Forum menu
Intrigued to know what people think of it..Simple Yes (good thing/necessary/required etc)or no (disaster/gone too far etc) will suffice.
I'll start...
YES
yes
yes
YES
Bit unfair to judge them so early in this term but what option did they have but to cut spending, the previous lot left them with an empty bank account and a load of excuses.
[i]"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce"[/i]
[center]Karl Marx[/center]
So thats a yes then ernie?
I assume you refer to labour stuffing the economy in the late 70's which needed a strong decicive government in the 80's to fix?
but what option did they have but to cut spending, the previous lot left them with an empty bank account and a load of excuses
YES, but it weasnt like "the last lot" inherited a perfect situation!. **** tories, thats all we are going to hear for the next few years... well "the last lot" did this or that.. They are all as bad as each other.. FACT!
It's an interesting one; you might almost call it balanced in that it does hit almost everyone except for the very lowest paid and it does seem to hit the higher paid slightly harder.
The thing I found interesting was that housing benefit is going to be limited to £400 a week saving £1.8bn a year! So even after the limit, people ccould still be claiming £1733 a month for housing. Is that right?
So just how much were people able to claim before?
Yes, but I genuinely think the state of the economy at this stage would have been almost identical no matter which party had been in power prior to this point. It's a bit rich the Tory members of the government bleating on about what they have been left when they gave no indication of wanting things done in any significantly different way from 2005-8. Apportioning blame at this stage when only one grouping could have been in power and the consequences of another doing it differently (or not) is only theoretical are futile.
There will be the usual self centred moaning from the public that all want to see spending cuts, just as long as it's not on their patch.
No.
I think it'll push unemployment too high and will have enough "feel bad" factor to push us back into recession, just as we were slowly recovering.
There was an interesting 'fact' quoted in the wake of the budget. Over the last five years, for every private sector job created in the north east, there were 10 public sector jobs created. I think that I heard that correct.
There's no doubt that the public sector will get hit hard and there will be a lot of job losses. Osborne is banking on the private sector being able to take advantage of the increase in lower cost labour that will be available in order to stimulate growth.
I'm gonna say yes but I think its hanging in the balance, could go either way...only time will tell!
Yes. They've hit everyone except the very lowest incomes, seems very reasonable to me.
But let's be honest, this is a great time to be in opposition isn't it?!
yes
No Surprises really. I do think that some on the Tory right are are tad too enthusiastic about getting stuck into public services and benefits though. As you would be if you have private healthcare, kids in private education etc
Same old, same old
No, the devil is in the cuts to come not what they've done to individuals which wasnt too bad IMO
a_a, so you're actually saying yes in the basisof this budget alone?
people ccould still be claiming £1733 a month for housing. Is that right?
I don't think you're entitled to claim that much. I think it's a maximum which might have to be paid based on what housing is available for the family in question. Which in London could be very expensive.
As for the budget, I think possibly yes but it's a BIG gamble. A fair few economists it seems (from reading the paper) are very worried that it'll push us back in to recession, which will be a disaster.
The Guardian seem to think that a financial transaction tax would have been better to apply than a VAT rise, and I have some sympathy towards that position, since only banking bigwigs would suffer with a transaction tax, whereas Mr and Mrs Working Class on £20kpa will suffer with a VAT rise. More, proportionally I would say since a higher proportion of their income goes on essentials.
No the maain part of the budget was 25% cuts to public spending wasnt it? The rest that everyone is worrying about is the fluff round the edges. (I could be wrong on this mind)
Oh and the VAT thing is plain wrong too
No
Taking money out of the economy at this time is wrong. History tells us this, the vast majority of economists tells us this.
Reducing demand tips us back into recession. Unemployment rises, tax revenues decrease, benefit payment rise, budget deficit gets worse.
It will destroy whats left of the economy and cause untold harm
Yes.
Its about time the public sector realised they were not more special than the private sector.
I see loads of private sector companys cutting pay/bonus/etc, about time the public sector did.
+1 TJ
No.
Those who think they are "hitting" the higher paid need a reality check.
The rich (eg. those who spend £5000 per night on hotels) will not notice a bloody thing whereas the below average wage earners will.
they are going to hit the public sector ! thats us working people with a 'freeze' on wages they say ! so all of you dont want a pay rise ? hmmmmm...
Taking money out of the economy at this time is wrong. History tells us this, the vast majority of economists tells us this.
How about very recent Greek history?
How happy would you be right now if your pension fund was invested in Greek government bonds? Knowing that there's a pretty good chance they won't keep up the repayments on their enormous debts and will be forced to default or devalue?
Trimix
Why should the public sector suffer because of 1) bankers mistakes
2) because private sector bosses are swines taking all the money?
Luke - read up on the great depression of the 30s. Look to what the vast majority of the worlds economists say
because of sensible decisions by Darling we are not in the position of Greece - who won't default or devalue anyway
Why should the public sector suffer because of 1) [s]bankers[/s] Gordon's mistakes
There. Fixed that one for you 🙂
And the actual answer? Because Gordon spent more money than he actually had, and messed up bank regulation while he was at it. We couldn't really afford what was being spent at the time, and now that the financial services sector - which pays a huge proportion of our wages in this country - is shrinking, we can afford it still less.
EDIT: I think I know a bit about the depression of the '30s! That was finally sorted out by a world war though.
EDIT: And whether Greece gives up the struggle or not, having been downgraded to junk status means that Greek taxpayers will all be paying even more of their hard earned salaries in interest repayments.
