Many people commented on the abolition of the 10 tax rate when it wasn't announced by Gordon Brown last year, but was hidden in the budget detail.
Many, including me, thought it was a case of robbing the poor to pay the rich. We still do. The finance bill which contained it passed without much revolt at the time because Labour MP's either were too scared of their soon to be new Supreme Leader or because they thought they could get away with it.
Well, the truth is coming home to roost now. That cut is unpopular. No one bar the most sycophantic minister will appear to defend it. The wagons are circled around Downing Street. There will be no giving in apparently.
The only problem is that up to 75 Labour MP's have smelt the coffee, and will rebel when an amendment is voted on for this years finance bill.
We have to be clear on this. It would be a huge smack in the face of this government and Gordon Brown in particular to lose a vote on a finance bill. It is the sort of thing you expect to bring down governments.
So if Gordon loses, will he call a general election or try hand over to Ed Balls who will guarantee a Conservative victory of massive proportions?
Who knows. I would not want to be in Labour now though.
The BBC has this.
Showing posts with label Budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Budget. Show all posts
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Bio Fuel duty set to rise by 20 per litre?
Alistair Darling gave the budget today, as expected.
His forecasts were somewhat more rosy than most independent commentators, and he did not do that much.
He did put up cigarettes, beer wine and spirits though, so the ferries are going to be busy.
The one thing he did not mention but is hidden away in the red book is the removal of the tax differential on bio fuels, worth something like 20p per litre, effective from 2010 where it will according to chapter 1, page 9, raise £550 million.
According to various other bits of the red book (See pages 7, 89, 95, and 107) this is all to encourage sustainable bio fuels, via the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation or RTFO. Hooray I hear you say! (Or not as the case may be). However the problem is there is no corresponding account of how much the RTFO will cost the treasury.
In short the government is either taking £550 million by ditching the tax differential on bio fuels, a very un green measure, or it is not accounting for the RTFO in which case the budget has got yet more dodgy figures in it.
Good eh?
His forecasts were somewhat more rosy than most independent commentators, and he did not do that much.
He did put up cigarettes, beer wine and spirits though, so the ferries are going to be busy.
The one thing he did not mention but is hidden away in the red book is the removal of the tax differential on bio fuels, worth something like 20p per litre, effective from 2010 where it will according to chapter 1, page 9, raise £550 million.
According to various other bits of the red book (See pages 7, 89, 95, and 107) this is all to encourage sustainable bio fuels, via the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation or RTFO. Hooray I hear you say! (Or not as the case may be). However the problem is there is no corresponding account of how much the RTFO will cost the treasury.
In short the government is either taking £550 million by ditching the tax differential on bio fuels, a very un green measure, or it is not accounting for the RTFO in which case the budget has got yet more dodgy figures in it.
Good eh?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
A difficult budget
Alistair Darling will present his first budget today. We already know it is going to be a bit of a dogs breakfast, because of the hurriedly announced measures in the pre budget report to "shoot the Tory fox" have been found out. They neither shoot the Conservative foxes, nor do they answer the questions the Conservative policies proffered.
However, it goes deeper.
This budget will be the most difficult since 1997, when Labour came to power. It will in fact be worse than that and probably be the worst since 1991.
Labour inherited an economy in good shape, with good prospects, but has squandered that.
I have no doubt there will be rabbits from the hat, but once on the plate and examined there will not be much meat there. Instead expect the chancellor to dodge the golden rules by moving the goal posts.
However, it goes deeper.
This budget will be the most difficult since 1997, when Labour came to power. It will in fact be worse than that and probably be the worst since 1991.
Labour inherited an economy in good shape, with good prospects, but has squandered that.
I have no doubt there will be rabbits from the hat, but once on the plate and examined there will not be much meat there. Instead expect the chancellor to dodge the golden rules by moving the goal posts.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Inheritance tax con update
Now I have had a look, here is the position:
New rules allow one half of a married couple, or civil partnership, to use any remaining nil band inheritance tax when they die.
