Conservative Budget : BBC News HD, SkyNewsHD 8/7/15

[arista]

Yesterday SkyNewsHD found out the Benefits Cut
is going to be £8Million, Not £12Million, "in the first 2 years"

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/7/7/404421/default/v1/the-guardian-1-720x960.jpg


Starts first on SkyNewsHD at 11AM
Then is on BBC2HD from 11:30AM
Finally ITV1HD starts at 12:15PM


PMQ's first 12 mid day
then the Conservative Budget at 12:30PM

[the truth]

the greeks owe us 10 billion, but they owe the germans 85 billion. lucky were not in as deep

[joeysteele]

He may well have to tone this down from the rhetoric he has used before.
A good few Conservative MPs are concerned at the unfairness and cold policies that were being proposed.
Hence the slowing down of the welfare cuts,which he still may not have the guarantee of getting through parliament depending on exactly where he hits.

The realities of scraping an overall majority while having just about the whole of the rest of the house of commons against you.

[Kizzy]

White knuckle ride for anyone on welfare and/or a low income.

God he looks a smug simpering lizard ( on bbc2 now)

[the truth]

as long as he targets those who breed for benefits and avoid work and protects the disabled and genuinely sick I will be ok with it

[arista]

http://news.sky.com/story/1515178/live-updates-osbornes-summer-budget

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3153214/George-Osborne-uses-summer-Budget-announce-tax-cuts-welfare-cuts.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/08/12/2A55794F00000578-3153214-image-a-22_1436355590971.jpg

[Livia]

as long as he targets those who breed for benefits and avoid work and protects the disabled and genuinely sick I will be ok with it

Same.

[smudgie]

as long as he targets those who breed for benefits and avoid work and protects the disabled and genuinely sick I will be ok with it

Indeed.
People on unemployment benefits should not be getting more than workers either.

[Crimson Dynamo]

He is smashing it out the park




http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1379927/thumbs/o-GEORGE-OSBORNE-570.jpg?5

[MTVN]

IDS celebrating mentally at the rise in the living wage lol

[MTVN]

http://c.files.bbci.co.uk/11E3A/production/_84147237_de27-6.jpg

[Crimson Dynamo]

some woman is on now trying to bring the mood down

#typical

[smudgie]

Strewth, can she not even read a speech written down for her.

[arista]

Strewth, can she not even read a speech written down for her.


Good on ITV1NewsHD
ignored her
and debated it.


Joe Hills
said Tesco did not want the Living Wage

[MTVN]

It's interesting that a lot of things you would normally associate with Labour are being rebranded by Osborne as Conservative principles - the NHS, the non dom rules and this living wage which is going to be higher than Miliband was promising

Businesses won't like it though and won't be happy about it being imposed on them

[arista]

For Sure MTVN


Labour are no longer needed

[the truth]

plusses and minuses so far
1) lower the family benefits total to £23,000 in London and £20,000 elsewhere
2) growth is better
3) left disabled benefits alone
4) scrapping permanent non doms
5) frozen fuel duty

downside
a load of stealth taxes that will hit the working people
public spending up 83 billion overall?
promising a £9 minimum wage? ok in London but that will hurt small businesses and jobs in poorest areas

unsure about

this one stop shop universal credit benefit , this means the housing benefit part will be held by tenants, in many cases failing to pay the rent, creating landlord tenant disputes and damaged dangerous properties, this will only worsen enmasse and more landlords will refuse to rent to housing benefits will lead to homelessness

working tax credits? that was a useful stepping stone from benefits back to work IN POOR AREAS...for example if you were on say £200 a week and living in London you had to have working credits to survive.....what exactly is happening with these taxes now?

It really has to be remembered the enormity of difference between the economy in the north in Scotland and wales compared to the south. perhaps devolution will massage this budget to be tailored to the specifics of those economies

[Livia]

Of course businesses don't want to pay the living wage, they want the government to continue subsidising them so that they can pay their workers peanuts and pay their bosses ridiculously high salaries.

Great news about the Non-Dom decision. It's been a bloody disgrace for far too long. Here's Tory Richard Bacon MP having a bit of a rant about it in the Public Accounts Committee:

AAdqimz4rXU

[Toy Soldier]

Don't think they've mentioned working tax credits really? It's child tax credits that have been targeted, limiting them to two children.

I was surprised that they're making an exception for multiple births on that one though (second pregnancy being twins or first triplets, etc.), it wouldn't have been unusual for them to say "twins second time round? Well you'll just have to pick one and drown the other!"

[Toy Soldier]

Also whilst I like the idea of living wage in theory, I do think the inevitable result will be job losses and not even just for small companies. That said, the slave wages do have to come to an end at SOME point and it's never going to be an easy transition.

[Livia]

Don't think they've mentioned working tax credits really? It's child tax credits that have been targeted, limiting them to two children.

I was surprised that they're making an exception for multiple births on that one though (second pregnancy being twins or first triplets, etc.), it wouldn't have been unusual for them to say "twins second time round? Well you'll just have to pick one and drown the other!"

The limit doesn't come in till 2017 on new claimants. I think it's fair. Don't have more kids than you can afford.

