UK Budget 2015

[TheTaurenOrc]

What if you had numerous dependents? Do you starve them? Make them walk around naked in the snow and rain? Do you get rid of them?

I think the answer is not having them in the first place. Part of being a responsible parent is ensuring financial stability before taking on the responsibility of a child. The safety net is there for those who inevitably will ignore this responsibility, and yes this will come at some financial hardship.

David Cameron has ~60 million children to clothe and feed. His new children might get violent and start breaking things if he screws up.

The personal finance analogy is terrible. It has no comparison to government finances. The government is expected to invest in the people it governs so that in the future they may provide usefully to the country at large.

And where is this investment supposed to come from? Oh right the people through taxation. This budget has some redistribution (i.e. cuts) at the expense of not increasing taxes universally. In fact the increasing the minimum wage is in itself a way of increasing the tax revenue at the expense of the corporations / businesses.

Please explain, if the welfare system is providing such comfortable conditions for the people, what are they doing to best make use of this 'investment'? In the interest of being useful to the country as a whole?

I am not against the safety net that the social welfare provides, its essential need for those in financial hardship to improve their situation. But having one that actually makes the alternative of working a 9 to 5 less appealing has to stop. Changes to the minimum wage and small cuts to existing benefits are steps towards this.

[Kallisto]

Racking up massive debts is irresponsible and sustainable. You have to trim expenditure, tax rises would be unpopular and won;t work just by itself

And fucking over the poor who need this money to basically survive isn't good either. The rise in min wage will not even come close to offset the losses coming from the cuts. What he should do is basically tell those that make the biggest black hole in our economy (those that avoid and/or evade taxation) to pay up. And if they try to leave confiscate their passports.

[Frozenbeef]

• Student grants for poor young people to be axed and replaced with loans

Ouch, thank god I've finished uni before this and the tution fee increase :S

[Deleted]

And fucking over the poor who need this money to basically survive isn't good either. The rise in min wage will not even come close to offset the losses coming from the cuts. What he should do is basically tell those that make the biggest black hole in our economy (those that avoid and/or evade taxation) to pay up. And if they try to leave confiscate their passports.

The media seem to have swallowed the living wage thing hook, line and sinker.

From what I can tell the minimum wage rises to £6.70 this October, so an increase to £7.20 in April is hardly that generous given that most people who benefit will lose out substantially overall because of the loss of tax credits. The media seems to be too lazy to do the math and happy to promote the idea to the affluent middle-classes that the working classes are being taken care of.

The rise to £9 in 2020 is another figure that's being bandied about. Again, minimum wage would be at least £8 an hour. Given the government's record of broken promises on the deficit, immigration and pretty much everything, it seems quite likely they won't deliver on this anyway, they have 5 years to come up with an excuse not to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's only the removal of government grants which make up a tiny proportion of total grants to students. Universities will still provide the majority of grants to the poor.

It's also worth noting that the 2010-2015 government drastically reduced the rate at which you need to pay back on student loans and increased the earnings threshold you need to have before you even start to pay a penny.

Creating yet another unsustainable bubble. The money will never be repaid by students facing the reality that a second-class degree isn't worth anything any more. Fiscal prudence at its best.

- - - Updated - - -

Diminishing a nation's ability to generate money is arguably more irresponsible.

For example, consider road maintenance. The government has an interest in keeping communities connected because this allows them to generate money. The additional money created by inter-connectivity creates more tax money which is then used to eventually pay down debts incurred by road maintenance. This is important when you consider that road maintenance may involve heavy expenditures (enabled by taking on debt) like building bridges.

Consider what's happened in Greece. What Greece's debtors have demanded that all road maintenance to stop because they must stop spending money. It can't maintain structures that allow it make money which is why their economy has collapsed.

We are supposed to somehow believe that a private enterprise needs to take on debt for start-up capital, yet apparently when the government does this it is a bad thing. Makes no sense.

[Deleted]

rise in minimum wage, at really slow level behind living wage. then cut working tax credits.......yeah, twats.

Its a cynical tory budget, it hurts the poorest most and aids the richest to get richer.