As an example couple A and B have assets valued at £600,000. A dies and leaves their bit to B. This is not taxed at all, regardless of the value of the estate. Person B dies and then wants to leave it all to C, but the day before yesterday would have paid 40% of £300,000 or £120,000. Now if C lived with A and B this could put the family home in jeopardy.
Good?
Well, I will come to that.
What used to happen, is that a large slice of the people who would be affected by inheritance tax in this way set up what are called nil band trusts. So when A dies he leaves his half to C rather than B, but held in trust whilst B is still alive. B then dies and does the same (The wills are written to account for any order of death) so no inheritance tax is paid anyway.
So it is not the giveaway it looks.
Where it is good though is that firstly it does not rely on clever tax planning, and is also semi automatic. The long and the short of it is that people who have not done the clever tax planning don't get caught out, and to be fair why should they. However the extra allowance will still need to be claimed which will require some form of proof. there is also the question of what happens if A dies when the IHT limit is say £300,000 and B when it is £400,00? What is the combined IHT threshold? Is it £700,000 or £800,000? Also what if A used some of their allowance, say £100,000?
The other good thing is that Labour has finally had to recognise marriage in the tax system. That is a major ideological battleground surrendered without a second thought it seems.
New rules allow one half of a married couple, or civil partnership, to use any remaining nil band inheritance tax when they die.
As an example couple A and B have assets valued at £600,000. A dies and leaves their bit to B. This is not taxed at all, regardless of the value of the estate. Person B dies and then wants to leave it all to C, but the day before yesterday would have paid 40% of £300,000 or £120,000. Now if C lived with A and B this could put the family home in jeopardy.
Good?
Well, I will come to that.
What used to happen, is that a large slice of the people who would be affected by inheritance tax in this way set up what are called nil band trusts. So when A dies he leaves his half to C rather than B, but held in trust whilst B is still alive. B then dies and does the same (The wills are written to account for any order of death) so no inheritance tax is paid anyway.
So it is not the giveaway it looks.
Where it is good though is that firstly it does not rely on clever tax planning, and is also semi automatic. The long and the short of it is that people who have not done the clever tax planning don't get caught out, and to be fair why should they. However the extra allowance will still need to be claimed which will require some form of proof. there is also the question of what happens if A dies when the IHT limit is say £300,000 and B when it is £400,00? What is the combined IHT threshold? Is it £700,000 or £800,000? Also what if A used some of their allowance, say £100,000?
The other good thing is that Labour has finally had to recognise marriage in the tax system. That is a major ideological battleground surrendered without a second thought it seems.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Labour's Big Inheritance Tax Con!
It is not just me who has spotted this.
The "tax break" such as it is applies only to married couples or civil partnerships.
The situation is this, if you die without a will, the estate gets divied up, so much to the spouse, up to £125,000 if I remember correctly and then so much to children etc.
If the value of the estate is high, then there is an inheritance tax bill.
However, most people in this position take out a will, and if the intent is to pass it to the spouse that is tax free.
So there is no tax giveaway in any practical sense at all.
Fraser Nelson has this on the Spectator Coffee House Blog, linking to this more technical explanation by KPMG here.
Hat tip to ChrisD on politicalbetting.com for the link.
The "tax break" such as it is applies only to married couples or civil partnerships.
The situation is this, if you die without a will, the estate gets divied up, so much to the spouse, up to £125,000 if I remember correctly and then so much to children etc.
If the value of the estate is high, then there is an inheritance tax bill.
However, most people in this position take out a will, and if the intent is to pass it to the spouse that is tax free.
So there is no tax giveaway in any practical sense at all.
Fraser Nelson has this on the Spectator Coffee House Blog, linking to this more technical explanation by KPMG here.
Hat tip to ChrisD on politicalbetting.com for the link.
Inheritance taxes cut for couples?
Apparently one of the chancellors wheezes in the pre budget report to announce a doubling of the inheritance tax threshold for couples,
Does he mean married couples who pay no inheritance tax when one spouse dies?
Wow.
How generous!
Unless of course he means couples who are neither married or in a civil partnership.
The BBC has this.
Does he mean married couples who pay no inheritance tax when one spouse dies?
Wow.
How generous!
