their vote was needed.

Fewer voted Labour this time than last time. Reform split the Tory vote. If Reform hadn’t stood then it is likely the Tories would have got considerably more seats - between them they had 38% of the vote. But, unlike Brexit, it is not the total vote that counts; it is the number voting in each constituency.

I thought the Tories had run out of steam and needed a period in opposition, but I also think the very large Labour majority is a disaster. I can only hope they have sufficient ready to rebel for those to join opposing parties in order for Parliament to be able to hold the government to account on poor legislation.

I also think a significant portion of those who didn’t vote did so because they actively felt they couldn’t support any party rather than general antipathy to voting.

And lots voted Lib Dem or green in constituencies where that would get rid of the Tory. You can’t judge as much as usual from the vote. It’s irrelevant in FPTP anyway.

You don’t get to decide that though. Decisions are made by those who do turn out.

Out of interest, were you also so concerned about Johnson’s huge majority?

Boris had a majority of 80, including a lot who had already shown willingness to rebel (the Tories do a lot of in-fighting). So whilst a concern, not as much as a Labour majority of 174.

Tories don’t in fight as much as Labour usually.
I do get the concern. But I also think it’s important for a quick turnaround from Tory chaos for the new government to be able to move with few impediments, at least for a while.

I would be happier with a majority of 20 or so as then the Labour leadership would have had to listen to their backbenchers.

So you want a few back benchers representing a few constituents to have lots of power?
our parliamentary system isn’t great, but if it’s the one we are having then the elected government doing what it was elected to do is a reasonable outcome.

🙄

As opposed to? It is difficult to find the ideal balance.

How come that they can't find the money for the winter fuel allowance but to reduce a pint of beer by 1p,.it makes no sense. 1p will not be felt it's totally ridiculous.

It is, but I think some kind of proportional representation would be better. It more often leads to coalition and more consensus politics.

Ha! Ruled by a mad fringe party made up of individuals no body voted for but whose party 94% of voters in their region voted against, and who represent their party not constituents?

Not biased then.