[TheTaurenOrc]

rise in minimum wage, at really slow level behind living wage. then cut working tax credits.......yeah, twats.

Its a cynical tory budget, it hurts the poorest most and aids the richest to get richer.

wow... a 38% increase over the next 4 years, more than the Labor government did in 10.

Shame on them making working a better option to than living off benefits

And there is nothing that "aids the richest to get richer". Sounds like typical coal miner rhetoric.

[AeneasBK]

Shame on them making working a better option to than living off benefits

Still on the fence on that one.

[Deleted]

wow... a 38% increase over the next 4 years, more than the Labor government did in 10.

Yes, it is a 38% increase if you ignore all the money that is being taken away from workers in the process, which is rather more than 38%.

This is a recurring problem with conservatives, an inability to understand any issue beyond a superficial headline.

[Themanintobuildafire]

What if you had numerous dependents? Do you starve them? Make them walk around naked in the snow and rain? Do you get rid of them?

David Cameron has ~60 million children to clothe and feed. His new children might get violent and start breaking things if he screws up.

The personal finance analogy is terrible. It has no comparison to government finances. The government is expected to invest in the people it governs so that in the future they may provide usefully to the country at large.

The personal analogy is only partially correct. A person such as you and I have limited means to bring in extra income to pay off debts. Governments can use tools such as taxation to increase incoming monies in order to pay off debts.

The problem as I see it is the rich aren't putting enough into the basket. You can't exactly start going after them to pay their share as many can take their assets and put them into another European country where the taxation is much lower.

The reality is, social services are going to start going and going as they are getting too expensive. With an aging population that sucks a lot of those services up, where does the money come to pay for those services, services for the not-aging, and still balancing a budget, all while tackling unemployment and a large percentage of workers making a pathetically low income?

As a tax payer, why should I have to subsidize someone who decides to have more than 2 children they cannot afford? I know it isn't fair to think of children as a number on a balance sheet, but at the end of the day, if you don't, who is going to pay for these extra kids? What will they cut so we can fund these extra kids? The answers really aren't simple.

[Sunseeker]

People, including those on the benefits, have been saying for years why go work a 40 hour a job (and probably incur additional travel expenses) when you earn barely more than you get on welfare?

I think this is a great move to get more people, who are capable of working, out of the system.

Shitty wages and long hours aren't really going to encourage more people to get out and work, even if the alternatives become worse.

When your choices are: work till you drop and live poorly until you drop, that's not much of a choice considering you will likely STILL be living poorly, you're just working your ass off to do it now.

Wages and employee compensation haven't kept up with the costs of living and that's why "hard work" isn't an attractive option anymore.

[Isolyphic]

It's only the removal of government grants which make up a tiny proportion of total grants to students. Universities will still provide the majority of grants to the poor.

It's also worth noting that the 2010-2015 government drastically reduced the rate at which you need to pay back on student loans and increased the earnings threshold you need to have before you even start to pay a penny.

This is wrong. Most, if not all grants are done by Student Loans Company in England and Wales. Also, last time I checked, you need to be earning no less than £15k before being eligible to pay for your Student Loan (wife works for them at their Headquarters). I suppose it's dubbed as If you didn't get your education, you pay nothing, because you didn't get what you paid for.

[Ivanstone]

Please explain, if the welfare system is providing such comfortable conditions for the people, what are they doing to best make use of this 'investment'? In the interest of being useful to the country as a whole?

I never once said welfare although it is part of the picture. A person on welfare at minimum is participating in the economy by spending money on food and shelter. Its income redistribution but at least they're not living on the street. A homeless person sucks more money out of the system than a welfare recipient. Eventually if things get better, a welfare recipient may move to a more useful job and is at least in decent shape to begin working again.

Government investment is not just welfare though. It includes education and communication. Its about keeping people connected. This is the modern day and age where your neighbour is not just the person next door but also the person who lives on the other side of the country.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the answer is not having them in the first place. Part of being a responsible parent is ensuring financial stability before taking on the responsibility of a child. The safety net is there for those who inevitably will ignore this responsibility, and yes this will come at some financial hardship.