I don't hold with drowning children. Although there are one or two adults for whom I'd make an exception...

[the truth]

Don't think they've mentioned working tax credits really? It's child tax credits that have been targeted, limiting them to two children.

I was surprised that they're making an exception for multiple births on that one though (second pregnancy being twins or first triplets, etc.), it wouldn't have been unusual for them to say "twins second time round? Well you'll just have to pick one and drown the other!"

ahhh righto I hope that is the case , working tax credits in poorer areas are very useful in getting people into work....child tax credits and benefits limited to £23000 to households that breed for benefits is great. people who have lots of children should budget for them like everyone else.

they've taken a lot of benefits off under 21s too which is terrific news....the previous ambition of millions of kids to get pregnant at 18 to get a free council house and a lifetime of benefits is a national disgrace

[joeysteele]

Quite a bit of this budget is in line with Labours position in the election.

I am however rather concerned at the ESA wrag proposal.

I have found it to be the case that the DWP have placed a large number of claimants in the work related activity group, who should have been in the support group of ESA.
I have come across no less than 50+ cases of where in the last year someone has won an appeal or had the decision changed.

This is not, and should not, be acceptable,if someone really is unfit for work and their conditions upon claiming are as stated on any medical checks, then they should be automatically in the support group.
It concerns me as to who does these assessments as to who goes where,my firm represented someone with severe mental health issues,who had to change from incapacity benefit to ESA, they put them in the work related activity group.

They never saw the person just made a paper decision as to where they were placed.
When asked for info as to how they arrived at the decision, the form was signed by a named so called 'health professional'
Who stated that on the GP printout there was no record of mental health issues.

It turned out, no approach to their GP had even been made and also on their GP records it states very clearly treatment and poor prognosis for their severe mental health conditions for the last 12 years.

All that needs looking at before they set out to slash any payments for ESA and the wrag group.
This announcement today only I believe will apply to 'new' ESA claimants at present.
However, there again,I hope they make sure anyone put in that group who will be getting over £25 less now are actually in the right grouping.
The failure to get success from those in the wrag ESA group into work, in a big way stems from that fact, there are far too many in the wrag group who should be in the support group.
Something a lot of jobcentre advisors thankfully are very aware of.

Otherwise lets see what happens and also more to the point how much of this budget actually does manage to get through parliament without being amended.

[Toy Soldier]

I don't hold with drowning children. Although there are one or two adults for whom I'd make an exception...

We all know why you don't like drowning Livia.

... A Bloodless death.



Also from the chatter I'm hearing now, there apparently will be cuts to working tax credits, namely the lower limit for getting maximum (basically halved) and the rate at which it scales. Which is a bit of a mess, really, completely undermines the whole "making work pay" mantra. It depends how quickly they bring it in I suppose. If it's hand in hand with wage increases then it won't affect people too much (though will nullify the benefit of increased pay...) but if WTC is cut before wages increase, then full-time-low-pay families will be losing hundreds per month that they really can't afford.

[arista]

"Quite a bit of this budget is in line with Labours position in the election."

Yes some of it, Joey.
but Ed Miliband was a terrible leader
hated more than Michael Foot

[arista]

This is a Great Budget TS

You can have 2 kids
and get child benefit.


But for any having 3 kids
NO.


Very Fair

You must budget your Life ahead
and not have loads of kids to get benefits.
Not all are doing that, But some are

[arista]

At the Bentley Factory in Coventry
they like the budget


Ref: SkyNewsHD

[Toy Soldier]

The changes to WTC if they're accurate are a disaster for working families, it's not "great" at all and it's certainly not targeting those who aren't willing to work.

[Livia]

We all know why you don't like drowning Livia.

... A Bloodless death.



Also from the chatter I'm hearing now, there apparently will be cuts to working tax credits, namely the lower limit for getting maximum (basically halved) and the rate at which it scales. Which is a bit of a mess, really, completely undermines the whole "making work pay" mantra. It depends how quickly they bring it in I suppose. If it's hand in hand with wage increases then it won't affect people too much (though will nullify the benefit of increased pay...) but if WTC is cut before wages increase, then full-time-low-pay families will be losing hundreds per month that they really can't afford.

Yeah, I see all that. I think it's right though, to increase wages to save the government - and by government, I mean the taxpayer - subsidising companies many of whom make large profits and yet pay minimum wage. It can't go on because it's not sustainable.

I think this has been a good budget for Osborne.

[Livia]

The changes to WTC if they're accurate are a disaster for working families, it's not "great" at all and it's certainly not targeting those who aren't willing to work.

How do you target people not willing to work? According to many posts on this forum, those people simply don't exist.

[Toy Soldier]

How do you target people not willing to work? According to many posts on this forum, those people simply don't exist.
Nice try at a diversion, but they are targeting people who are actually working full time with this one. So now it's not just a case of "you must be working or you're scrounging scum", but also "even if you are working, if it's not a high paying job you're still scrounging scum".

