UK Budget- The Axe Falls

[Idaho]

Hmmm... Looks like those earning wages will be paying more, and those who profit from dividends, capital gains and company and corporate profits will be better off. Who'd have thought the Tories would do a thing like that?

And while the public sector is being slashed and people made redundant, housing benefit is slashed 10% too. Nice. So out of a job, and then out on the street. Good old Tories!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hmmm... Looks like those earning wages will be paying more, and those who profit from dividends, capital gains and company and corporate profits will be better off. Who'd have thought the Tories would do a thing like that?

And while the public sector is being slashed and people made redundant, housing benefit is slashed 10% too. Nice. So out of a job, and then out on the street. Good old Tories!

Have they got to the part about starving the kids and old people yet? It's never FUN being a conservative until you get to the juicy stuff.

[InsaneApache]

Have they got to the part about starving the kids and old people yet? It's never FUN being a conservative until you get to the juicy stuff.

They don't starve them. They eat them donchaknow!

It's a bit rich to blame the new government for slashing budgets and raising taxes. Then again some people live in a sort of parallel universe where all are winners and all the Tories want to do is enrich themselves and destroy the economy. Cos they can.

[Beskar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10376512.stm

List of it all by section.

Edit:

Just saw this little gem

Meanwhile corporation tax will be cut next year to 27%, and by 1% annually for the next three years, down to 24%.

So we pay more taxes, we lose benefits, and Corporations get free tax cuts? So much for everyone "feeling the pain", doesn't include you if your name is Steve Jobs, Lord Sugar, or a typical Conservative funder, etc.

[InsaneApache]

See. I knew one would be along in a minute.

[Vladimir]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10376512.stm

List of it all by section.

Edit:

Just saw this little gem


So we pay more taxes, we lose benefits, and Corporations get free tax cuts? So much for everyone "feeling the pain", doesn't include you if your name is Steve Jobs, Lord Sugar, or a typical Conservative funder, etc.

You know corporate tax is a myth, right? It's the only tax you can pass onto someone else.

[Furunculus]

Good budget, I want it considered a point of fact by the thinking majority (obviously excludes the TUC) that spending more than forty percent of the nations wealth of government programs is immoral, as it destroys the long-term growth and competitiveness that will maintain our standard of living in a generations time.

My only worry is as to whether Defence can be considered a Whitehall department, and thus subject to the full 25% haircut, or whether only the MoD itself fits that definition in which case the likely Defence cuts will be closer to the RUSI prediction of 12-15 percent...........?

[rory_20_uk]

Hmmm... Looks like those earning wages will be paying more, and those who profit from dividends, capital gains and company and corporate profits will be better off. Who'd have thought the Tories would do a thing like that?

And while the public sector is being slashed and people made redundant, housing benefit is slashed 10% too. Nice. So out of a job, and then out on the street. Good old Tories!

Amnesia kicking in already? Any idea why the country has no money? Another party? Likes to spend, pend, spend? Confuses "investment" with "waste"? Doling out houses and benefits make us a powerhouse of a country or a basket case?

Capital gains went up by 10%. It was reduced by Labour.

Almost entirely the Private sector makes money whilst the Public sector recycles it. So, we need more of the former and less of the latter.

[Beskar]

Almost entirely the Private sector makes money whilst the Public sector recycles it. So, we need more of the former and less of the latter.

Mainly because we sold our profit making infrastructures or closed them down.

[Furunculus]

Mainly because we sold our profit making infrastructures or closed them down.

quick question, are we still in your fantasy land where socialism would work effectively had you been in charge?

[Beskar]

quick question, are we still in your fantasy land where socialism would work effectively had you been in charge?

Not really a fantasyland. My breed would socialism would work, and no, it is nothing like the CCCP. Also, you wouldn't have to pay income tax either.

[InsaneApache]

Not really a fantasyland. My breed would socialism would work, and no, it is nothing like the CCCP. Also, you wouldn't have to pay income tax either.

Please elaborate. I'm curious on how your socialism differs from what's been tried before and found wanting?

[Idaho]

Ah yes - Tory governments. It's been so long I'd almost forgotten what they were like.

If you are rich, prepare to get richer. If you are poor - you're ******.

[Furunculus]

so much venom..................... but who cares?

[rory_20_uk]

Any analysis or constructive input? Or merely teh rather stale declamations which are not greatly based in reality.

[Beskar]

Please elaborate. I'm curious on how your socialism differs from what's been tried before and found wanting?

Any analysis or constructive input? Or merely teh rather stale declamations which are not greatly based in reality.

Incorrect Rory, it is firmly based on reality.

It is quite simple really, if the wealth generated is fed directly into the system, it would bypass all outgoings and middle men which clog up the private industry, and directly into the coffers. This would in turn fund all the projects and welfare required, without having to resort to "tax".

