By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
An excellent refreshing budget I thought, by a very commanding, professional and credible chancellor. Triple lock kept (rightly so), pensioners protected, billions raised for our crumbling services so badly needed, no increase in fuel duty (right decison), and at last,.an end to criminals going in to my local shop, supermarkets and stealing up to £100 without consequence. A start on restoring law and order in this country. Taxes raised for multi billion pound companies to pay their fair share. And 50 per cent increase on those using private jets. Too right. If you can afford to travel at that expense, then give some back to the country (Sorry Rishi).
Businesses will be hot hard by changes, which will affect most people.
Inflation will increase, which will ultimately keep interest rates higher for longer. In next 12 months I reckon there will be a slowing of interest rate cuts, that will be experienced in Europe and US.
I was surprised, Pensions were not touched. A flat rate of 25 or 30% tax relief would have been fairer for all, and encourage younger people to save for future retirement.
The increase in minimum wage, (on top of 2 recent increases) and NI, I believe will have a negative affect on businesses, especially those who were considering creating new apprentice positions. Many (especially) small businesses will think twice about taking on new unskilled hires, which will impact growth.
I heard a lot of talk about a crackdown on Benefit and Welfare fraud, I hope they follow through on this. With more companies offering flexibility to work from home, this creates a lot more opportunities. Too many people have got comfortable on benefits and see it as a right rather than the safety net it was designed for. It also makes it too attractive for people to come to UK as it is very generous.
Ambulances are one example of how the system isn't working. Spending more money on ambulances wouldn't help because there are plenty of ambulances.
There are plenty of ambulances but often there is a shortage of available ambulances. Why? It's because they are stacked up outside hospitals unable to discharge their patient to the hospital. And why can't they discharge their patient? It's because there are no spare beds in the hospital. And why are there no spare beds? It's because up to 1 in 3 beds are occupied by people who don't need to be in hospital
It costs a lot of money to have someone in a hospital bed. It costs a lot less to have them in bed in a care home, or to provide care for them in their own home. Yet our system means all these people are kept in the most expensive beds. Not only that, but as the article says, keeping them in hospital is actually bad for their health so they end up needing more treatment! It's just one example of the huge inefficiencies involved.
Throwing money at problems is superficially attractive but doesn't actually solve the problems. Sorting out the inefficiencies will solve the problems.
We are hugely over taxed and this budget has made it worse. High taxation means low growth. Low growth means a smaller economy and a smaller economy means less tax can be raised to pay for public services. The only solution is to grow the economy - WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT RACHEL REEVES SAID BEFORE THE BUDGET - yet she has chosen to massively raise taxes and so lower growth. Unbelievable.
And why are people not being discharged from hospital be dealt with by social care services? The answer is in the article you posted
“The shocking situation is that we have more people requesting help from councils, more older and disabled with complex needs, yet social care capacity has reduced and we have 50,000 fewer paid carers,” she said.
Why has social care capacity been reduced? To save money by any chance? Social care needs more money, simple as that. Then the bed blockers would have somewhere to go, wouldn't be taking up beds in hospitals and then the ambulances could be more efficient. But social care doesn't have the money to provide a service. Same for mental health. They go to hospital instead of getting out patient care, because there just arn't enough mental health practitioners to cope.with the demand. And all.of that costs money. And that is just one aspect of the NHS that isn't working. Not enough doctors to do all the operations, so people are waiting a year for heart surgery. The doctors who are there, can't work any quicker! They just need more of them. And again, that costs money.
And why are people not being discharged from hospital be dealt with by social care services? The answer is in the article you posted
“The shocking situation is that we have more people requesting help from councils, more older and disabled with complex needs, yet social care capacity has reduced and we have 50,000 fewer paid carers,” she said.
