Budget 2016

[me123]

If that is how you feel then you are entitled to your own opinion. But when I look at the fact that with income taxes, NI, fuel duty, VAT, insurance taxes etc etc I think I pay my fair share to the treasury. Around half my income goes to the treasury in taxes.

I wasn't saying that you're "not paying your fair share". Please do not see my viewpoint as a personal attack - I know perfectly well that you are not the one making the decisions. I am saying that people in our position do not deserve tax cuts whilst the most vulnerable people in our society are struggling to feed their families.

The SNP wanted control over income taxes, they have got it but haven't changed the rates in Scotland yet are running a truly massive budget deficit.

In the next few days, the SNP will reveal their plan for income tax in Scotland. Going on what Nicola Sturgeon has already said to Parliament earlier this week, it is very likely that she will use the powers devolved to the Scottish Government to maintain the 40p tax threshold at its current level, which will generate additional income. The Scottish Government do not currently have these powers, although they will do so following the next election to Holyrood in a few months time.

 

[LateThanNever]

I'm guessing the article you are referring to is this one. To be clear, it is very definitely not dissing the entire economics syllabi of the UK's Universities. Rather, so far as I can understand it, it appears to be arguing that a couple of technical details concerning the processes by which commercial banks create money are not presented in the correct way in many textbooks. I see no reason based on that to argue against studying economics - indeed I would suspect that that a reasonable education in economics would be an essential prerequisite to being able to understand the significance of the Bank of England's claims.

By analogy, if someone discovered that some aspect of quantum mechanics was being presented incorrectly in some physics textbooks, I bet you wouldn't go on from that to argue that studying physics was pointless!

As you say. Although economics is not a science, when economics has got a fundamental so wrong it calls into question the whole edifice. Studying a discipline where they have its fundamental tenet wrong seems a bit of a waste. The economy without money is barter. That would make the textbooks a whole lot shorter.

Do you ever think that the Chinese would consider in recalling the loans they have made in past years to the USA as one method of supplementing their currency reserves.?

It might bring a few Republicans up short! But probably wouldn't be much good for China either at the moment...

Having the right background can still help you make better decisions. I did A Levels Maths and I never do any trigonometry or calculus now but learning how to approach Mathematical problems in a logical manner helped with learning programming languages and using them in a logical manner.

I sort of agree - but the economics textbooks are a hindrance rather than a help. The 'scientific' methods of economics are used to try and decipher what is a human construct.
Yet, as the economy is a human construct, it would be more effective if effort could be made in fixing the system for the benefit of its participants, rather than treating the economy like the weather, as though legislators had no power and can allow only the market to decide for better or worse.
Markets have rules, which can be changed. All banks create money out of thin air but nobody seems ever to mention that 97% of this money is created by private banks, who then abuse the privilege by using it to gamble on assets! Although legislators run both our sovereign currency and the economic system, the engrained economic attitude is 'that the market will decide' when there is no one market, and its rules shape the result . So the rule of law, created by legislators, supports markets. And (unless of course you really prefer anarchy) one presupposes the other. But it appears that this state of affairs is rarely, if ever, mentioned in economic textbooks.

 

[pemma]

Hmmm budget surplus of juts 2% during a period where tax revenues were insanely high. Huge taxes coming in from a banking sector that was arguably out of control. In fact all I remember the Brown era for was tax tax and more tax. Every budget was how much is he going to hike fuel duty up by, how much is he going to hike beer duty up by, what other ways could he come up with to tax the hell out of ordinary working people while his spending boom was going on. He should have have a massive budget surplus and not just 2%.

If a 2% surplus isn't good enough, in your opinion, then do you think Osborne's 'budget surplus' legislation doesn't go far enough, as that only states the government must aim to deliver a surplus if the economy is growing? I can see it being revised to go less far before 2019 given the current predictions for the economy based on Osborne's policies. It's seems Osborne has managed to get interest on the deficit under control, opposed to having the deficit under control.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I sort of agree - but the economics textbooks are a hindrance rather than a help. The 'scientific' methods of economics are used to try and decipher what is a human construct.
Yet, as the economy is a human construct, it would be more effective if effort could be made in fixing the system for the benefit of its participants, rather than treating the economy like the weather, as though legislators had no power and can allow only the market to decide for better or worse.
Markets have rules, which can be changed. All banks create money out of thin air but nobody seems ever to mention that 97% of this money is created by private banks, who then abuse the privilege by using it to gamble on assets! Although legislators run both our sovereign currency and the economic system, the engrained economic attitude is 'that the market will decide' when there is no one market, and its rules shape the result . So the rule of law, created by legislators, supports markets. And (unless of course you really prefer anarchy) one presupposes the other. But it appears that this state of affairs is rarely, if ever, mentioned in economic textbooks.