The world is structured with various different artifically constructed systems, as such, Tesco could be described as one system, who operates in various other systems. On the fuller picture, you have a tangled mess of various systems working in a complex arrangement far beyond the scope of the human imagination. However, there are two main elements present in these systems (which many like Marx identified) which is the "Creation of Wealth"/"Availability of Resources" inline with the "Users of Wealth"/"Resource Depletion". In a stereotypical capitalist system, you have the Corporations, all these various groups who create wealth for their own purpose. In reality, majority of this wealth feeds those within those systems, especially the dictator CEO's at the top. Any resources which come available is mainly from those within the system exporting the wealth out, or via taxes (by Governments or other entities). In these systems, you have all the middle men too, such as the Shareholders, and those earning far beyond their means with no work of their own. On the grander scale, all these different systems are not co-operating, but are infact competitive, they serve themselves opposed to serving humanity. This is a very inefficient, corrupt and pretty much goes against any logic or reason.

So what is the ultimate aim/goal? Without this, you cannot advance further. In short, I will simply quote this from Political Compass:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Agree
Disagree

I believe that the economies purpose is to serve the interests of humanity, not the selfishness of the minority or a corporate elite. To be honest, I might as well as summarise it as this, you either pretty much agree with me, and you aim for that goal, or you disagree with me, then it is pretty pointless me and you having a discussion on economics unless you decide to change your mind as we will never agree.

Anyway, equipping yourself for this goal instead of that of selfishness, you would first try to develop an overarching system which can be managed, which you would then simplify to improve efficency.

Firstly you wouldn't bother with small buisnesses such as the corner shop, these simply are wealth-recyclers, not wealth generators. Infrastructure is that, these are not wealth generators by themselves, but these are nessecary to produce wealth (transport, electric, water, schools, etc). As for big wealth generators themselves, you bring these into the hands of the people, to be used to pay for the infrastructure, and to fund the otherthings such as healthcare which may be requested. As these wealth generators would automatically be funding these, this means that there doesn't need to be any income tax, since the wealth generators are what gives the wages in the first place so substracting it from that, doesn't make sense, as you could just extract it from the wealth generation itself.

Now you end up with the different systems, encompassed within a controllable singular environment, to produced the results we desire. Pretty easy to understand conceptually and logically and makes perfect sense.


[The finer details and structures of such systems, etc, are another subject within itself]

[rory_20_uk]

Bescar, I was referring to Idaho's comment. Apologies for causing ambiguity - I should have quoted.

I am a scientist by trade (sort of) and so I am happy to have anything challenged. I think that Small government capitalism is the best model, but if there are others that work better then that's fine.

I would say that competition is required to up the game of all as well as to find the best solutions (often there's more than one).

State-run institutions are not automatically better. They are often massively inefficient, slow to adapt and fail to innovate. Often they are also self serving (BBC which gets given money by the state still has a small army of people on more than £100,000 - why? There's no need for ruthless cut and thust as the money is already there.) Other examples: MoD purchases run years late as a matter of course, NHS spine cost over £12 billion - and doesn't work. Google grew from out of a shed and I can plot routes on my phone.

In drug research, things might work like a dream i the lab. It doesn't mean it'll work in a human though.

[Beskar]

Bescar, I was referring to Idaho's comment. Apologies for causing ambiguity - I should have quoted.

My full apologises, it was mainly replying to a couple of comments in the thread. Don't take my reply personally as any attack or insult against you. Wasn't my intention.

I am a scientist by trade (sort of) and so I am happy to have anything challenged. I think that Small government capitalism is the best model, but if there are others that work better then that's fine.

I would say that competition is required to up the game of all as well as to find the best solutions (often there's more than one).

State-run institutions are not automatically better. They are often massively inefficient, slow to adapt and fail to innovate. Often they are also self serving (BBC which gets given money by the state still has a small army of people on more than £100,000 - why? There's no need for ruthless cut and thust as the money is already there.) Other examples: MoD purchases run years late as a matter of course, NHS spine cost over £12 billion - and doesn't work. Google grew from out of a shed and I can plot routes on my phone.

In drug research, things might work like a dream i the lab. It doesn't mean it'll work in a human though.

I don't agree with small state capitalism, as it just allows those with the means of production to run amok. I believe the economics, just like the politics, should be in the hands of the people for the benefit of humanity and not simply the shareholders or high-fliers.

I also do believe in healthly competition, especially in the inventor/research and development. I am a big supporter for technological advancement and progression. Many ways this could be done is rival public-owned institutions in the forms of different universities and research facilities. This would allow the sense of co-operation and competition to go side-by-side. I remember an interesting combination between the Health Research and companies such as BAE, and with this co-operation, there were some big leaps conducted, such as the rotatary-heart pump, etc. There are a lot of advantages that co-operation can bring which we can miss out on, simply because these are all different systems.

As for state-run = better, I agree, it isn't automatically better. But public-owned institutions are potentionally far-superior to fulfilling the task required of them (serving humanity), in comparison to private-owned institutions who simply have the goal of "making as much wealth for as little work as possible" and this usually for the private elite at the top. Also, I disagree with many laws and practises that have been or are currently in place. I am all for changing the public-sector as you call it, and making it better.

As for examples like google, I am all for public-support of such projects and advancements.

