The budget 2014

[VikkiMumsnet]

George Osborne is all set to deliver this year's budget on Wednesday 19th March.

Here's a useful link for what's expected to be covered. Headline issues are likely to include property tax and stamp duty, as well as an increase in the personal tax allowance (up to £10,000).

What do you want to see as part of the budget, and what are you dreading coming up? Share your thoughts below.

Contrarian
Why add to the public payroll though? Why not collect centrally (cheaply) and distribute locally?
Why not keep the whole darned lot local and get rid of the massive central bureaucracies?

Collect it in Blackpool, Account for it in Blackpool, Spend it in Blackpool.
Why send it to London at all?

Because you'd be replicating functions many many times over. Aslo, HMRC has fewer and fewer local offices in any event (though they work to a central system). Also, you've stumbled across the other reason why such a system would not be ideal. Places like Blackpool (and many northern cities) would struggle to collect sufficient revenue to meet their needs. Also, how would rural communities survive?

Contrarian
At present, grants from Central Government utterly dwarf the amounts collected in council tax - its around 80% of LA income
hence why council taxes and precepts have stayed the same but council income has been cut by 6% a year every year for the last 4 years

there will always be transfers between areas, but if the amount paid by local taxpayers actually reflected local spending then democratic accountability would return

and how many rural communities are not part of larger counties ?

Laura
Small government
what would you have stopped?
what would you have transferred to "other sectors" and where would THEY get the money from?

Talkin Absolutely, the vast majority of a local authority's income is derived from central government. I don't know if council income has been cut though - perhaps it just hasn't risen in line with inflation (which I guess amounts to a cut)

East Anglia (Norfolk/Suffolk/Cambridgeshire/Lincolnshire) would be particualrly hard hit. There are just too few people across which to spread the burden. Especially as providing services over sparsely popoulated areas is in itself expensive.

I'll allow Laura the right to reply, but I can think of a few things......

Contrarian
I don't know if council income has been cut though

In the real world I do public sector audits
the cut has been 6% per year in cash terms
so funding that was £100m in 2010 is £78m now
despite the fact that inflation has been running at over 3% (and utility and rural inflation at double that) for each of those years

hence why libraries are closing, sure start is closing, rural bus services have been emasculated, meals on wheels are no longer hot etc etc etc

and those who have been hit are those least able to stand on their own two feet
(its rather hard to get a job when you have a child needing hospital appointments twice a week and physio every day, three times a day)

I don't think so, because the charitable sector would fill the breech - as it did years ago

But only for those that they consider deserving. It is too simplistic to think it would work. A state funded safety net is a better guarantee.

"the charitable sector"
and where do THEY get their money from?

at present its largely direct grants from central government,

if that stopped, they would all be knocking on the door of rich people like Laura and her daughters

I agree with Laura and Contrarian, we really do need to reduce the size of the state.

But please, dear god, no increases in local authorities. Have you ever dealt with a local authority?

Unprofessional, slow, sloppy, very mediocre management, corrupt procurement and 'jobs for the boys'. It's all well and good to support localism as an ideology but, dear god, NOT by growing local govt.

BTW Council tax has very low payment rate and huge swathes of households have defaulted or not paid so not the most reliable form of income. I don't know the figure but remember this mentioned when I did work for a loc authority (sadly...)

Also re the state supporting the 'vulnerable' this is a small request I'm just putting out there to all to pleasestop using the term 'the most vulnerable in society'.

It is used ALL the time on MN and is actually kinda meaningless term as it is very very subjective. Don't flame me, it's just a bugbear I have about terminology!

How is vulnerable subjective?

A child of say drug addicts which is left to starve? An elderly person who cannot look after themselves? A severely disabled person who has no family support and needs round the clock care?

It is inconvenient, these so called "vulnerable" people which by your measure arent really vulnerable because it is subjective

We can argue the toss over cuts and the like (I have no reason to doubt what you're telling me if you do public serctor audits my god you must see an awful lot of waste and inefficiency

However, had we not ramped up such a huge defecit, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes the wealthy should shoulder their share of the responsibility, but it is necessary to make cuts to spending.