[the truth]

nice try at a diversion, but they are targeting people who are actually working full time with this one. So now it's not just a case of "you must be working or you're scrounging scum", but also "even if you are working, if it's not a high paying job you're still scrounging scum".

are you referring to work tax credits

[reece(:]

BYE at the maintenance grant axing. Their snubbing of the poor is more evident than ever.

[Marsh.]

****ing scum!


That is all. :idc:

[the truth]

bye at the maintenance grant axing. Their snubbing of the poor is more evident than ever.

that does seem reeally bad, how much is the interest on these loans compared to grants

[Livia]

Nice try at a diversion, but they are targeting people who are actually working full time with this one. So now it's not just a case of "you must be working or you're scrounging scum", but also "even if you are working, if it's not a high paying job you're still scrounging scum".

I wasn't trying to be diversionary. It is true that the suggestion that there are people out there living on welfare who just don't have any intention of getting a job and have chosen benefits as a lifestyle, has been flatly refuted on this forum many times. Even though the sad fact is that there are lots and lots of people too comfortable sitting on their arse spending my tax.

They're targeting people who are working, yes. They're saying that after 2017 they will not pay you to have more than 2 children. That seems fair to me. If you want more kids, pay for them yourself. They're also telling employers that they have to pay their workers a living wage and not have them subsidised by the tax payer. Sounds fair enough to me.

[arista]

****ing scum!


That is all. :idc:


Work Hard

Never Give Up

[MTVN]

I don't have an issue with the maintenance grant going really. Poorer students are going to be having more money from these loans helping with their cost of living which the grants were often inadequate for. Yes you'll have to pay it back but then you're going to be a graduate, you will earn more on average to make it worth it and I do actually agree with Osborne that it's fairer for the graduate to pay back that loan rather than the taxpayer who will often be earning less than them.

[the truth]

as long as those loan rates aren't too steep. plus what happens to kids who fall out of the degree course get sick or get a poor grade pass? they may not be on big wages and will owe a fortune in loans? lot of pressure that on young people trying to better themselves

[Livia]

as long as those loan rates aren't too steep. plus what happens to kids who fall out of the degree course get sick or get a poor grade pass? they may not be on big wages and will owe a fortune in loans? lot of pressure that on young people trying to better themselves

I think I'm right in saying that you don't have to pay them back until your salary reaches a certain threshold.

[Livia]

I don't have an issue with the maintenance grant going really. Poorer students are going to be having more money from these loans helping with their cost of living which the grants were often inadequate for. Yes you'll have to pay it back but then you're going to be a graduate, you will earn more on average to make it worth it and I do actually agree with Osborne that it's fairer for the graduate to pay back that loan rather than the taxpayer who will often be earning less than them.

It does seem fairer. However, I think that education should be free for home students who should be offered a full grant if they get the grades to go to uni. Labour should never have introduced fees and the Tories should never have raised them.

[Toy Soldier]

are you referring to work tax credits

Yes, I was wrong when I said they're not affected because I missed it buried in the rest of the budget, most people seem to have missed it because of how it's phrased and because they don't know what it actually means...


They're targeting people who are working, yes. They're saying that after 2017 they will not pay you to have more than 2 children. That seems fair to me. If you want more kids, pay for them yourself. They're also telling employers that they have to pay their workers a living wage and not have them subsidised by the tax payer. Sounds fair enough to me.

I'm not talking about Child Tax Credits or the cap for the number of children, I'm specifically talking about this, which I (and most people) seem to have missed on first glance at the budget:

"Income threshold for tax credits to be reduced from £6,420 to £3,850"

Essentially, how this works is that you have a "maximum allowance" for WTC. Currently, for every £1 you earn above £6,420 you deduct 41p from what you actually get. That is being changed to £3,850.

An illustrative example for someone earning £13000, assuming a maximum WTC of £4500 a year (rough figures for full time minimum wage):

Current: [4500 - (12000 - 6420) x 0.41] = £2212.20 annual WTC

New budget: [4500 - (12000 - 3850) x 0.41] = £1158.50 annual WTC

A reduction of £1053.70 annually, just under £90 a month. For the lowest income people who are going out and working full time. Great work George. Slipped that one in there without anyone really noticing.

[JoshBB]

The maintenance grant switch to a maintenance loan is a stupid idea, bad for social mobility.

Raising the personal allowance to £11,000 a good idea, although with inflation it is probably not that much different at all.

Introducing a benefit cap, awful.. this will put families on benefits in huge poverty.

And the £37bn further cuts are likely to obliterate our welfare state.. I honestly don't see how they can even cut it further than they have without uproar tbh

[Toy Soldier]

Yes, I was wrong when I said they're not affected because I missed it buried in the rest of the budget, most people seem to have missed it because of how it's phrased and because they don't know what it actually means...



I'm not talking about Child Tax Credits or the cap for the number of children, I'm specifically talking about this, which I (and most people) seem to have missed on first glance at the budget:

"Income threshold for tax credits to be reduced from £6,420 to £3,850"

Essentially, how this works is that you have a "maximum allowance" for WTC. Currently, for every £1 you earn above £6,420 you deduct 41p from what you actually get. That is being changed to £3,850.