[Idaho]

Any analysis or constructive input? Or merely teh rather stale declamations which are not greatly based in reality.

This budget is an aggressive attack on working people's wealth, and an unshackling of wealthy people's wealth. This budget will create unemployment on one hand, and with the other hand remove benefits from those it has made unemployed.

There are more unemployed already, than there are jobs to do. This drives down wages. Reducing benefits drives down wages. Increasing unemployment drives down wages. Increasing VAT drives down wages.

All the while talk of 'scroungers' increases (front page of the Express yesterday). It's the 80s again. Implement policies that increase unemployment, then blame the unemployed.

[rory_20_uk]

This budget is an aggressive attack on working people's wealth, and an unshackling of wealthy people's wealth. This budget will create unemployment on one hand, and with the other hand remove benefits from those it has made unemployed.

There are more unemployed already, than there are jobs to do. This drives down wages. Reducing benefits drives down wages. Increasing unemployment drives down wages. Increasing VAT drives down wages.

All the while talk of 'scroungers' increases (front page of the Express yesterday). It's the 80s again. Implement policies that increase unemployment, then blame the unemployed.

Mass immigration for a decade of Eastern Europeans coming to the UK to work. Does the UK have full employment? It must do surely. People wouldn't be unemployed whilst there are jobs to do that we have to get in others to fill? Uh, yes there are. Why is this? A system where benefits is more attractive than working - yet others are prepared to immigrate to do it...

The unemployed don't have to sit there waiting the next government job to come along. They could set up enterprises themselves! Do something without the State being involved. Heresy I know.

As jobs are basically infinite (although many oddly not wanted, as I said earlier). Persons can create them by doing new things. Innovation? I know, another dirty word.

Driving up wages achieves one of two things:

• Inflation (1970's Labour)
• Massive Government Debt (2000's Labour)

I realise that you seem to think printing and handing out money to all at a rate that would make Mugabe blush is a good idea, but oddly enough this tends to destabilise... everything.

Humans are generally extremely resourceful. They can find activities to do if need be. Currently doing nothing just happens to be the better option. I'm not blaming, nor telling the unemployed what to do. I am just not prepared to subsidise their inactivity when many jobs are either going unfilled or to migrant workers.

[Furunculus]

This budget is an aggressive attack on working people's wealth, and an unshackling of wealthy people's wealth. This budget will create unemployment on one hand, and with the other hand remove benefits from those it has made unemployed.

There are more unemployed already, than there are jobs to do. This drives down wages. Reducing benefits drives down wages. Increasing unemployment drives down wages. Increasing VAT drives down wages.

All the while talk of 'scroungers' increases (front page of the Express yesterday). It's the 80s again. Implement policies that increase unemployment, then blame the unemployed.

Why do you not get this?

The noughties is not affordable, and continueing to pretend that is is will lead to the UK spending 27% of tax income on debt interest repayments by 2040, due to a national debt that is 400% of GDP!

This will not just be because of deficit spending, it will be because a high tax economy with a declining demographics in a world of aspiring BRIC nations is going to see its growth and competitiveness depressed by that high tax, which will limit our ability to let the deficit take care of itself.

What is more, continueing this high-spending madness will utterly ruin the quality of life for future generations when they are expected to cough up for the 20 million public sector pensions that are currently COMPLETELY unfunded. some might consider that immoral.......

[Idaho]

The unemployed don't have to sit there waiting the next government job to come along. They could set up enterprises themselves! Do something without the State being involved. Heresy I know.

As jobs are basically infinite (although many oddly not wanted, as I said earlier). Persons can create them by doing new things. Innovation? I know, another dirty word.

I realise that you seem to think printing and handing out money to all at a rate that would make Mugabe blush is a good idea, but oddly enough this tends to destabilise... everything.

Yes I have frequently promoted printing and handing out money. Also it's entirely feasable that 2 million people can set up successful innovative small businesses. You are really on a roll here

Meanwhile back in the real world...

Why do you not get this?

The noughties is not affordable, and continueing to pretend that is is will lead to the UK spending 27% of tax income on debt interest repayments by 2040, due to a national debt that is 400% of GDP!

This will not just be because of deficit spending, it will be because a high tax economy with a declining demographics in a world of aspiring BRIC nations is going to see its growth and competitiveness depressed by that high tax, which will limit our ability to let the deficit take care of itself.

What is more, continueing this high-spending madness will utterly ruin the quality of life for future generations when they are expected to cough up for the 20 million public sector pensions that are currently COMPLETELY unfunded. some might consider that immoral.......

I have never said that public spending should not be cut. You and rory breeze in with assumptions that are as lazy as your assertions. There are numerous, almost infinite other ways to reduce public spending and raise more money. This government chose a very specific method which will hit those on lower incomes hardest, whilst at the same time blaming them for their own situation. All the while, their corporate backers are looking at bumper profits and slashed tax bills. These 'wealth creators' as you like to coin, aren't motivated by employing people. If you gave the chance to make £10 more by sacking 10 people, they wouldn't even blink.