Luke - problem is none of that is true. It was not Browns mistakes that caused the recession no matter how much you wish it. It was global and Brown and Darlings decisions meant we avoided the very worst of it - but Osbourne will make sure we do get the worst of it.
its basic ignorance and incompetence on a massive scale from Osbourne
still - be happy when we go back into recession with no way out because of this stupid budget.
As unemployment rises benefit payments rise, tax revenues drop and the deficit gets worse. I predict at least another million unemployed
TJ - I'm sorry but I have to strongly object to what you've just written.
It's not
.Browns mistakes
It's
.Brown's mistakes
Sorry, but no matter how bad things are/will be, it's always worth getting the apostrophes right, otherwise we are little better than savages.
As the lesser of two evils, yes.
This budget temporarily puts away the prospect of a sovereign debt crisis. If that were to occur, you and I would lose around two thirds of our wealth.
But the hoped for growth in the private sector will be very difficult to achieve because of overcapacity in world manufacturing (a problem begun in the 70s which is the driving force behind the debt bubble).
The long term hope is that the BRICs and other emerging markets will develop into consumer nations, finally rectifying the problem of overcapacity, but that is still a good decade away.
I have never understood apostrophes so my English teacher told me if in doubt leave them out
As unemployment rises benefit payments rise, tax revenues drop and the deficit gets worse. I predict at least another million unemployed
As credit ratings fall, interest rates rise, more of our tax revenues are spent on debt repayments rather than useful services and the deficit gets worse (£74Bn in 2014/15 apparently). We would have had at least another million unemployed under Labour.
NoTaking money out of the economy at this time is wrong. History tells us this, the vast majority of economists tells us this.
While I appreciate that worry, I'd be more worried that continuing the rate of spending in the vague hope that a) the meagre benefits at home outstrip it and b) the wider world economy doesn't still force it back the other way would be foolish and digging a deeper hole from which you can't climb out.
I have never understood apostrophes so my English teacher told me if in doubt leave them out
It's pretty easy!
1. If you're missing a letter out. For example "you're" is short for "you are". I missed a letter (and a space) out so I put in an apostrophe. Similarly "it's" is short for "it is". I missed some stuff out, so I put in an apostrophe.
2. Just like the above, but for possession. Before apostrophes were invented I would have to write something like "the post of TJ was thought-provoking". No-one has said anything like that for 300 years - instead we say "TJ's post...".
Just like (1), I missed something out, so I put in an apostrophe.
3. Don't be confused by "The dog has eaten its food". There's no apostrophe here because "its" is just the same as "his" or "hers", only for things. You wouldn't write "He has eaten hi's food".
4. There's some confusing stuff about apostrophes with plurals. The apostrophe usually goes on the end, but if in doubt just use the collective noun instead! "The flock's needs were met by the shepherd."
No, we're all going to hell in a bucket, a cheap plastic one made in china.
Thatcher set the foundation, Tony and Gordon built on that, clegeron will finish it off, we're ****ed
yes
Interesting distinction to consider...
How many of the people on here saying "No" work in the private sector, or are all the ones screaming out about how the tories are going to destroy the universe actually public sector employees...
I know the key protagonist above who's telling us how taking money "out of the economy" is so evil, works for the public purse - tell you what TJ, consider this, Every single solitary public employee is a drain on the resource, every single one is "taking money out of the economy "through their very existence - some of these people are very necessary, vital constituents of society, many, oh so very many, are not!
You appear to think its better to employ people stacking paper in government departments at £30k per year rather than pay them £10k per year in benefits - its you and your ****less lazy parasitic ilk who's destroyed the economy in the first place. One million more unemployed is better than one million people employed on taxpayers money for three times the wage in government departments doing nothing whatsoever productive for society!
I predict at least another million unemployed
I love people pulling figures out of their arses to support an argument. How wonderfully unscientific! 🙂
CK - It's not a vague hope that spending might help.. spending DOES stimulate the economy, that's been proven. I think that the Labour govt were thinking of the 30s - it seems fairly well accepted that the govt then didn't spend enough quickly enough, leading to the Great Depression.
CK - It's not a vague hope that spending might help.. spending DOES stimulate the economy, that's been proven. I think that the Labour govt were thinking of the 30s - it seems fairly well accepted that the govt then didn't spend enough quickly enough, leading to the Great Depression.
From my point of view the spending before the change of leaders didn't seem to produce very much growth?
its you and your ****less lazy parasitic ilk
Whoah, that's way harsh. There are SOME useless civil servants, but there are a lot of useful ones. They apply for an advertised job and they do it - hardly fair to call them lazy and parasitic, is it? You're just trotting out rabid tory propaganda there, I'm sorry.
TJ is a nurse though, isn't he?
From my point of view the spending before the change of leaders didn't seem to produce very much growth?
How do you know what growth (or shrinkage) would have been if they hadn't spent?
Why should public sector workers get special treatment? Private sector hasn't really given any wage increases the last few years either (in my experience, OMV).
Yes, probably.
spending DOES stimulate the economy, that's been proven
I guess you're referring to government spending. This is possibly true, but you need to have the money to spend. Keynsian economics as I understand it says governments should save during the boom times to spend in the recession (or pay down debt in the boom to borrow during recession). If you borrow during the boom then you are FUBAR, although if you think you've abolished boom and bust you may well make this mistake.
How many of the people on here saying "No" work in the private sector
Indeed but how many in the private sector are paid more, in real terms, than they were a few years ago? I'm not and so the public sector can get a bit of reality too - why should they be protected?
Anyway, as a higher earner soon to have a baby I suspect I'll be worse off but I still say yes to the budget being the right sort of thing.