An illustrative example for someone earning £13000, assuming a maximum WTC of £4500 a year (rough figures for full time minimum wage):

Current: [4500 - (12000 - 6420) x 0.41] = £2212.20 annual WTC

New budget: [4500 - (12000 - 3850) x 0.41] = £1158.50 annual WTC

A reduction of £1053.70 annually, just under £90 a month. For the lowest income people who are going out and working full time. Great work George. Slipped that one in there without anyone really noticing.


SCRATCH THIS EXAMPLE

I have also just noticed that even further buried in the plans, the taper rate is being changed from 41p in the £1 to 48p in the £1. That changes the scenario to the following:


An illustrative example for someone earning £13000, assuming a maximum WTC of £4500 a year (rough figures for full time minimum wage):

Current: [4500 - (12000 - 6420) x 0.41] = £2212.20 annual WTC

New budget: [4500 - (12000 - 3850) x 0.48] = £588 annual WTC

A reduction of £1624.20 annually, just over £135 a month

For WORKING families on low wages. To whom £135 a month is a lot of money. They are 100% targetting low wage working people more than anyone else, and they are burying it under a pile of rhetoric for those of us with our eyes open to dig out. Not holding my breath for this to actually be properly reported anywhere.

[Toy Soldier]

tl;dr

Households classed as "The Working Poor", with children (any number, one or more), will be between £100 and £150 a month worse off. I haven't been able to find any scenario where this is not the case. It's a ****ing disgrace no matter which way you paint it. They have decided to take a huge chunk of the budget deficit from the worst off people. Not the junkies or "dole scum" - but the poorest people who are still working full-time.

[the truth]

tl;dr

Households classed as "The Working Poor", with children (any number, one or more), will be between £100 and £150 a month worse off. I haven't been able to find any scenario where this is not the case. It's a ****ing disgrace no matter which way you paint it. They have decided to take a huge chunk of the budget deficit from the worst off people. Not the junkies or "dole scum" - but the poorest people who are still working full-time.

the limit on people breeding for benefits being reduced is great...but the reduction of working tax credits is a bit of a mystery especially in poorer areas where the economies are light years different to london

[Toy Soldier]

the limit on people breeding for benefits being reduced is great...but the reduction of working tax credits is a bit of a mystery especially in poorer areas where the economies are light years different to london

It's absolutely mad. It's one of the only parts of the budget that's bad, which is surprising, but it's SO bad when you really look into it that it manages to make up for that all by itself. It affects working families but it gets worse - depending on variables, it will cost working single mothers £100+ a month?? People who are doing what they are constantly being told is the "right thing" by going out to work and yet they are still punished.

The Tories have tried to sidestep people criticising it by pointing at their "£9 living wage" promise, and that would ALMOST be ok (almost, people would still be worse off) *if* the tax credit cuts were being phased in hand-in-hand with wage increases, but they're not. £9 min wage. Great. In 2020. Tax credits is being slashed as of 2016, a full four years earlier, and you can guarantee that they'll have chipped away more of it by the time 2020 rolls around, which combined with inflation, will leave the £9 "living wage" a laughable, paltry minimum wage as ever - and that's IF the £9 wage actually materialises. I have a suspicion that it won't. It's a joke... it's all smoke and mirrors.

[the truth]

lots of people wil be given self employed work to negate minimum wage

[Kizzy]

I wonder how all the tory voters with more than two kids and a low paid job are feeling now? Especially if they own their own home.

Here's a budget calculator, who's better/worse off?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946

Huff post say it best... Despicable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mark-serwotka/budget-2015_b_7759984.html

[arista]

If they are twins
they are not under the cut

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/7/8/404655/default/v1/telegraph-1-720x960.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/7/8/404671/default/v1/ft-1-720x960.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/7/8/404673/default/v1/mail-1-720x960.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/7/8/404675/default/v1/indie-1-720x960.jpg
The Last One For Kizzy and Joey

[Toy Soldier]

The more I think about it, the more full of holes this whole budget starts to seem. For one, the wage increase, being inaccurately called "Living Wage". That's not what it is. It's a higher minimum wage that has nothing to do with Living Wage calculations - it can't possibly - because there's no way to know what the actual "living wage" in 2020 will be.

Then there's the fact that the Tax Credit tapering is now set at a level where the "increased" wage won't make anyone better off. The idea presumably being that people are in exactly the same or slightly worse situation than now, but with a chunk of the financial burden offloaded to companies and off of the government,

EXCEPT they are, for some barmy reason, assuming that all companies run huge profits or pay huge amounts at the top and can afford the wage increases... when that simply isn't the case, and this will almost certainly result in shop closures / staff reductions / people's hours being cut / entire companies employing thousands folding for good. Making the staff from those places 100% unemployed, and thereby increasing the amount of cash they have to claim in benefits tenfold over what they were getting in Working Tax Credits, ultimately saving the government absolutely nothing at all.