Unless of course he means couples who are neither married or in a civil partnership.
The BBC has this.
Spin is dead! Long Live Spin!
I have to say I was impressed with Gordon "bottler" Brown's promise to end spin when he came to power, and more crucially to announce to parliament before the press.
I thought it was brave.
And a hostage to fortune...
Because I knew he just could not keep to it.
And so it has come to pass. We had the Iraq announcement last week roundly rebuffed and derided in the media as it was both during another party's conference, and not to parliament as he had explicitly promised.
Well today we expect the Pre Budget Report. Well, we do now, it was going to be next week, but an election was going to be announced just afterwards, so it had to be brought forward, but Brown bottled it so could have moved it back but I digress.
This will of course be announced to parliament first, except of course that several papers have had some form of advance notice.
We have this in the FT, this in the Guardian on closing loopholes for private equity, and surprise surprise, a tax on non doms! (No I am not surprised either) whilst the Telegraph had this on Saturday about what may be in the small print on council tax going up lots to cover yet more spending on the NHS, despite the fact that Labour seem to have wasted much of what they have spent already.
There was of course a time when a Chancellor would have to resign if this sort of detail of a budget or report were leaked before hand, but not apparently in the spin free era of spin free spinning New Labour.
I thought it was brave.
And a hostage to fortune...
Because I knew he just could not keep to it.
And so it has come to pass. We had the Iraq announcement last week roundly rebuffed and derided in the media as it was both during another party's conference, and not to parliament as he had explicitly promised.
Well today we expect the Pre Budget Report. Well, we do now, it was going to be next week, but an election was going to be announced just afterwards, so it had to be brought forward, but Brown bottled it so could have moved it back but I digress.
This will of course be announced to parliament first, except of course that several papers have had some form of advance notice.
We have this in the FT, this in the Guardian on closing loopholes for private equity, and surprise surprise, a tax on non doms! (No I am not surprised either) whilst the Telegraph had this on Saturday about what may be in the small print on council tax going up lots to cover yet more spending on the NHS, despite the fact that Labour seem to have wasted much of what they have spent already.
There was of course a time when a Chancellor would have to resign if this sort of detail of a budget or report were leaked before hand, but not apparently in the spin free era of spin free spinning New Labour.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Are we getting poorer?
One of the factors that governs how people vote at a general election is how the economy is doing. "It's the economy stupid" to borrow a cliche. Except that it isn't the economy as parroted in economic statistics that people notice, it is how they feel in their pockets that counts.
According to this report in the today's Telegraph disposable income is growing at its slowest since 1982, whilst the budget will make 5.3 million people worse off, mostly at the lower end of the pay spectrum. In fact disposable income dropped in the last quarter of 2006 dropped by 0.7%!
We then have to factor in things like higher fuel costs, mortgage costs and council tax .
Mind you the ever rising council tax is another issue! In Mid Sussex the district council now has to provide more services than it did in 1997, but on a £6 million budget has £100,000 more now in cash terms than it did in 1997. It makes it very hard to keep council tax at reasonable levels.
Hat tip to Witan on Politicalbetting.com.
According to this report in the today's Telegraph disposable income is growing at its slowest since 1982, whilst the budget will make 5.3 million people worse off, mostly at the lower end of the pay spectrum. In fact disposable income dropped in the last quarter of 2006 dropped by 0.7%!
We then have to factor in things like higher fuel costs, mortgage costs and council tax .
Mind you the ever rising council tax is another issue! In Mid Sussex the district council now has to provide more services than it did in 1997, but on a £6 million budget has £100,000 more now in cash terms than it did in 1997. It makes it very hard to keep council tax at reasonable levels.
Hat tip to Witan on Politicalbetting.com.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The Budget's dead cat bounce
The big question in politics at the moment is how much of a poll bounce will Gordon Brown get when (or perhaps if) he becomes Prime Minister.
Some have it that he will get such a bounce that he will call a snap general election, others have it that he will be cautious. Some, (including me) have it that the bounce will be a dead cat bounce. As in none at all.
Interestingly enough we have some early poll results from the Times here, covering how well the budget went down.