TGH You make a case for beaucracy (in that it doesn't discriminiate between deserving and undeserving) as if it's a good thing. I can see where you're going, but I actually think it's healthy to make that distinction. Of course there will always be exceptions.

Of course a child of drug addicts is vulnerable. But is the answer to give the parents more money. I don't know what the answer is of course. Need is a better word. Because people are in need of things other than money.

Thx Vivienne - I agree 'need' is a better word than vulnerable and better descriptor. Appreciate I went off tangent but when cuts to public spending are discussed the complaint that is often rolled out is 'we can't as it will affect the most vulnerable in society' as a kind of loaded, guilt-inducing catch all. I've heard the phrase used in relation to social housing but, seriously, given that over 5000 social housing residents are on incomes of 100k+ pa , are they Really the most 'vulnerable'?

Sorry to go off on a tangent away from the question at hand. Maybe I'll start a new thread to discuss... And so I can be properly barked at!

Whilst we're going off on tangents.......Who decided on the new definition of "Poverty"? It's always struck me as quite odd.

As you were folks......

Contrarian, what is the new definition of poverty?

So today is the day for the budget. There will not be much money to play with so it will probably be rather boring.

(The Labour party definition of poverty (which is the one still used) is a Labour party defined relative poverty definition. Thus in this recession when those in the middle have become less well off under the Labour definition the poor (even though they have less money) have become better off. Topsy turvy left wing thinking which IDS is seeking to change.)

I'm probably alone in thinking that a boring budget is good. I become instantly suspicious whenever there's a "give-away" The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away

Williamina
we really do need to reduce the size of the state

Fine, list the services that the state should no longer provide, in two categories
(a) those that NOBODY should provide
(b) those that "other sectors" should provide

and for all those in (b) explain where they will get the funds

all of those who want to have "bonfires of quangoes" seem to create MORE not less jobs for the boys

Hello all

Just to let you know, we've got a livestream of the Budget embedded on this thread if you want to watchalongamumsnetandosborne

Kick-off 12.30

Talkin Allow me:

(b) Education, Healthcare, Welfare, basically anything other than Defence, Police, Justice

The reduction in spending would result in a reduction in the amount of tax you'd need to levy. People would then be able to choose to spend as they saw fit. People can and should be trusted to spend their own money. Charitable giving, reduced dramatically once the State decided it should have a monopoly in certain sectors. Mutuals would be the way to go (I think).

You only feel guilty about the vulnerable because it forces you to think about other people. Using the term "need" is convenient at making at all theoretical. We are talking about people.

Contrarian
So you abolish ALL state schools
the NHS
and all pensions

really?

I don't want to live in ANY country where you are in charge.

There are so many different taxes and benefits and payments it's hard to see the wood for the trees.
Would it work if everyone was given a certain amount (calculated to provide basic shelter, food and essentials) then income tax starts straight away so if you don't work you have enough money to live a basic life on (obviously disabled etc would need to be assessed and provided for separately) then any money you earn enables you to provide a better standard of living but you are also contributing back to the communal pot

Means tonnes of money isn't wasted on assessing people's eligibility, detecting fraud etc as everyone would be entitled to the payment, it wouldn't change with income levels etc. income tax would be a flat rate on the pound so no need to different tax codes and tax avoidance, loop holes etc?

All of those things existed before the State took over and decided it could run everything (badly)

There would of course need to be a transition (it wouldn't and shouldn't happen overnight), but yeah, why not?

Don't panic though. I'm not even in charge of my own house. They're unlikely to let me run the country.

Contrarian
All of those things existed before the State took over
Absolute BOLLOCKS

Before free state schooling for all there was NOT universal education

Before the NHS there was NOT universal healthcare - and look at the debacle of America to see what happens when you remove universal provision

Before the State pension there was no old age income for any but the wealthy

I'm very glad to hear that you are not even in charge of a house.
It explains your total lack of insight into the workings of the real world.