Massive gaping hole number two:

This increased wage is for people aged 25 and over. 18 - 24 year olds will still get a lower minimum wage. The effect of this is really obvious; it's going to be really ****ing difficult for any unemployed person aged 25 or over to get work, and companies will probably start finding ways to push people out as soon as they hit 25 in order to hire new, young, cheap staff. Let's say you run a company in 2020 and you're hiring. Not particularly skilled work, nothing that requires any or much experience, who are you going to hire? A 20 year old who you have to pay whatever the minimum is then (maybe £7.50 or so?) or a 26 year old who you have to pay £9.35? It's a no-brainer.

It's not even just the minimum increase that's going to be an issue here of course, pretty much all ground-level wages have to increase proportionately. For example, let's say it's a shop where a shelf stacker / till operative earns min wage currently, so £6.50 an hour. Now let's say their direct supervisor is currently on £9 an hour. What happens when all of the shelf stackers go up to £9 an hour? They can't keep their supervisor on £9 an hour too, they'd have to increase them to say at least £11 an hour, otherwise there's no incentive to do that job with the increased responsibility. And so on, and so forth going up the chain. Most companies - even the larger ones - simply can't afford these increases across their entire staff. Think about it. Let's say a UK-wide company employs 20,000 people who all work (on average) 25 hours a week, so 500,000 man hours per week. Increase all of their wages by £2 an hour as described above and the cumulative cost is an extra £1 million in wages every single week, in other words, £52 million per year. And a UK-wide company staffed by 20000 people isn't even particularly huge. The chances of them having an excess £52 million in profit are slim to say the least.

It doesn't make sense. The numbers don't add up. Apply those figures to ASDA who employ 175,000 people - or roughly 225,000,000 man hours per year using the average above (it may well be more). A £2 increase across the board adds up to over £450 million per year.


To put it more simply: Either the wage increase isn't going to happen, or there is going to be an unemployment / underemployment surge that will simply end up adding more to the benefits bill.

I genuinely think it's the former. I think it's bull****. I don't think the supposed living wage will materialise - it's simply being used as an illusion to soften the blow of the huge tax credits cut. By 2020 people will have gotten used to their reduced standard of living and so will complain less when the wages are still hovering between £7 and £8 an hour.

[MTVN]

The treasury estimates that the impact on jobs will be quite negligible and be far outweighed by the number of new ones that will be created in the coming years as the economy grows and the Tories pursue other business friendly policies like the cut in corporation tax. It's a difficult balance he's trying to achieve by implementing this 'living wage' (I agree that terminology is a bit flawed) while also trying to boost further their pro-business credentials. I don't imagine large firms will have too big a problem with it but small companies will. It is worth remembering though that everyone said the minimum wage would be too hard to implement and increase unemployment (the Tories themselves were saying that actually) and that never really came about in the end.

[the truth]

The treasury estimates that the impact on jobs will be quite negligible and be far outweighed by the number of new ones that will be created in the coming years as the economy grows and the Tories pursue other business friendly policies like the cut in corporation tax. It's a difficult balance he's trying to achieve by implementing this 'living wage' (I agree that terminology is a bit flawed) while also trying to boost further their pro-business credentials. I don't imagine large firms will have too big a problem with it but small companies will. It is worth remembering though that everyone said the minimum wage would be too hard to implement and increase unemployment (the Tories themselves were saying that actually) and that never really came about in the end.

£9 an hour is simply unaffordable for manual jobs for small businesses in the poorest parts...take a small pub you need 2 staff on during the days, that's £18 an hour x 12 hours £216 a day which is £1512 a week in wages alone for a small pub? impossible in poor areas

[Kizzy]

£9 an hour is simply unaffordable for manual jobs for small businesses in the poorest parts...take a small pub you need 2 staff on during the days, that's £18 an hour x 12 hours £216 a day which is £1512 a week in wages alone for a small pub? impossible in poor areas

If you run a pub you work in the pub through the day and have staff for eves/weekends surely?

[Toy Soldier]

The treasury estimates that the impact on jobs will be quite negligible and be far outweighed by the number of new ones that will be created in the coming years as the economy grows and the Tories pursue other business friendly policies like the cut in corporation tax. It's a difficult balance he's trying to achieve by implementing this 'living wage' (I agree that terminology is a bit flawed) while also trying to boost further their pro-business credentials. I don't imagine large firms will have too big a problem with it but small companies will. It is worth remembering though that everyone said the minimum wage would be too hard to implement and increase unemployment (the Tories themselves were saying that actually) and that never really came about in the end.
The company I work for now has a policy of closing any branch that fails to break even. They don't need to make much profit so long as the profits they do make are enough to justify that branch being open.

This increase will, 100%, render several branches that I know of "unprofitable" and at risk. Staffing levels are already minimal, the wage increase will put them into the red. I know this for a fact. I know what their profit margins and current staffing costs are. People will lose their jobs. Will new jobs be created? Maybe, maybe not. If they're of the quality of the "new jobs" created in the last few years then it's just more smile and mirrors.

All independent assessments of the budget I've seen conclude the obvious truth: this budget hits low wage working families hardest. Not just a little, but devastatingly. They've tried to cover this up by pretending that there's some huge hike for low wage workers but it's a deliberate and cynical illusion.

[JoshBB]

I can't believe the BBC called him Red George tbh, lmao

[Vicky.]

