Well done George Osborne - stonking budget

[claig]

Tax free Allowance rising to £11000
40% tax threshold rising to £43000
Corporation Tax falling to 19% and then 18%
National Living Wage will reach £9 by 2020, will start at £7.20

If they carry on like this, Labour are finished and poor old UKIP and Farage won't stand a chance of getting a look in. But credit where credit is due - well done Osborne!

Ssd your post at 13.15 is very true. People are just too blind to realise this.
The only good thing that may come from this budget is the, working poor Tory voters and the compassionate Tory voters will realise they were lied to and think more carefully in 2020.

I have no idea what point you're making, so clearly I have missed your point. Is it that Labour spent too much money? Do the Tories have a long history of recording budget surpluses? Is that what you're trying to say? I'm confused, I am no Labour fan and have never claimed that they did anything right whilst in Government.

People have been arguing for a long time about how the Tories make loads of money whilst removing welfare and how Labour spend loads of money putting welfare back. I don't need to do that.

Like I said earlier, if cuts are needed then fine - make cuts. But make cuts across society, don't give tax breaks to your mates whilst punishing the poor.

Ha, I spent so long trying to understand your post that I massively cross-posted.

I was only a wee 'un in 1997, so have no idea about the economy at the time. Presumably there was a large budget surplus and everyone was doing great, yes?

What is to say that the Tories wouldn't have done exactly the same as Brown did? Not even the Tories could have planned for a global financial crisis. Just because he did badly does not mean the Tories would have done any better. We were screwed no matter who was in charge of the books.

Seffina ... No the Conservatives would NOT have done the same as Labour, which I can show/prove in several ways - including cuts in spending after the 1990 recession that Brown accepted in 1997 that would balance our spending books by 2001/2 (which it did) - for him to then go on a spending spurge when he should have been PAYING DOWN National Debt that was £400 bil in 1997.

So in 2010, Labour passed Osborne £1 trillion on National Debt and an accumulating annual £153 bil annual overspend with no plans to CUT, but knew that they had to, but were too cowardly to tell the electorate with any detail in 2010 and 2015.

The fact was Labour did the opposite of core Conservative policies e.g. fat State, higher taxes to pay for it, and built an economy on over taxed and debt sand, which the following fairly well balanced link refers to;

://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

“During the years 2001-2007, there was a sharp rise in government spending. In real terms, government spending increased from just over £400bn (2009 prices) to £618bn in 2008-09.

• "If the government had entered the credit crunch with a budget surplus and lower public sector debt, the government would have had much more room to pursue a real and sustained economic stimulus. However, because there was already a deficit, the recession caused a rise in the cyclical deficit."

• "A great failure of spending decisions of the 2000s, was to allow budget deficits during rapid economic expansion. A budget deficit of 3% of GDP may have sounded relatively low. But, in hindsight, this exaggerated the underlying deficit because tax revenues were boosted by tax revenues which evaporated during the credit crunch."

So FYI there was no 'default' button in 2010 to put the economy back to 1997, so every Labour financial, economic, education, defence, immigration, housing feck up from 1997, when they had honking great parliamentary majorities to do EXACTLY what they wanted to do, had to be sorted by the Conservatives, firstly in coalition, now on their own.

If you want to go back to when Labour LAST handed over the economy in a better shape than they received it, I suspect it is in the 1930's. Rejoice.

www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

They haven't encouraged businesses at all or not small businesses anyway. They have raised taxes for people who are paid dividends therefore penalising people for being successful

Rest of it I agreed with and didn't think was too bad except cutting grants to students. I think this is bad as you are taking away the opportunity for the poorer young people to go to uni.

Also agree tax loop holes for huge businesses should be closed. If these companies were made to pay the correct amount of tax we wouldn't need so many cuts. But guess they are quite rightly worried about them going elsewhere

So that is your point then? That Labour spend lots of money and the Tories have to 'sort it out' again? Ok. Clearly we are lucky that Gideon is here to save us all from the certain poverty we were headed to under Labour into, erm, poverty.

Oh wait, we've redefined poverty haven't we. Not to worry then folks, nothing to see here!

cleoteacher .... re your "they have not encouraged businesses at all" since 2010 there have been many policies, in this one lowing CorporateTax will help.

"Raised taxes for those being PAID dividends" by the companies, so who is worse off?

