To think joke Chancellor Joke Budget joke Government

[Viviennemary]

Its absolutely scarey that this incompetent lot are running the country. Not as bad as Liz Truss but that's hardly a yardstick . Some old Labour. Squeeze the money out of the workers and give it away. They had a real chance to reform benefits they didn't. Now more handouts for folk with large families. While the rest of us pay.

This

It's a shame that SureStart isn't still around. That did so much for the poorest children but fell foul of Tory cuts.

Precisely.
I don't understand what people think the Tories/Greens/Reform would magically do differently.

But unfortunately parents do generally have responsibility for making decisions about how many children to have. There are a great many people just above UC thresholds but on a lower income who can’t claim UC and pay taxes. Why should they effectively pay towards large families that others have chosen to have, but can’t afford?
Of course no child should be left in poverty because of choices their parents make. In your post, you say that you have a ‘large family’ and already struggle. I completely understand that life throws lemons and sometimes people find themselves in situations where they need help and support, through no fault of their own. That is absolutely the role of a caring society. But its irresponsible to have a large family whilst knowing you would struggle financially and need to rely on the state (and others taxes.)
You are right that older people are primary users of the NHS, but actually maternity care, care in childhood and education etc are also considerable costs to the state. As adults, most people are actually a burden to the state. Most people actually take out more than they gain; it’s not as simple as just having bigger families. It is also true that bigger families, especially those who are struggling, tend to need more input from the state generally, benefits aside.
You criticize others for being ‘spiteful’, but talk about busses and GPs being ‘rammed’ with elderly people.
It’s not ‘bitter’ to suggest that perhaps people should think about whether they can afford big families before they decide to have them. Both for the sake of society and the child.

Oh stop it.

You are either ignorant to how government borrowing is costed or you are just being ideological.

The global financial system has a massive impact on the cost of borrowing and it is going up for everyone, not just the UK and in terms of the markets reaction to economic performance - that is a long term view affected by 14 years of very little growth.

Yes, 30 year gilts, which are the ones all of the "High Borrowing Costs!" headlines are focussed on, are expensive, but that doesn't mean the government have to use that mechanism for borrowing. It's like shouting that consumer borrowing costs are at an all time high because Santander are offering a 10 year fixed mortgage rate of 10% - you would just look elsewhere for a shorter fix at a lower rate.

In 1997 public sector net debt (PSND) as a % of GDP was 37.2%, in 2007 (before the financial crash) it was 36.1%, in 2010 it was 70.1%. By 2019 (before covid) it had increased to 84.2% and by 2024 it was 95.0%.

As of October this year it was 94.5% - so Labour may very well have borrowed more but they are investing in public services which is actually stabilising PSND due to some growth.

Public Sector Net Borrowing (PSNB) as a % of GDP was 4.8% in 2023-24. It increased slightly to 5.1% in 2024/25 but is predicted to come down year on year until 2029-30 when it is forecast to be 2.1%.

But the really important indicator is Public sector net financial liabilities (PSNFL) - the is the true cost of government debt against assets (think of it a bit like a Loan to Value amount on a mortgage).

Up until 2008 PSNFL was about 34.1% in 2010 it had increased to 58.6%. By 2019 it was 66.3% and by 2024 was 81.2%. It's forecast to go up over the next couple of years until 27/28 when it starts to come down again, and is forecast to be 82.7% by 2029-30.

So in summary - what all that means is that under the last Conservative government, debt increased (as did taxes) but that money did not go into improving public services therefore the it did not improve PSNFL - the gap between the two widened significantly in fact. So - where did the money go? (and you can't blame Covid, because the gap was increasing pre-covid)

Labour are borrowing more initially, but they are doing so to invest in public services. They are fixing the roof, which in turn increases the value of the house and brings down PSNFL.

To stick with the mortgage analogy - the Tories borrowed against the mortgage and spent the money by pissing it up the wall or on holidays for them and their mates (quite literally in some cases), while the house fell apart due to lack of investment and the house's occupants failed to increase their earning potential.

