Budget 2015

[Fisco2k]

Seen it on BBC after the budget that for someone who's employed to not be worse off after the tax credit cuts etc... they would have had to increase the national living wage to £12.

 

Budget for the working people? Right...

[tobyjugg2]

The office for budget responsibility summary :

The new Government has used its first Budget to loosen significantly the impending squeeze on public services, financed by :

 

welfare cuts,

net tax increases

and three years of higher borrowing.

 

http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/

 

 

and from the executive summary some details

(for those interested, it clearly states in the full document that growth is negatively impacted by 'fiscal tightening'

Highlighting is mine

 

Overview

1.1 The new Government has used its first Budget to loosen significantly the impending squeeze on public services spending that had been pencilled in by the Coalition in March. This is being financed by welfare cuts, net tax increases and three years of higher government borrowing. The Government has delayed the expected return to a budget surplus by a year to 2019-20, but is then aiming for a slightly bigger surplus in the medium term.

 

1.2 The Government’s provisional spending assumptions imply that Resource Departmental Expenditure Limits (RDEL) – which cover day-to-day central government spending on public services, grants and administration – would be £83.3 billion higher in total over the current Parliament than the Coalition suggested in March.

The Government has also announced tax cuts costing £24.6 billion over the Parliament, primarily cutting corporation tax rates, raising the income tax personal allowance and extending inheritance tax relief for main residences.

 

1.3 These ‘giveaways’ are being financed from five main sources:

• tax increases raise £47.2 billion over the Parliament, including increases in dividend taxation, insurance premium tax and vehicle excise duty, plus cuts in pensions tax relief, earlier corporation tax payments, and anti-avoidance and evasion measures;

• welfare cuts raise £34.9 billion. These include a four-year freeze in the uprating of most working-age benefits, cuts in the generosity of tax credits and reduced work allowances in universal credit. The Government will also force local authorities and housing associations to cut rents, thereby reducing the cost of housing benefit;

• other spending decisions raise £8.1 billion. These include reductions in departmental capital spending and a cut in funding for the BBC reaching £745 million in 2020-21;

• these various tax and spending decisions have indirect effects that raise a further £14.2 billion. These include the pension contributions that would be paid by additional public sector workers, and higher income tax and NICs receipts; and

• the Budget decisions also imply £3.5 billion of extra borrowing over the Parliament, on top of the £14.6 billion increase implied by our pre-measures forecast. This includes

£16.7 billion of additional borrowing between 2016-17 and 2018-19, to help avoid the sharpest cuts in public services spending. Thereafter the Government uses some of the welfare cuts and tax increases to aim for bigger budget surpluses.

 

1.4 On the basis of these provisional plans, the forthcoming Spending Review would be a lot less challenging than it appeared in March. The Government would have to identify further real cuts in public services spending rising to a peak of £17.9 billion in 2019-20, rather than £41.9 billion in 2018-19. Thereafter spending is assumed to rise again in real terms.

Public services spending would fall by an average of 1.5 per cent a year in real terms over this Parliament as a whole, slightly less than the 1.6 per cent a year cuts over the last.

 

1.5 We now forecast that public sector net borrowing will total £69.5 billion this year, down £5.8 billion since March thanks to

stronger-than-expected revenues,

the spending cuts announced in June,

the rise in insurance premium tax

and a delay to the introduction of tax-free childcare.

The deficit then declines more slowly than in March, moving into surplus by £10.0 billion in 2019-20, increasing to £11.6 billion in the following year.

 

... (technical stuff left out - look at documents in link if interested)

 

1.7 The Chancellor said in his March Budget speech that he wanted to raise £12 billion from welfare cuts and £5 billion from anti-avoidance and evasion measures by 2017-18. As defined in the Treasury’s scorecard of policy measures, this Budget raises £7.0 billion from welfare cuts and £2.4 billion from ‘avoidance and tax planning, evasion and compliance, and imbalances in the tax system’. These rise to £12.1 billion and £5.0 billion in 2019-20.

 

...

 

1.11 In addition to the sales of Lloyds shares and mortgage assets held by UK Asset Resolution that were announced in March, the Government has now said that it will sell some of its RBS shares, its remaining stake in Royal Mail and its shares in King’s Cross Central Partnership this year. Together with the initial tranche of sales of the pre-2012 student loan book, these asset sales should reduce public sector net debt by £32 billion in 2015-16. The Government has also announced plans to sell three-quarters of its shares in RBS over the Parliament, which we assume will raise around £6 billion a year from 2016-17 to 2019-20.