The wage increase will just end up creating more 'apprenticeship' positions in unskilled jobs tbh. Its already used as a way to get cheap labour

[Toy Soldier]

One thing that is hilarious though. There are likely millions of people who are on tax credits and voted Tory. They've voted themselves out of £1000 or more per year. Well done folks. Great thinking.

[Vicky.]

One thing that is hilarious though. There are likely millions of people who are on tax credits and voted Tory. They've voted themselves out of £1000 or more per year. Well done folks. Great thinking.

Because they believed the 'scroungers' rhetoric that was bleated everywhere. Was obvious they would have to come for the workers next, nothing else they can cut from the poorest :shrug:

Workers who earn a low wage are the new 'scroungers'.

[Toy Soldier]

Because they believed the 'scroungers' rhetoric that was bleated everywhere. Was obvious they would have to come for the workers next, nothing else they can cut from the poorest :shrug:

Workers who earn a low wage are the new 'scroungers'.
Exactly. The high-up Tory mindset is, simply, that anyone who they do not consider to be "their equal" (that is upper middle class professionals and above) are simply fuel required to power their country by working from birth til death at a sustenance income and are not deserving of any real quality of life beyond that.

They're constantly trying to hide the fact but when they get their way, it becomes quite obvious.

[joeysteele]

One thing that is hilarious though. There are likely millions of people who are on tax credits and voted Tory. They've voted themselves out of £1000 or more per year. Well done folks. Great thinking.

They can never say they weren't warned however.
You are right in your other post too,this is being stated as a budget that will take a fair amount from people who are at the lower end of the scale.

Instead of listening to attacks on the opposition parties in the election, and who'd do a deal with who, the voters would have been better occupied demanding to know from the Conservatives just exactly what and where they were going to hit.

Already the holes are being picked up as to this budget,only one day after it too.

[Toy Soldier]

They can never say they weren't warned however.
You are right in your other post too,this is being stated as a budget that will take a fair amount from people who are at the lower end of the scale.

Instead of listening to attacks on the opposition parties in the election, and who'd do a deal with who, the voters would have been better occupied demanding to know from the Conservatives just exactly what and where they were going to hit.

Already the holes are being picked up as to this budget,only one day after it too.

It was an awful election campaign on all fronts... the Conservatives didn't win on their popularity, they won by more effectively playing the villification game. Their entire campaign was based on making Labour unpopular instead of making themselves popular, and thus, 90% of their campaign was spent talking about Labour. And it worked.

Though I'm not going to try to pretend it was just the Tories, it was like that on all fronts. A hell of a lot of "Here are the bad things the others will do! Definitely don't vote for them!!" and very, very little "Here are the positive things we will do, vote for us."

Not surprising really. Hard for parties to focus on the positives when, it seems, there straight up just aren't any.

[the truth]

it was an awful election campaign on all fronts... The conservatives didn't win on their popularity, they won by more effectively playing the villification game. Their entire campaign was based on making labour unpopular instead of making themselves popular, and thus, 90% of their campaign was spent talking about labour. And it worked.

Though i'm not going to try to pretend it was just the tories, it was like that on all fronts. A hell of a lot of "here are the bad things the others will do! Definitely don't vote for them!!" and very, very little "here are the positive things we will do, vote for us."

not surprising really. Hard for parties to focus on the positives when, it seems, there straight up just aren't any.

it is time labour rebuild now. I was always labour until new labour 2001....then i could see that blair was the devil himself....and never voted labour since

but i would consider even working for labour if they reform and get a proper leader...corbyn is the only candidate id back as the others voted in favour of the iraq war. A vote that should never ever ever ever ever ever ever be forgiven or forgotten

corbyn talks a fair bit of sense. Though hes more pro european than me, he does at least criticize the eu and admits it needs huge changes

[the truth]

If you run a pub you work in the pub through the day and have staff for eves/weekends surely?

YOU ALWAYS NEED 2 people or more.....cleaning the pipes, serving booze, cleaning, serving food, washing glasses, cleaning up glass, pool teams, darts teams, constantly dealing with someone from the brewery, the amusement rentals the juke boxes, pool table, sky, bt, the council , he accountants, electricians, plumbers, the police, troublesome punters, etc then you have to visit the cash and carry umpteen times the list goes on and on

most pubs are closing because the supermarkets are so cheap and the red tape is worse than ever.....increasing the basic wages of staff by 25% will kill off the pubs and many 1000s more small businesses...the money simply isn't there.....the gap used to be bridged by working tax credits to top up wages, now that's gone too so this is a double blow to small businesses....clearly the last few governments don't give a damn about small busiensses...theyre enslaving us ever more to giant monopolies....like the gas companies who overcharged us by over £1 billion last year. ...labour party should fight to re nationalise the utilities (and the trains too imo)

[joeysteele]

YOU ALWAYS NEED 2 people or more.....cleaning the pipes, serving booze, cleaning, serving food, washing glasses, cleaning up glass, pool teams, darts teams, constantly dealing with someone from the brewery, the amusement rentals the juke boxes, pool table, sky, bt, the council , he accountants, electricians, plumbers, the police, troublesome punters, etc then you have to visit the cash and carry umpteen times the list goes on and on

most pubs are closing because the supermarkets are so cheap and the red tape is worse than ever.....increasing the basic wages of staff by 25% will kill off the pubs and many 1000s more small businesses...the money simply isn't there.....the gap used to be bridged by working tax credits to top up wages, now that's gone too so this is a double blow to small businesses....clearly the last few governments don't give a damn about small busiensses...theyre enslaving us ever more to giant monopolies....like the gas companies who overcharged us by over £1 billion last year. ...labour party should fight to re nationalise the utilities (and the trains too imo)


Here I 100% agree with you to that last part.
I really believe it is time some party looked at re-nationalising the gas, electricity,water and railways again.