Re Student Grants, what system has it been replaced with and what are the key differencies?

As for companies or anyone else paying their taxes, you need to keep up with the news;

May 2014: “HMRC crackdown yields record £23.9bn in additional tax”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27576626
”The government has raised a record £23.9bn in additional tax for the year to the end of March as a result of a crackdown on tax avoidance.”

“Noose tightens around global tax evasion as OECD countries sign new agreement”
www.cityam.com/1414597567/noose-tightens-around-global-tax-evasion-oecd-countries-sign-new-agreement

"The OECD just took a step closer to fighting tax evasion on a global scale, with 51 territories agreeing to create “information exchanges” that will help track culprits down."

"The first signatories to the dull-sounding "multilateral competent authority agreement" – which include the UK and Ireland – will launch their information exchanges by September 2017. Others will follow in 2018."

Dec 2014; ”U.K. Financial Firms Paid the Most Tax Since 2007, Report Says”
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-02/u-k-financial-firms-paid-the-most-tax-since-2007-report-says

”The U.K. financial-services industry contributed 65.6 billion pounds ($103 billion) in taxes in the last fiscal year, the highest since 2007, according to a report.”

Wait, are we not discussing this specific budget from this government? Not what Labour did 15 years ago, or what the coalition did. This specific Conservative budget of July 2015.

Seffina .... Actually Labour mainly WASTED money, hundreds of billions in fact, but yes as we know any fool of a government can spend money we have not got e.g. a £153 billion overspend in 2010, and someone has to ensure our children and grandchildren don't have to take the pain for Labour's mistakes.

Re-define poverty, what to African standards, or those truly in UK poverty with only one new 50' Flatscreen, one new pair of trainers, the whole Sky Package, where no one drinks or smokes to excess and on under £21k?

Yes I'm being stupid, but so are those who would like us to think that EVERYONE in 2010 on Welfare/Benefits deserved them and no one saw them as a way of life or regularly over claimed.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9963012/900000-choose-to-come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html

Once we get down to the deserved/disabled, we should have enough money to shower them with bleedin' gold.

P.S. Still no comment on the facts within this link, rather than pathetic dismissal as not in the right (meaning 'left') paper?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10574376/Graphic-Britain-outstrips-Europe-on-welfare-spending.html

Isitmebut - I think you're overegging the pudding a little bit - Labour said they would have made cuts into the 2010 parliament had they won. Labour also didn't cause the financial crisis and when they handed over the economy, it was growing.

I agree that Labour shouldn't have spent as much as they did - plenty of silly things (Child trust funds for example, tax credits instead of pushing up the minimum wage higher, building new hospitals under PPI) and they should have saved a bit for a rainy day. They weren't being very Keynesian which is a pity.

But they didn't cause the crisis & they did a lot of good for this country, improved education, health outcomes etc.

Isitmebut - people will always play the system. There's a point of diminishing returns at which every new hurdle you place in the way of claiming benefits deters someone in real need and costs more than it saves.

I'd rather no child went hungry/didn't have shoes than be punished for their parents' mistakes...

Seffina ... you are correct we have got off topic, but you claimed the Conservatives would have done the same and proved wrong, and it does show you the 'quality' of the alternative policies to solve our problems, if there ever was one.

Welfare/Benefits were an expensive taxpayer basket case in 2010, the Osborne reforms were necessary, ask Labour in the middle of the election cycle, not at election time.

October 2013; “Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promises new welfare chief”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare
“Rachel Reeves vows to cut welfare bill and force long-term jobless to take up work offers or lose state support”

I actually find it quite funny that someone who clearly spends a lot of time on google has fallen for right wing welfare myths.

Alyosha .. re your "I think you're overegging the pudding a little bit - Labour said they would have made cuts into the 2010 parliament had they won. Labour also didn't cause the financial crisis and when they handed over the economy, it was growing."

Yup over egging, but "Labour have said" they'd do a lot of things from 2010, but as this Budget/Thread shows, when cutting a £153 billion there is a lot of 'devil in the detail' - and any fool of a politician/party can oppose everything and not come up with their own specific details over TWO elections.