Dead cat bounce? Frankly it seems to be squashed. There is no poll bounce at all.
Regardless of how much people will be better or worse off, only 11% of people think they will be better off whilst 26% think they will be worse off. What is shocking is that the people least affected either way are high wage earners whilst those on low incomes can actually be worse off!
Hat tip to "me" on politicalbetting.com for the Times poll details.
Some have it that he will get such a bounce that he will call a snap general election, others have it that he will be cautious. Some, (including me) have it that the bounce will be a dead cat bounce. As in none at all.
Interestingly enough we have some early poll results from the Times here, covering how well the budget went down.
Dead cat bounce? Frankly it seems to be squashed. There is no poll bounce at all.
Regardless of how much people will be better or worse off, only 11% of people think they will be better off whilst 26% think they will be worse off. What is shocking is that the people least affected either way are high wage earners whilst those on low incomes can actually be worse off!
Hat tip to "me" on politicalbetting.com for the Times poll details.
Friday, March 23, 2007
The Bremner take on the Budget!
Looks good to me, the Telegraph has this take on the budget by Rory Bremner.
So far it seems fairly accurate to me.
I am looking at the effects of the budget on people on tax credits, if you want to email me anonymously I will try to work out if you are better or worse off.
Hat tip to Witan on politicalbetting.com for the link to the Telegraph.
So far it seems fairly accurate to me.
I am looking at the effects of the budget on people on tax credits, if you want to email me anonymously I will try to work out if you are better or worse off.
Hat tip to Witan on politicalbetting.com for the link to the Telegraph.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Budget bombshell, Defence spending has been cut!
Many thanks to Elliot who in my previous article provided this link to a very useful piece of work that he has done on the defence spending promise.
If you recall from the budget, Joseph Stalin Gordon Brown announced a £400 Million increase in defence spending. Well according to Elliot if you actually look at the numbers last years numbers for defence were £40.8 billion total, this years budget for defence was going to be £40.4 billion, so add the extra £400 million and you get last years numbers, a real terms decrease in spending of £800 million.
So let us get this straight. Our boys are fighting on two fronts in a major way and deployed over the world and yet they get this kick in the teeth.
Of course the Sun are just too daft to spot this cut or else they would be up in arms. However they just have this daft sycophantic editorial here.
If you recall from the budget, Joseph Stalin Gordon Brown announced a £400 Million increase in defence spending. Well according to Elliot if you actually look at the numbers last years numbers for defence were £40.8 billion total, this years budget for defence was going to be £40.4 billion, so add the extra £400 million and you get last years numbers, a real terms decrease in spending of £800 million.
So let us get this straight. Our boys are fighting on two fronts in a major way and deployed over the world and yet they get this kick in the teeth.
Of course the Sun are just too daft to spot this cut or else they would be up in arms. However they just have this daft sycophantic editorial here.
The Budget, The devil is in the detail
The problem with Gordon Brown's last budget is that the devil is in the detail.
We already know that the 2p cut in the headline rate of income tax is offset by the removal of the 10p band, leaving single people who don't or can't claim Working tax Credit worse off until they earn over £18K per year.
We know that big business has had a cut in corporation tax, but small business has had a hike.
What I did not realise until I read this on Iain Dale's blog is that the 2p cut in income tax does not really apply to people in tax credits, because the claw back has gone up by 2p from 37p to 39p to compensate. Obviously those who get more tax credits may well be a bit better off, but this is clearly going to take some getting to the bottom of!
This is real smoke and mirrors stuff!
We already know that the 2p cut in the headline rate of income tax is offset by the removal of the 10p band, leaving single people who don't or can't claim Working tax Credit worse off until they earn over £18K per year.
We know that big business has had a cut in corporation tax, but small business has had a hike.
What I did not realise until I read this on Iain Dale's blog is that the 2p cut in income tax does not really apply to people in tax credits, because the claw back has gone up by 2p from 37p to 39p to compensate. Obviously those who get more tax credits may well be a bit better off, but this is clearly going to take some getting to the bottom of!
This is real smoke and mirrors stuff!