Why has social care capacity been reduced? To save money by any chance? Social care needs more money, simple as that. Then the bed blockers would have somewhere to go, wouldn't be taking up beds in hospitals and then the ambulances could be more efficient. But social care doesn't have the money to provide a service. Same for mental health. They go to hospital instead of getting out patient care, because there just arn't enough mental health practitioners to cope.with the demand. And all.of that costs money. And that is just one aspect of the NHS that isn't working. Not enough doctors to do all the operations, so people are waiting a year for heart surgery. The doctors who are there, can't work any quicker! They just need more of them. And again, that costs money.
[Post edited 31 Oct 0:44]
Well firstly, the point was that throwing money at more ambulances doesn't solve the problem - and the current system is hugely inefficient by keeping people in hospital. So, sorting out the system means you need LESS money in total, even if the social care is provided by the government.
But secondly, it shouldn't be all about government funded social care anyway. People are supposed to look after their own care. In the old days it was handled within the family. I remember that within my family when I was a kid. Mum cared for her mother and we kids had to share a room. Why should the tax payer pick up the tab because people don't want to do that anymore? The government should only be there for very basic care when all else has failed, and that should be limited to care that could be delivered inexpensively (your basic care home might be in Scotland).
But as far as government care workers are concerned, it's wrong to say that numbers are reduced. They're actually at record levels:
Yep, but it’s not before time businesses pay more back into the system apparently . Where’s the money going to come from? Wages; ie redundancies most likely.
We are all still paying for furlough and Eat out to Help out while Rishi vanishes in his PJ All this is down to the tories and labour are doing the best they can If they had hiked income tax by 2% and change d thresholds to hit the working person then we would all have something to moan about
Ambulances are one example of how the system isn't working. Spending more money on ambulances wouldn't help because there are plenty of ambulances.
There are plenty of ambulances but often there is a shortage of available ambulances. Why? It's because they are stacked up outside hospitals unable to discharge their patient to the hospital. And why can't they discharge their patient? It's because there are no spare beds in the hospital. And why are there no spare beds? It's because up to 1 in 3 beds are occupied by people who don't need to be in hospital
It costs a lot of money to have someone in a hospital bed. It costs a lot less to have them in bed in a care home, or to provide care for them in their own home. Yet our system means all these people are kept in the most expensive beds. Not only that, but as the article says, keeping them in hospital is actually bad for their health so they end up needing more treatment! It's just one example of the huge inefficiencies involved.
Throwing money at problems is superficially attractive but doesn't actually solve the problems. Sorting out the inefficiencies will solve the problems.
We are hugely over taxed and this budget has made it worse. High taxation means low growth. Low growth means a smaller economy and a smaller economy means less tax can be raised to pay for public services. The only solution is to grow the economy - WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT RACHEL REEVES SAID BEFORE THE BUDGET - yet she has chosen to massively raise taxes and so lower growth. Unbelievable.
What’s unbelievable Ifonly is you continually suggesting that as a nation we are hugely over taxed.
Even after yesterday’s welcome tax increases to fund a better society for us all, our overall tax rate as a percentage of G D P is still lower than nearly every country in Europe.
I’m reminded of the old phrase “ Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story”.
A long way further up this thread, somebody said "Some employers have for years been able to obtain cheap workers by exploiting the tax credit system where effectively tax payers have subsided workers wages. "
Yes. Multimillionaires gaming the tax system while their employees use food banks. My taxes used not to prevent people falling into poverty but for paying the greedy bastrds to keep expoiting them.
A long way further up this thread, somebody said "Some employers have for years been able to obtain cheap workers by exploiting the tax credit system where effectively tax payers have subsided workers wages. "
Yes. Multimillionaires gaming the tax system while their employees use food banks. My taxes used not to prevent people falling into poverty but for paying the greedy bastrds to keep expoiting them.
THE WORK DEMANDS THE WAGE.
We are led to believe that birth rates are falling.
So the impact of the tax credit system should be reducing.
The more I think about the impact of Reeves’ changes, the more concerned I get.
The only “growth” in the economy will be price-led, as businesses increase their prices to absorb the cost of the Employers’ NI and minimum wage increases (over £1,000 per full-time worker per year).
So I can only see increases in inflation, then interest rates and ultimately unemployment.