Financial asset sales typically bring forward cash that would otherwise have been received later in mortgage repayments and dividends, so they only reduce net debt temporarily.

[sadone]

Seen it on BBC after the budget that for someone who's employed to not be worse off after the tax credit cuts etc... they would have had to increase the national living wage to £12.

 

Budget for the working people? Right...

 

Also note how with this budget they have completely reversed the whole idea of Universal credit. Remember them bragging about how with UC workers would be allowed to keep more of their income, well thats been swept away with one fell stoke.

 

This government really doesn't think It's policies through, or even remember what it's done so far.

 

Appalling.

[Nystagmite]

Seen it on BBC after the budget that for someone who's employed to not be worse off after the tax credit cuts etc... they would have had to increase the national living wage to £12.

 

Budget for the working people? Right...

 

And where's that money going to come? Surely, many employers don't pay wages that high because they can't afford to? or will the government assist in paying the higher wage?

[telemark]

So does that mean that existing claimants will have the WRAG element removed from April 2017?

 

 

I've never understood the WRAG. You go to a state medical and are found unfit for work but then pretty soon after you are advised of the outcome of your medical you find yourself infront of your local JCP for a 'Work Related Interview' and then enter into a situation of trying to manage your health condition but at the same time being hounded to find work even though you're unfit for work. I always thought the extra WRAG allowance was to fund the frequent medical appointments you needed to manage your health condition over the top of trying to find work (the JSA element) so with that removed to me the WRAG becomes pretty much redundant and they may as well say anyone that doesn't meet the descriptors for the support group (very few claimants) are magically 'fit for work' and just face a life of misery on JSA constantly being pressured into getting jobs they have no realistic chance of getting with their health condition, although still very real, there and in need of management, pretty much dismissed.

 

 

Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)

Currently those who claim the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) element of ESA get £30 more than JSA. But from April 2017, those who are able to work will get an equivalent rate. That is currently £73.10 for someone over the age of 25, or £57.90 for 18-24 year-olds. The WRAG element of ESA currently pays £103 a week.

[telemark]

I wondered that. Employers can't magically find the extra money to give everyone a payrise just because the government says so so surely it will lead to job losses in the end?

 

 

 

 

And where's that money going to come? Surely, many employers don't pay wages that high because they can't afford to? or will the government assist in paying the higher wage?

[tobyjugg2]

I wondered that. Employers can't magically find the extra money to give everyone a payrise just because the government says so so surely it will lead to job losses in the end?

 

Although I don't agree with the way it has been implemented, I do agree that tax payers should not support companies in paying low wages.

If more people end up unemployed, then that is an accurate reflection on the true state of the system, and would show what really needs to be addressed rather than shooting policies at ghosts 'problems'.

 

If the government needs to 'create' jobs, then private indiciduals, let alone starbucks, tesco and asda should not be profiting from it at our expense.

The whole current system is flimflam smoke and mirrors which hides problems - not addresses them.

[Nystagmite]

I wondered that. Employers can't magically find the extra money to give everyone a payrise just because the government says so so surely it will lead to job losses in the end?

 

I've enquired a few times over the years about jobs. I've been told a few times "sorry. I don't have enough money to pay myself a wage, let alone you". It's not going to work. I think all that's going to happen is the government will cut tax credits and pass that extra money on to companies instead.

[SabreSheep]

Smaller company may struggle.

 

Larger ones that make billions in profits. Nah they can afford to pay.

 

Also remember the cut in corporation tax

[obiter dictum]

Raising insurance premium tax will impact everyone, from travel to home insurance. The cost of motoring is the biggest concern and raises to 9.5 % . Insurance rates are notoriously high and people are just about paying now. The amount of uninsured drivers is at an all time high and this will only make matters worse.

 

This is so unfair that the Government has imposed this Tax hike on the Tax payer consideration motor Insurance is compulsory. The majority of people need transport to go to work.