The Budget, some analysis
Firstly this budget is mostly neutral. It was only ever going to be that way, because there is no money to give away.
Indisputably there are some useful things in it, but some bad ones as well.
Overall the budget seems to simplify things which is good. However it does beg the question why did Joseph Stalin, sorry, Macavity, no wrong again, Gordon Brown make it so much more complex over the last 10 years?
Big Corporation tax is down by 2p, good, it will hopefully help the economy. This in part is paid for by simplifying allowances for big business so is broadly neutral.
Corporation tax for small business is up 2p, and will rise again, ostensibly to stop tax fraud where people who are effectively fully employed try to make out they are a company.
This is offset by allowing a 100% allowance on certain types of investment to all companies of up to £50,000 per year. Gordon trotted out some numbers on the effective corporation tax for small businesses who take up the offer of the tax relief on investment.
There is a big problem here. Firstly 53% of all private sector jobs are in businesses this size, so that is a huge part of the economy that has just had a tax hike. Also, small businesses do not necessarily need or want to invest £50,000 per year in new equipment. Small business comprise a very diverse sector from small niche manufacturers who may be in that niche for using old fashioned methods, like hand made pottery manufactures, to others like small scale foundries supplying castings to the model engineer community, to window cleaners, florists, gardening contractors. There are many businesses which will not benefit at all or seldom benefit from the tax break, yet will be hit by the tax hike.
Small businesses are the engine of the economy. They employ more people than any other sector, and have the capacity to employ a lot more, if the environment is right. So that aspect of the budget is a very bad thing.
Green taxes are up a bit, but lower as a proportion of GDP than under the Conservatives.
Cigarettes up by 11p a packet, great news for tobacco smugglers, I expect they are ecstatic. Beer and wine up, but bizarrely spirits (mostly produced in Scotland) frozen for the 10th year running. Is Gordon Scottish?
There is a rationalisation of National Insurance and Income Tax rates so that they cut in and out at the same levels. Looks good from a simplification point of view, seems to benefit those around £35K per year and gets neutral at around £42K, so bar some losers in odd places, fair enough.
The basic rate of income tax has been cut by 2p. On the face of it very good news, but as ever the devil is in the detail. The 10p band is cut. It looks like a simplification and indeed is to some extent, but those currently on the 10p will now be paying 20p rather than nothing.
In short if you earn between £5,250 to £17,800 you pay more tax. That in principle is wrong, as I said here. There is more detail though, some of those affected will benefit from more tax credits.
Well, lets look at that a bit. Firstly there seems to be a combination of fraud and mistakes in the tax credit system running at a colossal scale, I have heard estimates that 50% of the payments are wrong. That is bad. Secondly whilst those who have children are better off with more tax credits, those with out suffer from two problems. The increase in their tax credits still leaves a lot of them worse off, then the fact that people without children just do not claim working tax credit even when they are entitled to. The take up rate is 20% (See this here, table 10). You do not have to look that far or that wide to see why. People just do not need the grief of dealing with tax credits unless they really have to.
In short, tax cuts for the rich, big companies, "working families", tax rises for the poor, but childless, and small businesses.
Hat tip to Neil for the take up rate on tax credit information.
Indisputably there are some useful things in it, but some bad ones as well.
Overall the budget seems to simplify things which is good. However it does beg the question why did Joseph Stalin, sorry, Macavity, no wrong again, Gordon Brown make it so much more complex over the last 10 years?
Big Corporation tax is down by 2p, good, it will hopefully help the economy. This in part is paid for by simplifying allowances for big business so is broadly neutral.
Corporation tax for small business is up 2p, and will rise again, ostensibly to stop tax fraud where people who are effectively fully employed try to make out they are a company.
This is offset by allowing a 100% allowance on certain types of investment to all companies of up to £50,000 per year. Gordon trotted out some numbers on the effective corporation tax for small businesses who take up the offer of the tax relief on investment.