I would hope graduates in Economics have looked at hypothetical future situations opposed to just reviewing past and present situations. Writing a review of what was done correctly and what could have been done better in the 1930s, to me, doesn't sound like a final year degree level assignment.

 

[dcsprior]

In the next few days, the SNP will reveal their plan for income tax in Scotland. Going on what Nicola Sturgeon has already said to Parliament earlier this week, it is very likely that she will use the powers devolved to the Scottish Government to maintain the 40p tax threshold at its current level, which will generate additional income. The Scottish Government do not currently have these powers, although they will do so following the next election to Holyrood in a few months time.

I hope that they make it so that the tax paid on income above the old higher tax threshold remains 42%, rather than keeping income tax on those earnings at 40%. NI thresholds are not devolved and I assume the UEL (at which point employees' NI contribs drop to 2%) will remain aligned with the 40% tax threshold in England - therefore if Scotland keeps the 40% tax threshold at its old level, around £2k of earnings around ~£43-45000 will be taxed at a total of 52% (40% tax + 12% NI) which is more than the total tax at any other lebel of income.

I do not want or need the tax cut that raising the 40% threshold would give me, but I'd rather not have the tax rise that raising the UEL without changing tax rates in parallel would cause - I therefore hope the Scottish Government either:
* creates a 30% rate from the current 40% threshold to the new English 40% threshold
* sets the 40% threshold halfway between the old and new English 40% thresholds
Both of these would result in neither a tax rise nor cut when considering both Income Tax and NI together.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Economics George isn't even defending his Budget in light of the urgent question granted to John McDonnell! They've got a treasury minister to respond instead.

This is absolute laugh-a-minute stuff! Surely Osborne is done for.

 

[Dave1987]

If a 2% surplus isn't good enough, in your opinion, then do you think Osborne's 'budget surplus' legislation doesn't go far enough, as that only states the government must aim to deliver a surplus if the economy is growing? I can see it being revised to go less far before 2019 given the current predictions for the economy based on Osborne's policies. It's seems Osborne has managed to get interest on the deficit under control, opposed to having the deficit under control.

What I am saying is that a 2% surplus is pathetic when you consider the tax receipts he was raking in. So when that tax dried up he went from a small surplus to a huge deficit in no time at all. That's why the "boom & bust" cliche is bounded round so much. Osborne is in a very difficult situation at the moment. The economy is on a knife edge. The last thing you need right now is huge tax rises which will scare off investment into the country. You want to encourage business to base themselves in this country. And you want to encourage small and medium sized businesses as well. Corbyn & McDonnell only seem interested in welfare.

 

[Butts]

"I therefore propose from midnight tonight to abolish the excise duty on tobacco"

Will I ever hear that uttered by a Chancellor ? - perhaps Nigel Farage

Seriously he should have raised excise duty on Fuel by at least 5p Litre which would still leave it much cheaper than a year ago and provide a serious wedge to avoid contentious benefit cuts.

With regard to the low paid raising the starting point for NI Contributions to the same level as Income Tax would be a major boost and put cash in their pockets. In fact why maintain the facade that they are for different things and just combine the two at one rate.

 

[Dave1987]

I wasn't saying that you're "not paying your fair share". Please do not see my viewpoint as a personal attack - I know perfectly well that you are not the one making the decisions. I am saying that people in our position do not deserve tax cuts whilst the most vulnerable people in our society are struggling to feed their families.



In the next few days, the SNP will reveal their plan for income tax in Scotland. Going on what Nicola Sturgeon has already said to Parliament earlier this week, it is very likely that she will use the powers devolved to the Scottish Government to maintain the 40p tax threshold at its current level, which will generate additional income. The Scottish Government do not currently have these powers, although they will do so following the next election to Holyrood in a few months time.

Well if McDonnell ever gets into the treasury I sure you will be paying a lot more tax. In 1997 Labour won a landslide victory yet the current Labour Party class any Blairites and "red Tories". With Corbyn & McDonnell at the helm I can't foresee Labour winning a GE.

