So it's Budget day

[ShadeofViolet]

If you were the Chancellor, what would be in your budget?

C, I cannot imagine the governemnt support to find jobs will be up to much. It will be like your local job centre with about 2 jobs all on minimum wage. I don't think your husband will lose out much on that and I couldn't imagine it might help my son who is about to graduate but I live in hope.

"Do you mean 100K for stamp Xenia? Is there some signioficant reason you are unable to inhabit a house costing £999,999? " Gosh, I couldn't possibly slum it.

I start from the premise that tax is theft - there are lots of papers on that topic. Then move to okay a 10% flat tax and virtually no state provision of anything might be tolerable (I have Bulgaria up my sleeve (10% flat tax) but I'd have to find a very good local protector - lots of mafia etc there....and I could always move to my island but I don't think the tax rates there are quite so favourable).... then we get to the issue of taxes on capital or not quite so bad this one - on movement. Why stop people moving? It's just not very good for the economy. I don't know what stamp duty was in 1997 when we moved here but it's a lot more now.

Anyway as I will choose not to pay it I suppose I can live with it and the previous owners of our house owned it in an off shore company although stamp duty is a pretty hard tax lawfully to avoid.

If you hit the rich the poor suffer. That's what labour doesn't really get. When the Tories broguth tax rates down to 40% they increased the tax take. It's not that hard to move income taxed at 51.5% or whatever top tax/NI will be or higher when you take into account loss of allowances/pensions relief, to capital taxed for the first £2m at 10% is it depending on how you structure your business/role. Anyway it makes for more fun for tax advisers which can't be such a bad thing for them.

Don't agree about equity etc. The housing market has always had ups and downs. There were crashes and alwyas have been. I remember selling two flats for 50% less than we paid for them. Anyone who buys and holds for 40 years tends to have some value accumulated, equity in the house because of inflation never mind anything else.

Tax is theft but it is a theft that enables people not to starve and to have a roof.

So I am happy to be stolen from on that basis, as I think are many.

I agree that equity is luck and that teh amrjet has ups and downs, but I know a good many people moaning that they want to upgrade to a large house and the amrket is rough completely failing to acknowledge that the reason they managed to upgrade to a middle sized house was becuase the amrket was then strong- it's swings and roundabout, you cannot justify accepting one and condemning the other IMO.

It hasn't stopped people moving Xenia, just made them think about whether they can afford the most expensive houses. You would survive in a house under a million. you may not want to but heck that is life. Plenty of things I don't want either.

As for no or limited state provision, well as a carer with two children unlilkely to work (current stats on Aspergers are 85% never do, although when employers are made aware of how employable AS people actuallya re that ises dramtically) I would be absolutely daft to want to follow that route. more to the point though, even when Dh and I had ds1, pre TC's and just on enough not to qualify for anything, we never begrudged paying taxes or those in need getting help. That is our definition of the society we want to see.

I will get thoroughly flamed but I would like to see a system bought in that means that with the exception of the eldery, disabled, and mothers/ carers of children under school age or seriously disabled NOONE else gets money for nothing. If you cannot work or have lost your job you only get benefit if you volunteer (with reasonable time off for interviews which have to be stamped by interviewer to make sure people arent screwing the system), or work on community projects, or go retrain (at a heavily subsidised rate with free courses in the sectors most needing qualified workers).

Abolish asbos which are an expensive waste of the paper they are written on. Automatically give community service to those caught behaving unsociably in a way that matches the crime i.e - drunken yobs can spend friday night cleaning up sick outside pubs. Save on the costs for the councils clearing up after them.

Lone parents who choose to spend the first few years retraining in something practical should get extra benefit for it to encourage them to continue to develop their skills and not loose confidence in their working abilities, which puts so many off returning to work.

Get rid of the baby bond and healthcare grants in pregnancy - put them towards educational costs like afterschool clubs and better school lunch provisions.

I totally love the idea of a "working" penal system that makes prisoners work during their time to contribute to their own costs.

And tax isnt theft in my book but it isnt a passport to free money either - there needs to be a real rethink in terms of balance. If we stopped giving so much many away for "nice" purposes we would be much better off.