[the truth]

Lbour needs aa new leader a million miles away from the b list actors blair and miliband

[empire]

labour overspent on welfare, so badly, that it has a generation that is too dependent on it, eu migrants should be made to pay amount to the state before they are entitled to welfare, because the tory's need to give something back to the public, intruth we can't go back to the days of overspending, because we have wasted money on foreign aid, bailing out countries in the eu, and giving the eu millions a week, labour lost the plot on welfare spending, with 200 billion in two years, and has any young guy or girl, found a job to this day, no, the welfare reforms under labour and the tories, make no sense, are country spends more on benefits than anywhere else in the eu, you have to earn your keep, because if you don't, we will end up being another greece,

[arista]

[Osborne's Planning Shake-Up To Boost New Homes
Property developers will automatically be given permission to build on suitable brownfield
sites under new Government reforms.]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/3/16/377705/default/v2/house-builders-1-762x428.jpg

http://news.sky.com/story/1516421/osbornes-planning-shake-up-to-boost-new-homes


Yes Get the Building on the way
and Eco Homes

[Kizzy]

YOU ALWAYS NEED 2 people or more.....cleaning the pipes, serving booze, cleaning, serving food, washing glasses, cleaning up glass, pool teams, darts teams, constantly dealing with someone from the brewery, the amusement rentals the juke boxes, pool table, sky, bt, the council , he accountants, electricians, plumbers, the police, troublesome punters, etc then you have to visit the cash and carry umpteen times the list goes on and on

most pubs are closing because the supermarkets are so cheap and the red tape is worse than ever.....increasing the basic wages of staff by 25% will kill off the pubs and many 1000s more small businesses...the money simply isn't there.....the gap used to be bridged by working tax credits to top up wages, now that's gone too so this is a double blow to small businesses....clearly the last few governments don't give a damn about small busiensses...theyre enslaving us ever more to giant monopolies....like the gas companies who overcharged us by over £1 billion last year. ...labour party should fight to re nationalise the utilities (and the trains too imo)

No most pubs are closing because nobody has any money to spend in the pub. That and the breweries are selling the properties to developers to be converted into flats and shops.

[Vicky.]

My neighbour is panicking now as apparently the bbc calculator shows she will be 40 quid a week worse off, and now she would actually be better off financially if she did not work. This really isnt right :S

[Vicky.]

No most pubs are closing because nobody has any money to spend in the pub. That and the breweries are selling the properties to developers to be converted into flats and shops.

Smoking ban killed pubs, from my experience. My dad in law had to sell his months afterwards as custom went down like a brick. His steady customers were old men who sat nursing a pint with a cigar/rollie for hours on end...people who weren't really in a fit state to keep getting up and going outside.

[Kizzy]

Smoking ban killed pubs, from my experience. My dad in law had to sell his months afterwards as custom went down like a brick. His steady customers were old men who sat nursing a pint with a cigar/rollie for hours on end...people who weren't really in a fit state to keep getting up and going outside.

Good point that had a massive impact, can't imagine the bar flies at my local vaping :laugh:

[Toy Soldier]

My neighbour is panicking now as apparently the bbc calculator shows she will be 40 quid a week worse off, and now she would actually be better off financially if she did not work. This really isnt right :S
Like I was ranting about earlier, it seems that any working person who currently gets tax credits will be between £100 and £200 a month worse off. That includes single mums, young families, everyone. Not only that, but the wage rises that partially (but nowhere near fully) make up for it don't fully come into effect until 4 years later. The cuts to tax credits are immediate in 2016 at which point the wages only (supposedly) go up to £7.20.

Your neighbour's calculation is probably accurate and it will be the same story for millions of households across the UK.

[Kizzy]

I don't have an issue with the maintenance grant going really. Poorer students are going to be having more money from these loans helping with their cost of living which the grants were often inadequate for. Yes you'll have to pay it back but then you're going to be a graduate, you will earn more on average to make it worth it and I do actually agree with Osborne that it's fairer for the graduate to pay back that loan rather than the taxpayer who will often be earning less than them.

Ah it's ok you saying that now your uni education is over, it's those who either had free or very low debt that begrudge anyone else been given a hand up it seems which is quite sad.
Is it another example of 'I'm alright jack?' I have my degree and my decent job so screw you...
Anyone from a low income family can expect to leave uni with a degree and a debt of £51,000 now.