Labour are borrowing more initially, but they are doing so to fix the roof and make sure the house is functional while supporting the occupants with education and a financial boost to get them back out to work. Yes, it increases debt in the short term, but over the next five to seven years, the value of the house increases and earnings potential goes up which means that Loan to Value gap gets a whole lot smaller.

It's exactly what happened in the between 1997 and 2001 and its happening again - if you dig into the funding figures for education and the NHS you can see it.

I think RR has got a lot of things wrong in this budget (the freezing of the basic rate thresholds, pensions and ISA changes are mad), but it is no where as bad as it could have been and some of the things are spot on (like the increase in dividend tax - and I say that as a higher rate business owner whose main income is dividends).

However, even with the things I don't agree with, I think some of it is a tactic - look at the dates when it is coming in - most are in 2 or 3 years time. She is giving the markets confidence that she is increasing taxes to manage the deficit, which will reduce borrowing costs - by the time we get to 2028 and 2029, if the investments in services have had the impact they should have, growth will have increased and borrowing will have come down, which means she can probably reverse some of these decisions!

So it hardly affects you and so you feel pretty good about it 🤣 Well wont that surprise absolutely no one.

I like many many others have studied as an adult, improved my chances of earning more, stopped at a small family due to cost - only to now be worse off in my pocket than I was. It’s ok though because my £5.5k commuter train fair will be frozen. Hooray for trying so hard to better myself

Wow how rude and aggressive torsten bell on sky!!

what benefit is she increasing other than maintaining the triple lock on pensions?

Which was a joke that other chancellors had made to their successors. Bear in mind that we'd just gone through a banking crash caused by greedy banks repackaging junk debt as triple A rated bonds. it drove our debt to GDP ratio to 60%. 13 years of tory rule drove it to 80% and then covid drove it to 100/%.

She is increasing benefits for larger families. I don't want my taxes going to subsidise people who have more children than they can afford.

Maybe Ms Reeves should have called everyone’s bluff and said ‘that’s it, we can’t afford the NHS. Off you pop and either pay as you go or get insured’.
because honestly, what is the alternative when so many (on here at least) wail and whine that they’re paying too much? We need to be healthier, fitter, and cross our fingers for good health unless we want to pay more.

I was expecting a car crash budget by the way and don’t think this is it.

Also, amusingly, my children will both be paying the mansion tax, and we won’t 😂

I’d personally like a tax rebate for the thousands I spend per year on private health insurance & private GP appointments. Why should I pay for the NHS when it’s so dysfunctional that my family and I can no longer use it?

It’s going to be considerably more than that.

You aren’t the only one who thinks the only change is that a parent gets another chunk of child benefit. It triggers all sorts of other benefits

Blimey. Have you got children that both own houses worth over £2 million…

He was wasn’t he? Clearly has an agenda to forfill whilst of course making sure that personally he and his family are full protected.

Where is the growth? Bar the people who choose to have large families.

This stupid feckless government are only in for one term. Reform isnt the answer but a collation between them and the Conservatives- now that would be something to see.

Can't see how this is a growth budget.

I’m old. My children earn money and live in an expensive part of the country and I don’t.
I imagine this won’t be an unusual situation.

It’s not. It’s a tax people so markets and back benchers don’t react one.

It’s sad really. The people who have worked hard and pushed themselves for more now can’t afford more than two children while those on benefits can pop out as many as they want and get us to pay for them! Can’t wait to see what sort of state the country is in another twenty years from now 🤣

This. I agree.

The NHS was brilliant then, funding for education great too. Previously poster a little mixed up perhaps.

Genuine question;

If high(er) taxes mean the rich will leave in droves (which is highly disputed, btw), then why do the Scandinavian countries still have wealthy people living there?

They pay far more tax than we do, and have a much higher standard of living to show for it.

This

Could be a conservative they exist still. Kemi was absolutely on fire in her counter speech.