As for "the economy" was growing in 2010 why wouldn't it be in, Government Spending and Consumption are KEY drivers of GDP; firstly it LOST several % of GDP/Output 2008/9 so should get a reaction bounce, and if the government is still massively overspending on a 13-year enlarged/protected Public Sector and unreformed Welfare/Benefits as the 'Automatic Stabalizers kick in = the wrong kind of 'growf'.

It certainly wasn't GDP growth due to our Exports or private sector investment.

Seffina ... the figures are there for you to challenge sweet cheeks. BFN.

Well I remember the conservatives also didn't come up with a plan - it's politically expedient not to when outlining your cuts doesn't win you any votes!

Growth but the wrong kind of growth - but stimulating demand can have positive effects on manufacturing output, no?

Labour should have saved more during the fat times and splurged like mad during the recession.

Also Labour should have had more of a strategy beyond TC/WTC to raise people out of poverty...but I still think they were a positive force who lifted people out of poverty and improved education & health. Not perfect, but better than the Tories.

Alyosha ... As the Labour government of 13-years had not completed a Public Spending Round detail of the state of the UK books after 13-years and what they going to do, NO opposition party could put together a DETAILED 2010 plan as the the government of the day didn't have one to BASE it on - hence the need for the OBR Osborne brought in, as the UK Treasury back then told the people what Brown/Darlings Budgets wanted.

Labour/Brown were in deficit denial in 2010, and was going to wait for something to turn up with their totally unbalanced economy.

Re growth, by 2010 Manufacturing had fallen to 11% of our economy from 23% in 1997, so the 'growf' had to be Labour still financially supporting the fat State/Private Sector, rather than help the masses with tax cuts etc, as real incomes had fallen from 2008 and businesses expecting more Labour taxes rises 2010-15 were poohing themselves, as they were in April 2015.

Education, don't get me started, the bottom of international league table of 23, with a failure to teach even the basics.

As to poverty, if work paid more than welfare from 2004, how many migrants would not have had a job, and we wouldn't have had 5 million citizens needing social housing by 2010, according to Shelter.

There's no point. I try not to discuss welfare with anyone that uses words such as 'flatscreen tv' when discussing benefit claimants.

I tend to avoid discussing welfare/benefits with people who assume everyone on them is a valid case and that the Causes & NEED for 'austerity' - when in May 2010 the government was overspending £153 bil a year that was far larger than anyone else in Europe - began with the Conservative Party.

I'll leave, you can continue to whine without seeing the 'big picture' on why by the end of 2014 we had 3% GDP and 5.6% unemployment, while the Eurozone had 0.9% GDP and over 11% unemployment - from which to build a better UK economy.

P.S. If you don't (or won't) accept how unsustainable/bloated Welfare and benefits had become by 2010, you will never accept that they ever needed to be cut back - whether the UK has a honking great £70 billion overspend and £1.5 tril of National Debt now, or anywhere near a balance budget as back in 2001 - with a chance to begin PAYING DOWN £hundreds of billions of UK National Debt as was.

isitme, I dont think you're worth arguing with.

That's a big assumption of you to make of me, interesting that you think that way. I'm fairly sure I haven't said that every benefit claimant is a valid one nor that the Tories are to blame for all the world's problems ever. I have blamed the Tories for this specific budget, but it's kind of hard not to given that they wrote it. Unless you just want to blame Gordon Brown of course.

If you don't (or won't) read my posts then there is very little point talking to you.

Isitmebut - I don't think the drop in manufacturing can be 100% attributed to Labour or even the Conservatives...lower wages abroad + a growing GDP but manufacturing not growing its share of the pie. Also financial services & service economy (retail, leisure, hotels, tech etc.) growing too. Not all public sector jobs! Productivity also rose considerably.

cep.lse.ac.uk/conference_papers/15b_11_2011/CEP_Report_UK_Business_15112011.pdf

Real incomes dropping - again more of a symptom of what's been going on for the past 30 years, corporate growth going to executive pay rather than middle income pay. Pay has stagnated in the big economies for the past 30 years through both left & right wing governments, cutters and spenders. And gains from corporation tax cut (which Labour also cut...) in this budget surely outweighed by NMW rises?

And Labour said they would cut in the 2010 election...just didn't specify where.

I don't think international league tables are super reliable - China & Far east are no.1 but where is their world beating technological innovation? Where are their amazing universities? Why are the Chinese elites desperate to send their kids to US & UK style schools (even state boarding schools - not just Eton)?