[Toy Soldier]

Ah it's ok you saying that now your uni education is over, it's those who either had free or very low debt that begrudge anyone else been given a hand up it seems which is quite sad.
Is it another example of 'I'm alright jack?' I have my degree and my decent job so screw you...
Anyone from a low income family can expect to leave uni with a degree and a debt of £51,000 now.
Indeed, it's a hell of a lot of money to be paying back even for a graduate who gets a good job. Even if they commit to paying back £3000 a year it's going to take them until they're at least in their mid 40's.

And that, of course, is if we're in bizarro-land where every graduate has above average earnings or even any sort of graduate career at all. Many will simply have that debt sitting gathering interest forever, or be paying it at a low rate every single month until they retire.

The alternative being to create a drone workforce "race to the bottom" society where only a few privileged people bother with higher education at all.

I just hope that tuition remains free in Scotland for at least another 15 to 20 years, I would be utterly horrified to see my kids saddled with that sort of debt.

My own student debt is depressing enough, still sat at around £12000 and chipping at my payslip every month. I can't imagine being saddled with four times that, or more.

[Toy Soldier]

Ah it's ok you saying that now your uni education is over, it's those who either had free or very low debt that begrudge anyone else been given a hand up it seems which is quite sad.
Is it another example of 'I'm alright jack?' I have my degree and my decent job so screw you...
Anyone from a low income family can expect to leave uni with a degree and a debt of £51,000 now.
Indeed, it's a hell of a lot of money to be paying back even for a graduate who gets a good job. Even if they commit to paying back £3000 a year it's going to take them until they're at least in their mid 40's.

And that, of course, is if we're in bizarro-land where every graduate has above average earnings or even any sort of graduate career at all. Many will simply have that debt sitting gathering interest forever, or be paying it at a low rate every single month until they retire.

The alternative being to create a drone workforce "race to the bottom" society where only a few privileged people bother with higher education at all.

I just hope that tuition remains free in Scotland for at least another 15 to 20 years, I would be utterly horrified to see my kids saddled with that sort of debt.

My own student debt is depressing enough, still sat at around £12000 and chipping at my payslip every month. I can't imagine being saddled with four times that, or more.

[Kizzy]

I'm pretty sure what this 'northern powerhouse' is, proles from the north/ socially cleansed from the south working for a hand to mouth existence, paying inflated rent for a box room to landlords in the south.

[the truth]

have to say it was a poor budget overall.....the student grants unnecessary and unfair, the working tax was absurd, the £9 minimum wage is going to prove unaffordable in small businesses in poor areas...and was it index linked for 2020?

[empire]

the tories need to cut down child benefit, to three children only, single mums or couples who are not working, and are having up to five to eight children when they are not working and demand that we pay for there lifestyle, I know couples who work full time, and can just about afford one child, we need to wake up and think that child benefit should of been limited years ago,

[Toy Soldier]

the tories need to cut down child benefit, to three children only, single mums or couples who are not working, and are having up to five to eight children when they are not working and demand that we pay for there lifestyle, I know couples who work full time, and can just about afford one child, we need to wake up and think that child benefit should of been limited years ago,
Child benefit is worth eff all though, £700 a year per child. It's piss in the ocean. It's not even a fraction of how much it costs to feed and clothe a child, especially a school-age child. No one is popping out kids for £700 a year, put it that way.

They've already capped child tax credits to 2 children and that should be sufficient.

[Kizzy]

Noticed a post on facebook saying WTC from 2016 entitlement max will drop to £3,850 but minimum wage will rise to £7.20, WTC can be claimed if you work 16hrs a week.

16 X £7.20= £5,990.40

Therefore won't everyone earn too much to claim any WTC?

[the truth]

Noticed a post on facebook saying WTC from 2016 entitlement max will drop to £3,850 but minimum wage will rise to £7.20, WTC can be claimed if you work 16hrs a week.

16 X £7.20= £5,990.40

Therefore won't everyone earn too much to claim any WTC?

good point....I can see the logic of what theyre trying to achieve but it just wont happen....simply put the employers in poorer areas of the uk cannot afford £9 an hour for the most basic jobs. this means massive job losses across the poorer areas

[Kizzy]

Where did you get £9ph from?

[Toy Soldier]

Noticed a post on facebook saying WTC from 2016 entitlement max will drop to £3,850 but minimum wage will rise to £7.20, WTC can be claimed if you work 16hrs a week.

16 X £7.20= £5,990.40

Therefore won't everyone earn too much to claim any WTC?
No, £3850 is the new level where it starts dropping from the maximum. From there, it drops by 48p for every pound you earn over that amount per year. E.g. If you earn £6000 per year you will get

(6000 - 3850) x 0.48 = £1032 less than the maximum.

I believe maximum WTC per year for most circumstances is around £5000, the person in the above example would now get £3968 per year.

Worth noting that that person would currently be getting maximum allowance, so this hypothetical person - already on a low wage - is now over £1000 a year worse off.

You are otherwise right though, seems like it will be technically impossible for anyone to be receiving the "maximum amount", because anyone earning less than £3850 is below the minimum hours requirement.

[the truth]

Where did you get £9ph from?

the budget