Awful, awful economics from Reeves, a so-called economist from the Bank of England.
A long way further up this thread, somebody said "Some employers have for years been able to obtain cheap workers by exploiting the tax credit system where effectively tax payers have subsided workers wages. "
Yes. Multimillionaires gaming the tax system while their employees use food banks. My taxes used not to prevent people falling into poverty but for paying the greedy bastrds to keep expoiting them.
THE WORK DEMANDS THE WAGE.
Just curious - have you ever been personally responsible for employing people?
What’s unbelievable Ifonly is you continually suggesting that as a nation we are hugely over taxed.
Even after yesterday’s welcome tax increases to fund a better society for us all, our overall tax rate as a percentage of G D P is still lower than nearly every country in Europe.
I’m reminded of the old phrase “ Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story”.
If you think the tax and spend policies common in the EU are some kind of model to be admired then you are badly misguided. Even the likes of France and Italy are now recognising that they have over stepped the limits of what is sustainable. Economic growth has fallen further and further in the EU as the size of the state has grown and grown.
Meanwhile in the UK, our tax as a share of GDP is at the highest recorded levels since WW II (when there was a valid reason for high taxes) and not surprisingly, long run economic growth is at the lowest.
This is from last year when Labour pointed to the problem and said it represented 13 years of economic failure under the Tories. Labour were right, but they have now made the problem even worse!
40 billion being raised by Reeves. Only a couple of billion more than was wasted on Track and Trace. Then there were all those fraudulent business support grants. Makes you think.
If you think the tax and spend policies common in the EU are some kind of model to be admired then you are badly misguided. Even the likes of France and Italy are now recognising that they have over stepped the limits of what is sustainable. Economic growth has fallen further and further in the EU as the size of the state has grown and grown.
Meanwhile in the UK, our tax as a share of GDP is at the highest recorded levels since WW II (when there was a valid reason for high taxes) and not surprisingly, long run economic growth is at the lowest.
This is from last year when Labour pointed to the problem and said it represented 13 years of economic failure under the Tories. Labour were right, but they have now made the problem even worse!
So you don’t dispute that our tax take as a share of GDP is lower than the majority of European countries If only ?
Just that you now consider that near enough every other European government is wrong.Interesting theory to say the least.
Reminds me of the mother who goes to see her son march in a parade. He’s the one clearly out of step but in her eyes it’s all the fault of the others.
As I said earlier “ never let the facts get in the way of a good story”.
It is you who that is ignoring the facts, not me. The US is a much more successful economy with much higher living standards than Europe, so they are the model we should be getting in step with. But as for Europe, as I said, European governments are waking up to the fact that they have too much government spending. See here for an example this month from France:
Note that 66% of the €60 billion a year deficit cuts will come from spending cuts rather than tax increases. In reality, this is just the start of what's needs to be done as the government well knows.
So no, I don't think that every other European government is wrong. They know what needs to be done but they have difficulty getting it agreed with their voters who only ever look at the short term (same as here) and vote them out of they say they need to cut spending.
Meanwhile in the UK, Labour said before the election that their main priority was economic growth. But the fact that higher taxes lead to lower growth is a well established fact. This for example is a summary of 26 different studies looking at the issue:
It is a very negative budget. It could have been a positive budget if the chancellor had just scored through two words of text, thereby cancelling.......NET ZERO.
It's a disaster for business and relatively speaking, the cost of employing people on lesser pay has hugely increased due to:-
- the increase in the minimum wage - the increase in Employers' NI, both from 13.8% to 15.0%, but more significantly, the reduction in the figure at which it kicks in from £9,100 per year down to £5,000.
All-in, it means that it will cost a business well over £1,000 per year more to employ somebody who is on minimum wage.
Businesses will simply cut back on recruitment and pay increases.
It's going to lead to recession by the back door, and hurt more of the Labour core vote. Though they probably won't notice it initially.
I don't mind admitting I voted for Labour, but this is abysmal politics.
