Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bedford Roughyed

Budget 2013

52 posts in this topic

Will the shared equity scheme be available for all houses or just the poorly built, plaster board show boxes that are getting knocked up? I refuse to buy a house that I will in no way be able to resell.

I don't know for sure but I heard last night that it may be available for self builds, in which case you could specify to what level of quality you wanted the house built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One glaring piece of hypocrisy from Gidion was him insisting on calling employers NI contributions a ''tax on jobs'' in the same week that IDS has been moaning to all that will listen about the spare room subsidy being called the ''bedroom tax''. You can't have it both ways.

Edited in light of Derwent's comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've gone from minimum pricing to cheaper beer in a week. Joined up government.

We've gone from removing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers to giving higher rate taxpayers £1,200 a year to pay for childcare.

Joined up government? I'm not sure that Osborne and Cameron can do joined up writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've gone from removing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers to giving higher rate taxpayers £1,200 a year to pay for childcare.

Joined up government? I'm not sure that Osborne and Cameron can do joined up writing.

To be fair, the tax break for higher rate tax payers on childcare vouchers was always much better than for lower rate tax payers - and that was/is a system that needed looking at.

Like a lot of these things though they've taken a problem and then sort of done something in a sort of way - but not fixed anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, the tax break for higher rate tax payers on childcare vouchers was always much better than for lower rate tax payers - and that was/is a system that needed looking at.

Like a lot of these things though they've taken a problem and then sort of done something in a sort of way - but not fixed anything.

This is a symptom of the fact that everyone's financial interaction with the government is complex. You have to look at the overall package to know what the effect is. It's easy for government (of all flavours) to cherry pick the good news and sell that whilst downplaying the bad news.

Left Foot Forward has some nice charts that show the effect of the recent tax threshold changes against the benefit changes for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a reasonably politically clever budget in that we're talking about childcare, subsidised mortgages and beer rates rather than the absolute catastrophe that is the growth projections, debt and deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a reasonably politically clever budget in that we're talking about childcare, subsidised mortgages and beer rates rather than the absolute catastrophe that is the growth projections, debt and deficit.

Or maybe that was no more than we all expected. :dry:

In other words we all have to cop this austerity and cutting lark in order to reduce the debt and deficit. However all this austerity and cutting isn't really reducing the debt and deficit because all this austerity and cutting is strangling the economy and reducing government income. It's a vicious circle, and one we don't look like breaking any time soon. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a symptom of the fact that everyone's financial interaction with the government is complex. You have to look at the overall package to know what the effect is. It's easy for government (of all flavours) to cherry pick the good news and sell that whilst downplaying the bad news.

Left Foot Forward has some nice charts that show the effect of the recent tax threshold changes against the benefit changes for example.

..and you usually have to wait a week or two until someone has gone through the fine print to see where the Treasury has tried to claw things back..and that seems to apply to whichever party is nominally in government.

In terms of the housing benefits changes, I do have some experience, so maybe that might be of value in shedding some much needed light.

Low income families in private rented accommodation have their housing benefit (Local Housing Allowance) assessed on a bedroom basis as it were, no matter how many bedrooms. Thus a married couple are assessed as needing a one bedroom property and the benefit is determined accordingly. The change is to put public sector tenants on exactly the same basis.

What SHOULD happen, of course, the that the councils and housing associations should work with their tenants to more accurately match tenants to properties My daughters ex husband lives alone in a three bedroom council house and has done so for over five years, even though the same council does not have properties for families that need three bedrooms. His parents also live in a three bedroom property when they would be fine in a one bedroom property. However, being state pensioners , they are not affected by the housing benefits changes.

I have long claimed that housing is the UK has been a scandal for half a century and more, not least because owner occupiers of any and all political colours have benefited from soaring house prices and subsidised mortgage rates for years, whilst those in "social" housing are generally and especially now trapped..and the gap gets ever wider.

Under the Blair governments “the number of council sales…dramatically increased and the building of social housing halted. The UK’s population grew 4.41 million under Labour but the number of social homes continued to fall. A socialist (sic) PM did not see fit to invest in social housing.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and you usually have to wait a week or two until someone has gone through the fine print to see where the Treasury has tried to claw things back..and that seems to apply to whichever party is nominally in government.

Yes, it can take a while for a budget to disintegrate. At this time last year Osborne's budget was considered to be a triumph. Within a week it was the Omnishambles and he hasn't really recovered.

Likewise the now infamous abolition of the 10p tax rate was considered a Brownian masterstroke at the time and a catastrophe by a fortnight later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe that was no more than we all expected. :dry:

That's about the size of it...and much that was announced won't happen until April 2014 in any case. However, I applaud those measures that seek to rebalance the economy as I do the lib-dem policy to raise the personal allowance to £10k,

By why do govts of all flavours have to make things so complicated? And as for the promised investment in infrastructure, what do they mean? I hope its not about recruiting loads of civil servants to tell us that there is no money for infrastructure investment cos its all gone on their wages!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it can take a while for a budget to disintegrate. At this time last year Osborne's budget was considered to be a triumph. Within a week it was the Omnishambles and he hasn't really recovered.