You won't have to look very hard to find people who started responsibly building a family and then had the rug pulled out from under them.

[AeneasBK]

As a tax payer, why should I have to subsidize someone who decides to have more than 2 children they cannot afford? I know it isn't fair to think of children as a number on a balance sheet, but at the end of the day, if you don't, who is going to pay for these extra kids? What will they cut so we can fund these extra kids? The answers really aren't simple.

Well for starters they *could* afford them a few weeks ago. Not everyone who has a third (or more) child is utterly feckless, and taking child support benefits into account when planning finances would seem sensible.

And anyway you might as well ask "Why as a taxpayer am I paying for anyones kids?!" - It's just a done thing, same as their kids will pay into your pension money when you're old and cannot work anymore.

[Deleted]

Well for starters they *could* afford them a few weeks ago. Not everyone who has a third (or more) child is utterly feckless, and taking child support benefits into account when planning finances would seem sensible.

And anyway you might as well ask "Why as a taxpayer am I paying for anyones kids?!" - It's just a done thing, same as their kids will pay into your pension money when you're old and cannot work anymore.

Here's some thing people seem to be missing. NO TAX CREDITS ARE BEING REMOVED FROM PEOPLE WHO ALREADY RECEIVE THEM (to do so would have been electoral suicide). The new system is not being applied retroactively so if you were already claiming child tax credits for 3 children this won't be reduced to 2, you'll still receive credits for 3, similar story for working tax credits.

The changes in tax credits only apply to new applicants.

[caervek]

So George unveiled the new budget today; what are your first impressions?

Looks pretty dire, the big reveal was the 70p+ boost to minimum wage however anyone with a brain knows that minimum wage and cost of living are linked so it's just waffle (in the simplest explanation, if the cost of stocking shelves goes up so does the cost of the things on the shelf).

[AeneasBK]

Here's some thing people seem to be missing. NO TAX CREDITS ARE BEING REMOVED FROM PEOPLE WHO ALREADY RECEIVE THEM (to do so would have been electoral suicide). The new system is not being applied retroactively so if you were already claiming child tax credits for 3 children this won't be reduced to 2, you'll still receive credits for 3.

The changes in tax credits only apply to new applicants.

It certainly flew over my head but I'm not a parent so I'm faaar off the cap on universal credit

[Deleted]

Looks pretty dire, the big reveal was the 70p+ boost to minimum wage however anyone with a brain knows that minimum wage and cost of living are linked so it's just waffle (in the simplest explanation, if the cost of stocking shelves goes up so does the cost of the things on the shelf).

Most research shows that although minimum wage and cost of living are linked, a rise in the minimum wage does not lead to an equal rise in the cost of living. The only way in which an increase in living wage would lead to an equal rise in cost of living was if the only expense businesses had were labour costs of minimum wage workers.

[Deleted]

As a tax payer, why should I have to subsidize someone who decides to have more than 2 children they cannot afford? I know it isn't fair to think of children as a number on a balance sheet, but at the end of the day, if you don't, who is going to pay for these extra kids? What will they cut so we can fund these extra kids? The answers really aren't simple.

Why do I have to fund bankers? Why do I have to fund wars? You have a disturbing list of priorities if children are the first thing on your list.

[Tekkommo]

I'm always in 2 minds about people that live on benefits.

They piss me off, because I know there is bums out there, who start families they can't afford because they know they will get benefits. People like this need to be clamped down on.

On the other hand though, I feel sorry for the disabled, and people with families who are actually trying to get work, but for some reason can't. For example, there is people who had decent paid jobs, started a family, but have then been made redundant.

People need to live within their means, and I would never start a family on a low income with no money saved up. It's irresponsible.

[Elegiac]

I'm always in 2 minds about people that live on benefits.

They piss me off, because I know there is bums out there, who start families they can't afford because they know they will get benefits. People like this need to be clamped down on.

Who represent such a small fraction of people they're hardly worth taking note of.

'Clamping down' on them isn't particularly cost effective.

People need to live within their means, and I would never start a family on a low income with no money saved up. It's irresponsible.

Cool. Then make contraceptives and abortion free for use and freely available.