 

[LateThanNever]

The world economy is slowing down because China's economy is collapsing. China's policies on children has meant they have a very old average population age. There are many other factors as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Whether you sit on the left or the right on politics then you will see facts and figures in a different light. In 2010 I remember Darling making comments about how the huge deficit would need to be dealt with. Labour lost the election and then proceeded to vote against or criticise every cut the coalition government made. So it's not hard to see why a large portion of the electorate just don't see the Labour Party as credible on the economy. Brown increased the top rate of income tax to 50p as a "temporary measure" which then became policy even though it's been proven to bring in less tax as those that are liable to pay it try harder to avoid it or just move their money out of the UK Economy. Considering Labour are really gunning for Osbourne on his borrowing figures, McDonnell then says he would borrow even more. The SNP wanted control over income taxes, they have got it but haven't changed the rates in Scotland yet are running a truly massive budget deficit.

Whether China's slow down is chicken or egg may perhaps be a matter of dispute but it is a remarkable coincidence that it came after the Western Banking crisis - itself a result of the overborrowing that has made capitalism inherently unstable.
http://www.debunkingeconomics.com/is-capitalism-inherently-unstable-4/
So called countercyclical borrowing is classic Keynes, which is what McDonnell suggests. Osborne is cutting in order to expand, which is daft. If we all cut down expenditure on baked beans why would we expect Tesco's turnover to increase?

 

[Dave1987]

"I therefore propose from midnight tonight to abolish the excise duty on tobacco"

Will I ever hear that uttered by a Chancellor ? - perhaps Nigel Farage

Seriously he should have raised excise duty on Fuel by at least 5p Litre which would still leave it much cheaper than a year ago and provide a serious wedge to avoid contentious benefit cuts.

With regard to the low paid raising the starting point for NI Contributions to the same level as Income Tax would be a major boost and put cash in their pockets. In fact why maintain the facade that they are for different things and just combine the two at one rate.

I do agree that a slight increase in fuel duty wouldn't have been the end of the world but 5p? That would have been around 7p increase at the pumps, so well over a £1 on every fill up for the average car. That would put up prices in the shops, inflation would go up dramatically.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whether China's slow down is chicken or egg may perhaps be a matter of dispute but it is a remarkable coincidence that it came after the Western Banking crisis - itself a result of the overborrowing that has made capitalism inherently unstable.
http://www.debunkingeconomics.com/is-capitalism-inherently-unstable-4/
So called countercyclical borrowing is classic Keynes, which is what McDonnell suggests. Osborne is cutting in order to expand, which is daft. If we all cut down expenditure on baked beans why would we expect Tesco's turnover to increase?

Capital investment hasn't stopped. McDonnell wants to borrow to sustain day to day spending which equates to borrowing on the never never in the vain hope the economy picks up again. The markets would dive and our credit rating would be downgraded again.

 

[LateThanNever]

What I am saying is that a 2% surplus is pathetic when you consider the tax receipts he was raking in. So when that tax dried up he went from a small surplus to a huge deficit in no time at all. That's why the "boom & bust" cliche is bounded round so much. Osborne is in a very difficult situation at the moment. The economy is on a knife edge. The last thing you need right now is huge tax rises which will scare off investment into the country. You want to encourage business to base themselves in this country. And you want to encourage small and medium sized businesses as well. Corbyn & McDonnell only seem interested in welfare.

A budget surplus by the government means in and of itself and by definition that Either Britain must export more in order to balance the budget - and that is highly unlikely. Or that companies have to borrow more and since most of the biggest are sitting on piles of cash that they don't know what to do with, that is highly unlikely. Or that private individuals will borrow more. The Office of Budget responsibility thinks that this last is what will happen - demand sustained by personal debt.
I'd rather the government borrowed more (or just created money - like they did for the banks' QE) and we can afford schools, hospitals and social security. Sorry, I've no desire to seek out Wonga because Osborne has some doctrinal desire to stop borrowing - but for the economy's sake, I have to hope you do!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do agree that a slight increase in fuel duty wouldn't have been the end of the world but 5p? That would have been around 7p increase at the pumps, so well over a £1 on every fill up for the average car. That would put up prices in the shops, inflation would go up dramatically.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Capital investment hasn't stopped. McDonnell wants to borrow to sustain day to day spending which equates to borrowing on the never never in the vain hope the economy picks up again. The markets would dive and our credit rating would be downgraded again.

Capital investment is at its lowest level for at least a decade!

Money can be created as already suggested -like in Quantitiave Easing. You miss the point that the government creates money - basically it does not NEED to borrow. It can just spend into the economy. Sterling is British currency, which would not exist if the government did not create it and accept it for tax payments and which banks too are authorised to create, but they've made a completer Horlicks of doing it. That is why Gilts are known in some circles as 'Welfare for Corporations'!