 

What about business and supermarkets who have to have employee and public liability insurance. That again will be passed onto the consumer with higher prices at the checkout

 

Nothing more than another stealth Tax

[estellyn]

not getting much attention is

 

1) freeze on applicable amounts in HB which will see low pay workers HB being cut

 

2) removal of family element in CTC & UC and removal of family premium in HB

 

3) increase in tax credit taper from 41% to 48%

 

4) work allowance in UC totally abolished for single people and couples (unless disabled or have children)

 

5) HB backdating period to be reduced from 26 weeks to 4 week

 

I saw those, all the tax credit changes together are pretty brutal.

[marcus6]

So does that mean that existing claimants will have the WRAG element removed from April 2017?

 

 

I've never understood the WRAG. You go to a state medical and are found unfit for work but then pretty soon after you are advised of the outcome of your medical you find yourself infront of your local JCP for a 'Work Related Interview' and then enter into a situation of trying to manage your health condition but at the same time being hounded to find work even though you're unfit for work. I always thought the extra WRAG allowance was to fund the frequent medical appointments you needed to manage your health condition over the top of trying to find work (the JSA element) so with that removed to me the WRAG becomes pretty much redundant and they may as well say anyone that doesn't meet the descriptors for the support group (very few claimants) are magically 'fit for work' and just face a life of misery on JSA constantly being pressured into getting jobs they have no realistic chance of getting with their health condition, although still very real, there and in need of management, pretty much dismissed.

 

Its only for new claims, the ones that are on WRAG now will keep getting what they get now.

[obiter dictum]

That still does not make it right. People still become disabled past yesterday. Being disabled as a condition just did not stop on the 8/07/2015, no miracle cure was discovered

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Bill presented to the House today by IDS - Not sure when it's going to be debated.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0051/16051.pdf

Some big changes proposed, none to the advantage of people on benefits of any kind.

[obiter dictum]

No legislation that ****** Ian Duncan Smith brings in is compatible with the ECHR.

 

The all get overturned by our own domestic courts as unlawful

[tobyjugg2]

IFS adds to evidence of actual budget effects

http://www.ifs.org.uk/

 

"13m UK families will lose average of £260 a year due to budget’s freeze on working-age benefits."

 

"The minimum wage announcement won’t “anywhere near compensate in cash terms” for the welfare cuts, he said. People currently on tax credits will be “significantly worse off” and the reform would cost 3 million families an average of £5,000 per year each."

 

"The reduction of the work allowance will also have a huge effect, he said, meaning cuts will be bigger for those with a job, reducing incentives for people to move into work."

 

Osbourne of course disagrees..

[stu007]

Dont you just love how LONDON gets special treatment with the cap on benefits will be cut from £26,000 to £23,000 in London and £20,000 in the rest of the UK.

 

So London is once again a special case to the rest of the UK.

[Nystagmite]

Dont you just love how LONDON gets special treatment with the cap on benefits will be cut from £26,000 to £23,000 in London and £20,000 in the rest of the UK.

 

So London is once again a special case to the rest of the UK.

 

How is London a "special case"? I've lived there and renting is far more expensive. Heck, it even costs more to buy food there sometimes.

[stu007]

I am sure there are many people who would say exactly the same thing its more expensive where they live and costs more.

 

Sorry but I dont see why London should be treated differently to the rest of the UK with the benefit cap.

[tobyjugg2]

So London is once again a special case to the rest of the UK.

It should be :

 

We should get all the money back the financial institutions and politicians based there stole from us,

 

that should leave it way beyond bankrupt, and us back in the green

 

We can then move Hadrians wall to block off London, open the flood barriers and send London after Atlantis,

while the rest of a truly United Kingdom goes into the future unburdened, simply telling their kids scary stories of a horrible place that used to exist called Loondun that was full of mean monsters who stole from everyone and ate children.

[tfp]

Well the IFS (Institute for Financial Studies) does not think Osborne's budget is up to much:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864

 

Who else also thinks those over 25 may find it even harder to find a new job post 2020 due to the ''living wage' being not applicable under 25's?

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Of course, as long as anyone under 25 remains unemployed they will have first refusal on every job going. Jobs even crappier than those on offer now will be all that will be available to the more 'mature' job seeker.

 

 

Meanwhile, why can't we all move to London? I wouldn't mind if my housing costs were paid.

[estellyn]

 

 

Meanwhile, why can't we all move to London? I wouldn't mind if my housing costs were paid.