There is a big problem here. Firstly 53% of all private sector jobs are in businesses this size, so that is a huge part of the economy that has just had a tax hike. Also, small businesses do not necessarily need or want to invest £50,000 per year in new equipment. Small business comprise a very diverse sector from small niche manufacturers who may be in that niche for using old fashioned methods, like hand made pottery manufactures, to others like small scale foundries supplying castings to the model engineer community, to window cleaners, florists, gardening contractors. There are many businesses which will not benefit at all or seldom benefit from the tax break, yet will be hit by the tax hike.
Small businesses are the engine of the economy. They employ more people than any other sector, and have the capacity to employ a lot more, if the environment is right. So that aspect of the budget is a very bad thing.
Green taxes are up a bit, but lower as a proportion of GDP than under the Conservatives.
Cigarettes up by 11p a packet, great news for tobacco smugglers, I expect they are ecstatic. Beer and wine up, but bizarrely spirits (mostly produced in Scotland) frozen for the 10th year running. Is Gordon Scottish?
There is a rationalisation of National Insurance and Income Tax rates so that they cut in and out at the same levels. Looks good from a simplification point of view, seems to benefit those around £35K per year and gets neutral at around £42K, so bar some losers in odd places, fair enough.
The basic rate of income tax has been cut by 2p. On the face of it very good news, but as ever the devil is in the detail. The 10p band is cut. It looks like a simplification and indeed is to some extent, but those currently on the 10p will now be paying 20p rather than nothing.
In short if you earn between £5,250 to £17,800 you pay more tax. That in principle is wrong, as I said here. There is more detail though, some of those affected will benefit from more tax credits.
Well, lets look at that a bit. Firstly there seems to be a combination of fraud and mistakes in the tax credit system running at a colossal scale, I have heard estimates that 50% of the payments are wrong. That is bad. Secondly whilst those who have children are better off with more tax credits, those with out suffer from two problems. The increase in their tax credits still leaves a lot of them worse off, then the fact that people without children just do not claim working tax credit even when they are entitled to. The take up rate is 20% (See this here, table 10). You do not have to look that far or that wide to see why. People just do not need the grief of dealing with tax credits unless they really have to.
In short, tax cuts for the rich, big companies, "working families", tax rises for the poor, but childless, and small businesses.
Hat tip to Neil for the take up rate on tax credit information.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Brown robs the poor to give to the rich!
During Joseph Stalin's Gordon Brown's last budget, he has on the one hand reduced the basic rate of income tax by 2p to 20p in the pound. Good news you might say, but on the other hand has funded this by scrapping the 10p in the pound rate altogether which puts up tax for all those who earn less that £17,000 per year.
Those on less than £11,500 may well be able to claim Working Tax Credit, but those not able to will be hit.
One person I know will be £8 a month worse off as a below average wage earner, whilst an above average wage earner (but not higher rate) will be better off!
Why is Gordon robbing the poor to pay the rich? It's a bit regressive isn't it?
Those on less than £11,500 may well be able to claim Working Tax Credit, but those not able to will be hit.
One person I know will be £8 a month worse off as a below average wage earner, whilst an above average wage earner (but not higher rate) will be better off!
Why is Gordon robbing the poor to pay the rich? It's a bit regressive isn't it?
That Brown Budget
Corporation tax down to 28%, though small business tax rising from 20% to 22% and rising. The reason is that he thinks lots of people are not real companies paying their due in taxes.
Does Brown not understand how much growth small companies provide to the economy?
Also Brown has reduced the 22p rate of income tax to 20p. Sounds good, but it is mostly funded by scrapping the 10p rate of tax so you have to be earning something like £17,000 to be better off. If you are not you are worse off.
Apparently working tax credit will offset this. Why bring people into a tax credit system when you don't have to? If you are going to give them the money back, why not just leave them with it in the first place?
What Gordon giveth with one hand, he taketh away with the other.
The BBC has this, and I will be writing more when I have had a chance to look at it in more detail.
Does Brown not understand how much growth small companies provide to the economy?
Also Brown has reduced the 22p rate of income tax to 20p. Sounds good, but it is mostly funded by scrapping the 10p rate of tax so you have to be earning something like £17,000 to be better off. If you are not you are worse off.
Apparently working tax credit will offset this. Why bring people into a tax credit system when you don't have to? If you are going to give them the money back, why not just leave them with it in the first place?