Well I am a carer so presumably dont fall under yourt rules (but wonder why only severely disabled- lots of issues there, as children with a moderate or even mild disability still cannot often get places at childcare provision; for example ds1 has Aspergers but nobody will tkae him as he is aggressive. And indeed rightly so, no child should be palced at risk, but it isn't my fault either IYSWIM- giving people the power to define severely disabled etc is inevitably used to deny: our SSD for example gives servioces to very few ASD people as they only define a certain number as disabled, eds1 dfoes not fall under that even though he gets high rate DLA as he needs 24/7 care).

However I wonder how you would enable recently redundant people whoa re aprents to do all this voluntary work? Are you happy to accept the cost of childcare there?

There shoudl be far more emphasis on helping people back to work rather than paying benefits for certain, one rule that annoys me for examaple was when I was at Uni and a carer- I was training in the hope (still existent, I am doing a part time MA) of getting enough quals to get back on ladder and afford exceptionally expensive sn childcare. however the degree fitted into my child's school hours, yet when on University holiday I was ineligible for carer's allowance amd not paid grants etc- a very concrete block in front of people trying to get on their feet.

I do agree with worked sentences in prisons but I pesonally prefer a system that accepts overpaying those who should not really qualify in preference to accidentally not apying those who should and are really very vulnerable

'Lone parents who choose to spend the first few years retraining in something practical should get extra benefit for it to encourage them to continue to develop their skills and not loose confidence in their working abilities, which puts so many off returning to work.

Get rid of the baby bond and healthcare grants in pregnancy - put them towards educational costs like afterschool clubs and better school lunch provisions.

agree with both of those

The poorest time in opur lives was when I was getting the quals to go to Uni (when we can arrnage childcare I hope to do my social worker training if ds1 / ds3's sn allow it)- lots of costs such as childcare, dh on a low income though working, no benefit entitlement as at college

I did include carers as well clarissimo and I wonder if a scheme whereby suitable volunteers could be policechecked and trained to do childcare for those who are retraining or job hunting to make the system balance. The emphasis should be on making it as easy as possible for those who want to work to work, whereas at the moment it seems that the system makes it HARDER to work.

I know what you mean clarrisimo - I had to study night times part time on top of working full time to get through uni with a baby as a single parent and whilst my son feels the benefit now he didnt then, so I feel strongly it should be made easier.

I know you included them prettyfly

I kinda agree with you, although would choose a mcuh wider definition of disability- severe has so many definitions it is impossible to work with. It's about impactrt rather than label IYSWIM. especially as some people take years to get a diagnosis / label anyway but still ahve same battles.

Some of teh system we have works well; when DH was amde redundant he would not accept the dole queue so set up a business whilst retraining. His income rises every year as he gets additional skills from the training (he's at university but after this year will ahve electrician regs, next year rigging, lastb year pyrotechnics (yes I know but in his field it matters LOL). The tax credit system helps to support him towards moving back to compelte financial indeprendence and that has to be a spotive; why should soemon working so very hard be treated the sme as someone with no interest in working?

but I think especially in a recession training should be a priority, and it doesn't seem to be, indeed adult training is frontline for cuts. Where is the sense in that/ DH's former industry has completely vanished here; one company bought up all the others and made 2/3 staff redundant. Sitting awaiting a posiiotn there woul;d be pointless, far better to get new skills. However so much doesn't seem to recognise the value in that pro active appraoch which I think is a shame: the system should exist to enable people to become as self sufficient as possible, and support them if not. But it has to be doen realistically- schemes pushing people back to work when theya re medically not able, for example, only work against that aim. Long term achievement of the very decent aim of self sufficieny means putting in palce the emans to help people oversome the hurdles, not be further stamped down by legislation preventing them from getting proper help and support.

pretty exactly

Of course as a carer I couldnt work through the summer and that was pretty ahrd times- I was lucky to have a dh then in decent employment, many didn't have that, my friend had to cope with no partner, and 5 children (one autistic) and it made everything so much harder for her. Just recognising her carer status in holidays would have made a very big difference.

What a boring budget. Even after umpteen years in tax, I usually have a flutter of excitement at budget time, but this one has left me unmoved ...

The next one in a few months time will have the fireworks in it.

I would raise the tax allowance to about £10K, I think the minimum wage should be raised,

Abolish University tuition fees, send less people to Univeristy and fund them properly. We don't need 50% of the population with a degree, we need more skilled workers though - ie more apprenticeships and training.