[Post edited 30 Oct 16:57]
Our employers will charge more for the goods and services they supply. For a big proportion, that is 1% to 1.5% increase in wage costs (more if mostly low paid workers like retail). Business growth will have to come from small to medium sized companies, large companies have steadily declined over the past decades. Small companies being hit with higher costs, more generous worker rights and knowing that they will get hit with massive CGT iof they are successful and get bought out by bigger fish, they are not likely to take big risks and maximise growth. It will be Corporation Tax at the next budget.
This government have played entirely to the voting electorate in the short term. When ever did government intervention in the capital investment cycle prove to be a success?
This lot just don’t have a clue any more than the lazy, corrupt and self serving mob who were in before.
We are all still paying for furlough and Eat out to Help out while Rishi vanishes in his PJ All this is down to the tories and labour are doing the best they can If they had hiked income tax by 2% and change d thresholds to hit the working person then we would all have something to moan about
Utter nonsense. If Labour were in power during Covid, the country would be even more fvcked now. I don’t think Starmer could believe how un-Tory like Boris and Rishi were at throwing money at the masses on furlough etc, but he still took the stance that it wasn’t enough. I dread to think what the “black hole” would look like with that bellend dishing the freebies out.
The fallout from the covid nonsense is the cause of the mess we’re in now, so raising income tax is exactly what should be done, so everyone shares the burden on the recovery. No Government has the nuts to do that though, so they choose to go after softer and more strategic targets, meaning once again, businesses get bummed.
Utter nonsense. If Labour were in power during Covid, the country would be even more fvcked now. I don’t think Starmer could believe how un-Tory like Boris and Rishi were at throwing money at the masses on furlough etc, but he still took the stance that it wasn’t enough. I dread to think what the “black hole” would look like with that bellend dishing the freebies out.
The fallout from the covid nonsense is the cause of the mess we’re in now, so raising income tax is exactly what should be done, so everyone shares the burden on the recovery. No Government has the nuts to do that though, so they choose to go after softer and more strategic targets, meaning once again, businesses get bummed.
Are you suggesting that eat out to help out was a good idea? Start getting those on benefits back to work would help too
Utter nonsense. If Labour were in power during Covid, the country would be even more fvcked now. I don’t think Starmer could believe how un-Tory like Boris and Rishi were at throwing money at the masses on furlough etc, but he still took the stance that it wasn’t enough. I dread to think what the “black hole” would look like with that bellend dishing the freebies out.
The fallout from the covid nonsense is the cause of the mess we’re in now, so raising income tax is exactly what should be done, so everyone shares the burden on the recovery. No Government has the nuts to do that though, so they choose to go after softer and more strategic targets, meaning once again, businesses get bummed.
I agree.
If they had put a penny on the basic rate of income tax, all taxpayers would have been at worst between £300 and £400 a year worse off. Less at the lower end of the salary scale.
However their employers would have been far more likely to give them a decent pay rise which would have more than offset that. Whilst also investing more to help their businesses grow.
And employees would have seen more of that pay rise as inflationary pressures would have reduced.
These measures will do nothing to encourage businesses to invest either in their staff or in other assets to help the economy grow. And they will be inflationary as businesses will be forced to increase their prices to absorb the wage cost increases.
If they had put a penny on the basic rate of income tax, all taxpayers would have been at worst between £300 and £400 a year worse off. Less at the lower end of the salary scale.
However their employers would have been far more likely to give them a decent pay rise which would have more than offset that. Whilst also investing more to help their businesses grow.
And employees would have seen more of that pay rise as inflationary pressures would have reduced.
These measures will do nothing to encourage businesses to invest either in their staff or in other assets to help the economy grow. And they will be inflationary as businesses will be forced to increase their prices to absorb the wage cost increases.
Ass Sucker
We thought that we had the answers,
It was the questions we had wrong.