 

That's not really the point though, is it? London is being cleansed of as many of the poor as possible - keeping just enough to do the 'little' jobs, but those will struggle and won't be afford to buy, forever trapped by the rental system.

[Belfaster]

That's not really the point though, is it? London is being cleansed of as many of the poor as possible - keeping just enough to do the 'little' jobs, but those will struggle and won't be afford to buy, forever trapped by the rental system.

 

Very true. I left London in 2001 and even then getting anywhere half decent to rent was a nightmare, I don't know what the waiting lists are like now, but getting housed in London is an absolute non starter. You could move to Cumbria and get housed within a matter of weeks, no jobs though!

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Seriously Estellyn, I appreciate that it would be impractical for the millions of those all over the UK who are going to be affected by those housing benefits caps to move to London. I also appreciate that escalating property prices and greedy landlords combine to raise rental values and keep them artificially high.

 

The question is; what is our elected representatives proposing to do about it and how long are we going to allow them to get away with doing nothing but placate us with platitudes? I have lost count of the number of times I have been reduced to tears by stories of the effects of this government's policies on the most vulnerable, but they do sod all and have not reversed a single one of those heinous policies.

 

During the Clearances in the Highlands the indigenous population were forcibly removed from their homes and land by greedy landlords with fire and sword to make way for tenants who could pay more for it. They may not be using fire and sword nowadays but the effect is the same when wages are squeezed and no help with rents is available. When the property bubble bursts, as it inevitably will, like the Highlands, 'they will have created a desert and called it progress'.

 

The problem is, as I see it, that in order not to make it so obvious that the citizens of London are being 'cleared' the citizens of other regions of the UK are also being affected by having their wages squeezed and their benefits capped too .

 

The question is, how to put a stop to this 'cleansing' before it goes too far? The government won't do anything about it, many of them gain from it in various ways. But what if millions of the affected in London and in the regions combined with a view to descend on London and take over property and land. Even the mere thought that such an action was being considered would make the powers that be sit up, take notice, and act.

 

In some parts of the Highlands they actually did just that, they took the land back and rebuilt their homes in defiance of the landlords and their laws. Eventually the people decided that so far and no further would they be pushed and driven. They united, fought back, and won. The laws were changed so that no more could rents be fixed to the detriment of the people or landlords have the power of life and death over their tenants.

 

That law still exists to this day. I was born and raised in such a home, it is still in the family. Now if the people could take possession, and via their representatives in Parliament, have the laws changed in their favour over a hundred years ago, surely only the will prevents today's generation from doing the same again today. How much further are they prepared to be pushed and driven without raising a finger to resist?

 

In addition to the scandal of rental policies designed to cleanse parts of the country, other policies are being enacted to control the birth rate among the working classes, whose wages, even with benefits, can't feed or keep a family. This is nothing less than social cleansing, the sort of underhand 'purification' policies that the Nazis would be proud of. How much further are they prepared to be pushed and driven without raising a finger to resist?

 

At the same time policies are being enacted to make it harder for working class youth to improve themselves by further education at college or university. Their entitlement to basic benefits to be reduced to such an extent that they will be forced to accept jobs with below a living wage and slave labour conditions or die. Their wages are to be kept below what it has been determined to be the minimum or living wage until they are 25 years old. Marriage, family or a home they can call their own will be out of the question. How much further are they prepared to be pushed and driven without raising a finger to resist?

 

In the meantime anyone who is over 25 will have to constantly live with the threat that they could lose their job any time the boss feels like it to a youth who can be employed at a lower wage and no employment rights. Here again this policy is not going to affect the upper quartiles. How much further are they prepared to be pushed and driven without raising a finger to resist?

 

Our representatives in Parliament, of whatever hue, are so absorbed in their own interests that we can expect no support from that quarter. Bombard them with letters and emails making it clear in no uncertain terms that their future is in the balance, and sooner than they think. They usually hold their regular 'surgeries' in their constituencies at weekends when they can be bothered to do even that. Start with them, I'm sure a couple of dozen, a dozen even, determined constituents could put the fear of God, at least of their career, into them every time they have the nerve to show their faces.

 

Let them appreciate what it is like to dread every appointment, interview, letter and phone call. To live with the permanent anxiety that each and every day could bring notification of imminent destitution, starvation, eviction, and for the most vulnerable, even death.