There is no political party with any radical ideas that is likely to get in sadly - just two which are pretty much the same although the conservatives will of course be better and hopefully they hiding some of the light under a bushel for political reasons but once in if the majority is big enough which I fear it won't be might be able to do something.

You can either make people work for benefits (and of course the childcare thing can be sorted out - just have some of those mothers or fathers on benefits doing the childminding en masse whilst the others are working, removing graffiti or whatever work we need them to do, caring for the eldery at home or doing shopping for people or whatever) or give everyone a universal guaranteed income sum each week whether they work or don't and abolish all benefits.

Give incentives to make it easy and worthwhile for workplaces to start up nurseries fr their workers, these could be affordable and enable workers to have quality of life with their children.

I agree with the second Homes council tax, most of those who can afford a second home can also afford the council tax.

There is a massve trade in the shops round here of illegal tobacco so I guess the whole duty thing on that isn't really working.

Plough more money into public transport so people have a viable cheap option if they are going to raise fuel duty. PT just does not work very well for those who work shifts.

Disagree that there's no choice. There's a huge choice to be made on the economy for starters - cuts now (and what are they going to cut? Conservatives say they're going to do it this year, so they better tell us what they're going to cut now because it's already nearly April) or cuts later? Any government is going to have to make massive cuts or raise taxes or both, it's just a question of when and what the priorities will be. Personally I go with Labour - this recovery feels very fragile and I trust them to be less callous (having lived through callous recession in 80s). Dread the idea of George Osborne as Chancellor, did you see their broadcast last night. How full of waffle was that? And he's pretending not to be posh, we're not stupid for goodness sake.

I would love there were a wide blue sea between them but both are going to have to make big public sector cuts, both seems to be wedded to retaining higher taxes. Neither appears very free market. All I can do is hope that the Conversatives might have within them if not disclosed the radicalism which did so much good for this country in the past before labour got its hands on it. But I still don't feel I have a real choice.

" And he's pretending not to be posh, we're not stupid for goodness sake. "

No, it would only be stupid to write off someone because they are from a wealthy background, much the same as writing off someone from a poorer background.

Harriet Harman beware labour supports don't like posh.

One weird "loophole" in NHS that I know of -
my mum has epilepsy (although she's been medicated for 20 yrs+ so doesn't really know if she still has it - only started during menopause)- and she gets ALL her prescriptions free - not just those for her epilepsy drugs.
This must be very costly to NHS if this happens with other conditions too.

Also, don't agree with child benefit for absolutely everyone - guess it must be too costly to sort but should have been years ago!

Still too much waste in local govt - eg. education advisers - paid £40,000 plus and way too many of them.
Too many middle managers in NHS - have better paid Senior Nurses with time set aside for management role.

More duty on cigarettes & alcohol (boo hoo but needs to be done!!)

No payment of tax on first £12 000 to help out pensioners & low paid.

Higher tax on properties over £1,000,000.

This is quite radical but what do you think?:

If someone had private education then they should also pay for FULL costs of university education. Just fund those who were state educated!

I'd support a £10k single person allowance but I'd couple that with £200 a week for everyone regardless of working status. Then I'd sack all benefits staff and their managers because there would be no benefits, no tax credits, no tax allowances. I'd merge tax and NI and have one capped flat rate tax of 20% with perhaps an upper limit of £50k tax paid.

I'd then have to balance the books so lots of public sector cut backs and much more privatisation. I would encourage wealth creation and so not have your higher tax on properties or indeed any property tax. I'd obviously like to abolish as many taxes as possible.

As for private educatino instead of the q suggestion I'd give every parent a £5k a year voucher they could use anywhere and could top up having abolished state schools. My inclination would be to reward those who relieve the state of educating their chidlren rather than penalise them. They could also get a certificate each year - you have save teh Government £X by educating your child privately - before the state schools are abolished - tell you how wonderful you are and what good you're doing the country... your sacrifice has meant that you have saved the nation £x....and once you'd paid the private fees for say 10 years you'd get special trips to No 10 to be congratulated.

Qjess - that's a terrible idea and very unfair. Some wealthy people send their kids to state schools and some not wealthy parents send their kids privately.