We are all still paying for furlough and Eat out to Help out while Rishi vanishes in his PJ All this is down to the tories and labour are doing the best they can If they had hiked income tax by 2% and change d thresholds to hit the working person then we would all have something to moan about
' Labour are doing the best they can' Nobby is as clueless about economics as he is about football, with his knee-jerk reactions. Attacking wealth creators, entrepreneurs and businesses, has always led to the stifling of growth, and lowering taxes on business increases investment, growth and jobs. Thatcher and Major set the tone for incredible growth in the late 80s and 90s by reducing waste and lowering taxes which Blair had the good sense to continue, until they busted the flush with over spending and borrowing.
It is you who that is ignoring the facts, not me. The US is a much more successful economy with much higher living standards than Europe, so they are the model we should be getting in step with. But as for Europe, as I said, European governments are waking up to the fact that they have too much government spending. See here for an example this month from France:
Note that 66% of the €60 billion a year deficit cuts will come from spending cuts rather than tax increases. In reality, this is just the start of what's needs to be done as the government well knows.
So no, I don't think that every other European government is wrong. They know what needs to be done but they have difficulty getting it agreed with their voters who only ever look at the short term (same as here) and vote them out of they say they need to cut spending.
Meanwhile in the UK, Labour said before the election that their main priority was economic growth. But the fact that higher taxes lead to lower growth is a well established fact. This for example is a summary of 26 different studies looking at the issue:
The overwhelming conclusion is that higher taxes mean lower growth, when as Labour have said, it is growth that we need.
Those are the facts.
So Ifonly, by virtue of the fact you have not suggested anything to the contrary we can now assume that you have accepted ( I imagine somewhat reluctantly ) that even after yesterday’s budget tax increases, our tax take to G D P ratio is less than the majority of comparable European countries ? That’s a start at least.
You then state “ I don’t think that every other European government is wrong “. Another step forward.
Unfortunately and for reasons best known to yourself, prior to the above mentioned Damascene moments, you appear to suggest that a role model for us should be “ getting in step with the US”. A country 3000 odd miles away whose economy has produced some of the biggest life inequality for its citizens in the whole Western World and which appears to be on the verge of electing a grifter as its president for the second time. Forgive me if I’m not attracted to that proposal.
The bottom line for the next five years or so is that a democratically elected UK government with a majority of 170 seats has decided to increase taxation to fund public services, primarily the N H S.
Quite unsurprisingly those asked to contribute more aren’t happy, thus it ever was in every budget I can remember. By next week their complaints will be completely forgotten.
So Ifonly, by virtue of the fact you have not suggested anything to the contrary we can now assume that you have accepted ( I imagine somewhat reluctantly ) that even after yesterday’s budget tax increases, our tax take to G D P ratio is less than the majority of comparable European countries ? That’s a start at least.
You then state “ I don’t think that every other European government is wrong “. Another step forward.
Unfortunately and for reasons best known to yourself, prior to the above mentioned Damascene moments, you appear to suggest that a role model for us should be “ getting in step with the US”. A country 3000 odd miles away whose economy has produced some of the biggest life inequality for its citizens in the whole Western World and which appears to be on the verge of electing a grifter as its president for the second time. Forgive me if I’m not attracted to that proposal.
The bottom line for the next five years or so is that a democratically elected UK government with a majority of 170 seats has decided to increase taxation to fund public services, primarily the N H S.
Quite unsurprisingly those asked to contribute more aren’t happy, thus it ever was in every budget I can remember. By next week their complaints will be completely forgotten.
A 170 seat majority, but with what % of the vote? Does any party really represent “the country” as a whole?
A 170 seat majority, but with what % of the vote? Does any party really represent “the country” as a whole?
Regretfully Chesham when in July 40% of eligible voters couldn’t be bothered to get to a nearby polling station or even request a postal vote it’s the sort of result that transpires.
Agreed far from perfect, but to use an old motor trade auction expression “ That’s the bid and that’s the offer”.
Wasn’t the country offered a change to a form of P R a few years back ( Cameron P M at the time? ) and gave the suggestion the thumbs down ?
. Where’s the money going to come from? Wages; ie redundancies most likely. 
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.