What Gordon giveth with one hand, he taketh away with the other.
The BBC has this, and I will be writing more when I have had a chance to look at it in more detail.
That last Brown Budget in Full
Today Gordon Brown will announce his last budget. That is a certainty. He will not be chancellor next year no matter what happens. Either he will graciously accept the invitation to be Caesar and have rose petals strewn in his path, or he will face a serious challenger for the job of Leader of the Labour party who will win and will go off in a sulk that will make Ted Heath look like a good loser, and he will take his bitter cohorts with him. However what he will say tomorrow will be like this:
Ukrainian Tractor production* will be up again by 328.35%
(Gordon's forecast for growth will be met or surpassed, because he measures the winning figures. What won't make it into the speech is that whilst growth according to treasury figures is on or ahead of target, tax revenue is below target, and therefore borrowing is higher than forecast.)
Prudence, prudence, prudence, investing for the future .. cont. Page 04.
What he will fail to mention is Eddy George's evidence to parliament yesterday when the former head of the Bank of England admitted that the recession that every other country faced between 2000 and 2002 was avoided by a massive consumer and public borrowing boom leaving problems for the future, including very high house prices (See Sky article here).
Green taxes to protect the environment blah..
Bizarrely we have heard this before, because this budget like many new Labour ones has been leaked. Chancellors have resigned for this. You can read this here.
One billion to raise 200,000 children out of child poverty! (See another leak in the Guardian here).
This according to the article is because Gordon feels bad about how we got on in that UNICEF report. Firstly that amounts to £5,000 a head EXTRA per child. Secondly it assumes that whoever that money is going to is going to do something with it, or indeed that mere money is the answer.
The plan seems to be fiddling at the edges, more money for working tax credits and so on. The fact is that it is less the individual wealth of the family that counts but how cohesive the family is that counts, and where that may be in doubt, how cohesive the community is around it. For example how able a neighbor is to watch over your children? Mine are, are yours? In quite a lot of communities this is not the case because we are all scared of the consequences of telling off an errant child, or applying a sticking plaster to an injured one. We do not need to throw money around as if it will solve all our problems. We need to apply a bit of thought.
*I have no idea whether the Ukrainians make tractors or not and if they do, how that business is going, the expression "Ukrainian tractor production" is shorthand for silly government statistics that look a bit Stalinist.
Ukrainian Tractor production* will be up again by 328.35%
(Gordon's forecast for growth will be met or surpassed, because he measures the winning figures. What won't make it into the speech is that whilst growth according to treasury figures is on or ahead of target, tax revenue is below target, and therefore borrowing is higher than forecast.)
Prudence, prudence, prudence, investing for the future .. cont. Page 04.
What he will fail to mention is Eddy George's evidence to parliament yesterday when the former head of the Bank of England admitted that the recession that every other country faced between 2000 and 2002 was avoided by a massive consumer and public borrowing boom leaving problems for the future, including very high house prices (See Sky article here).
Green taxes to protect the environment blah..
Bizarrely we have heard this before, because this budget like many new Labour ones has been leaked. Chancellors have resigned for this. You can read this here.
One billion to raise 200,000 children out of child poverty! (See another leak in the Guardian here).
This according to the article is because Gordon feels bad about how we got on in that UNICEF report. Firstly that amounts to £5,000 a head EXTRA per child. Secondly it assumes that whoever that money is going to is going to do something with it, or indeed that mere money is the answer.
The plan seems to be fiddling at the edges, more money for working tax credits and so on. The fact is that it is less the individual wealth of the family that counts but how cohesive the family is that counts, and where that may be in doubt, how cohesive the community is around it. For example how able a neighbor is to watch over your children? Mine are, are yours? In quite a lot of communities this is not the case because we are all scared of the consequences of telling off an errant child, or applying a sticking plaster to an injured one. We do not need to throw money around as if it will solve all our problems. We need to apply a bit of thought.
*I have no idea whether the Ukrainians make tractors or not and if they do, how that business is going, the expression "Ukrainian tractor production" is shorthand for silly government statistics that look a bit Stalinist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