Gordon Brown is a proven liar he lied the the Chillcot enquiry. Tony Blair is a liar he lied to the Chillcot enquiry.Labour have lied about the crime statistics, they have lied about the police time on the beat, they have dumbed down education, they have destroyed the health service despite thier hype, they have flooded britain with immigrants putting pressure on our public services, they have taken us into three wars two of which were based on an illegal action, they have caused misery to thousands by supporting travellers illegal camps,they have destroyed our economy, they have ingrained a benefit culture because they have been unable to create jobs for the thick
and now they expect you to belive they are going to create jobs they have`nt done it in thirten years how can anyone believe they could do it now. So now for all the mums whos kids have died because of Blair and Brown and all the kids with useless degrees who cant get jobs and all your relatives who have been allowed to die in squalor in our appalling N.H.S and for all the kids who have died violently vote these scum out because they would rather fiddle the figures than sort out your problems because its going to get worse wipe that false smile off
Browns face false smile false character if you love your children get rid of Brown and Labour.

ArcticFox - "However, this would still not pay for all the tax lost by her proposal to increase the tax allowance to £15k, let alone everything else. Mind you, if she could make it add up she'd probably get a lot of votes."

Very true. I think Vince Cable must have done the sums, too, because the Lib Dems propose not to tax the first 10k. Not as 'generous' as foreverastudent, and their tax on big houses (tax as a portion of the value in excess of 2 million, not the whole value of a property) would slowly affect more and more properties, but only as the economy grows again.

Great points, ArcticFox, about the side effects of punitive tax, too.

Taxing people at 50% once they earn over 150k is bad move, and a lasting legacy from Labour, which might (I hope) be toned down sometime soon... it means that any new business owners who might have some spark of an idea will be more tempted to go.

I doubt the very rich in 5m+ houses are immediately going to move abroad when the tax would be only 0.5% on the 3m excess. So

You can bet your life that if I can forecast my earnings hitting 300k or more, I will be leaving the UK {and good riddance I suspect some will say} before HMRC decides I owe them a pile of taxes and make me bankrupt (again). I won't be bothering to buy some nice place here, I simply won't be able to afford the darn taxes while trying to save a few million.

Gosh yes. Bulgaria 10% flat tax or where my island is abroad or just about anywhere I could move to and do a lot of what I do do actually.

What I am quite enjoying is all those very over paid public sector people and politicians who are going to have to pay 50% tax and lose allowances and pension reliefs and because they are employed rather than running their own businesses they will be subject to it entirely without any chance even of legitimate avoidance.

LOL - indeed Xenia. BBC Radio 4 had a piece about Chief Execs in local government, some now earning 200k a year, and in one case someone ended up getting around 600k in one year because he had remained in post for some months to be eligible for a golden handshake payment (450k) on top of his year's salary, and then despite apparently 'taking retirement' was in a new Chief Exec post in another council 3 months later (presumably he had arranged that, perhaps saying he needed to give 6 months notice).

I'm not overly envious - if I get my web thing going, it might bring me 250k per month, but there are a lot of faceless local government people and "Freedom of Information" is still lacking there - try to find out the numbers of staff, reporting structures, and so on, in most UK councils and I suspect you'd be on a hiding to nothing...

By comparison, Chicago and Toronto, several years ago, had very detailed information with head+shoulders photos, potted CVs, phone and e-mail, and giving plenty of detail about how their councils are organised.

Here, it seems from the council sites I've checked so far, that the apparent drive is to tell you only who your councillor is, and assume communication with the council is going to be channelled via them, poor s*ds.

If you find meetings or agendas, there will be a list of attendees, but often (always in those I've seen) the job titles are not alongside - minutes may say who said what, by job title, so you (unless you are at the meeting, or one of the staff) hardly ever know who was actually saying things, just job title or name (without title)... it's definitely opaque, and I think they're going to be needing legislation to get them to put it right. Similarly, try checking past council tax bands, and you might find (as I did) that they only keep the latest info online, the rest is 'overwritten' (damn silly if you ask me!)

I would imagine for accounting purposes they have to keep old council tax bands in-house but can hide names and personal details of council staff legally.

I heard that R4 piece. In a recession you don't need to hire people on such long notice period packages to get good people but those who hire have a vested interest in keeping salaries up.