Likewise the now infamous abolition of the 10p tax rate was considered a Brownian masterstroke at the time and a catastrophe by a fortnight later.

is as if their efforts are being sabotaged somewhere by Sir Humphrey! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as for the promised investment in infrastructure, what do they mean?

I would be genuinely surprised if he had the first clue what he means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's about the size of it...and much that was announced won't happen until April 2014 in any case. However, I applaud those measures that seek to rebalance the economy as I do the lib-dem policy to raise the personal allowance to £10k,

By why do govts of all flavours have to make things so complicated? And as for the promised investment in infrastructure, what do they mean? I hope its not about recruiting loads of civil servants to tell us that there is no money for infrastructure investment cos its all gone on their wages!

The first thing that usually happens with large government infrastructure programs is that they recruit an army of 'consultants' on a four figure a day rate and stick them in the most expensive office space in London.*

* See CrossRail as an example - there are a few hundred consultant types occupying two floors of the City Group building in Canary Wharf while there are probably acres of free space in government buildings across London, but they don't have a 'cool' address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have mentioned this before, but around 1991, the software company I worked for sold a load of civil engineering software and hardware into the project - possibly via London Underground.and now, 18 years later, work is actually going on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be genuinely surprised if he had the first clue what he means.

HS2? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes in NI due to the ending of "contracting out" when the new flat rate pension comes in will mean anyone who currently contracts out (including all public sector staff) will have their NI contributions increased from 10.6% to 12%. Strangely, that doesn't seem to have been one of the headline "good news" parts of the budget.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21866453#story_continues_2#story_continues_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and you usually have to wait a week or two until someone has gone through the fine print to see where the Treasury has tried to claw things back..and that seems to apply to whichever party is nominally in government.

In terms of the housing benefits changes, I do have some experience, so maybe that might be of value in shedding some much needed light.

Low income families in private rented accommodation have their housing benefit (Local Housing Allowance) assessed on a bedroom basis as it were, no matter how many bedrooms. Thus a married couple are assessed as needing a one bedroom property and the benefit is determined accordingly. The change is to put public sector tenants on exactly the same basis.

What SHOULD happen, of course, the that the councils and housing associations should work with their tenants to more accurately match tenants to properties My daughters ex husband lives alone in a three bedroom council house and has done so for over five years, even though the same council does not have properties for families that need three bedrooms. His parents also live in a three bedroom property when they would be fine in a one bedroom property. However, being state pensioners , they are not affected by the housing benefits changes.

I have long claimed that housing is the UK has been a scandal for half a century and more, not least because owner occupiers of any and all political colours have benefited from soaring house prices and subsidised mortgage rates for years, whilst those in "social" housing are generally and especially now trapped..and the gap gets ever wider.

Under the Blair governments “the number of council sales…dramatically increased and the building of social housing halted. The UK’s population grew 4.41 million under Labour but the number of social homes continued to fall. A socialist (sic) PM did not see fit to invest in social housing.”

We do need more social accommodation in the UK, not to be flogged off but there for everybody who wants/needs it.

Was anything mentioned in rhe budget in regards to climate change and feed in tariffs for renenwable energies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those that slag off Brown, should really take a look at Osborne and really think about their position.

Just because, like many people, you took a pension hit ( an investment that can go up or down) doesn't mean the chancellor of the day got it wrong, it may mean the greedy people at the time got it wrong and, as the chancellor believed, so the other idiots believed, that stock markets and bank profits only go one way.

If you lost out by gambling, live with it, you effin lost, would you go back to the bookmaker and complain you gambled on a nag and it came in last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown was nothing more than a traditional tax and borrow old labour bully boy who did untold damage to this country by his wrong headed polices. abolish boon and bust? What a tosser.As for gambling...yes well, you win some, you lose sum...but when the bookie steals your stake, never mind your winnings, you are entitled to sack him. Good riddance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown was nothing more than a traditional tax and borrow old labour bully boy who did untold damage to this country by his wrong headed polices. abolish boon and bust? What a tosser.As for gambling...yes well, you win some, you lose sum...but when the bookie steals your stake, never mind your winnings, you are entitled to sack him. Good riddance.

Brown made the mistake of following previous Tory policies, the only way labour could get into power was to follow the stupid policies of the idiot Tories that went before them.

The mistake they made was in not doing what the Tories have always done to get in power and turn around and do what they really want to do after getting in control.

I hope those that back the bunch of shysters in power now are enjoying the decimation of families around me feel great about it, It must be fantastic to have your political ambitions of retribution exerted on the poor sods who could never have afforded to put money into a massive gambling pension lottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017