 

[miami]

Looks like I've gained again from the budget (very few sugary drinks, and a lib-dem powered rise in income tax threshold). Doesn't mean I like it though, as those relatively small gains are offset by a massive impact on the most vulnerable in society, and are there as something to distract the massive gains for other sections of society like dirty-energy and a massive reduction in corporation tax. And seriously, who can possibly fill a £15,240 ISA every year? Take someone earning at the 75th-percentile level - so better off than 75% of the country - they take home £29,300.

Knock out £800 for rent, £400 for food, groceries, clothes, etc, £200 for bills, £300 for transport, and you're already down to under £10k left over for the year.

Who exactly will benefit from a £20k savings allowance in an ISA?

However I do agree with the "I'm alright jack" Dave1987, there is a psychological threshold around the £50k mark because for every £100 extra you earn
* £40 goes on income tax
* £2 on NI
* £18 on reduction in child benefit for a 2 child household

Leaving £40 in your pocket with 2 children, or £32 in your pocket with 3 children. Knock out the commuting costs and it actually means that you can end up in a situation where doing overtime not only has zero net income, but is actually a loss (you end up with £40 for a half day but end up paying that much in an extra train fare)

Once you hit £60k you're back up to earning £58 in £100.

Of course many families earn more than someone paying that 60%+ marginal rate, because they have two parents on £30k each out at work, netting £46974.40 in income and £1788.80 in child benefit, or £48,763.20

A one-parent family on the same gross wage of £60k will have a net income of £42126.20 and zero child benefit, earning £6,637 per year less, despite being paid the same money as a two-parent family.

But that's just a personal gripe from someone who likes their kids to spend time with their parents rather than with outsourced care providers from the age of 3 months!

 

[EM2]

Hmmm budget surplus of juts 2% during a period where tax revenues were insanely high. Huge taxes coming in from a banking sector that was arguably out of control. In fact all I remember the Brown era for was tax tax and more tax.

Which party was it that increased VAT from 15% to 17.5%?
Which party was it that introduced Insurance Premium Tax?
Which party was it that introduced Airport Departure Tax?
Which party was it that introduced the Fuel Price Escalator?
Which party was it that introduced Income Tax levied against bank interest?
Which party was it that introduced the Community Charge to be paid by *all* adults?
I'll give you a clue - Gordon Brown is not a member of it.

 

[Busaholic]

Seriously he should have raised excise duty on Fuel by at least 5p Litre which would still leave it much cheaper than a year ago and provide a serious wedge to avoid contentious benefit cuts.

With regard to the low paid raising the starting point for NI Contributions to the same level as Income Tax would be a major boost and put cash in their pockets. In fact why maintain the facade that they are for different things and just combine the two at one rate.

I'm broadly in agreement with you there, although I think 5p is a bit steep as a first step.

The way that N.I. payments have been treated by Chancellors of the Exchequer over the last generation has been cynical in the extreme and the pretence that they are anything other than an arm of income taxation should be shattered once and for all, perhaps to coincide with the so-called Universal Pension introduction.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Capital investment hasn't stopped. McDonnell wants to borrow to sustain day to day spending which equates to borrowing on the never never in the vain hope the economy picks up again.

McDonnell has made it perfectly clear that he favours borrowing only to pay for investment, not for day-to-day spending. BBC report

A future Labour government would control public spending through a "fiscal credibility" lock, shadow chancellor John McDonnell has said.

Under his plan, day-to-day spending would not exceed government income although there would be scope for borrowing for capital investment.

"There is nothing left wing about excessive spending, nothing socialist about too much debt", he said.

Since this announcement has been fairly prominently in the news within the last couple of weeks, it seems very unlikely that you could be unaware of it. I wonder, therefore, why you have once again chosen to post something on railforums that is verifiably untrue?

 

[Mojo]

I wasn't saying that you're "not paying your fair share". Please do not see my viewpoint as a personal attack - I know perfectly well that you are not the one making the decisions. I am saying that people in our position do not deserve tax cuts whilst the most vulnerable people in our society are struggling to feed their families.

Despite getting a £203 "tax cut," my NI bill will be increasing by around £500 from the next tax year.

 

[furnessvale]

I do agree that a slight increase in fuel duty wouldn't have been the end of the world but 5p? That would have been around 7p increase at the pumps, so well over a £1 on every fill up for the average car. That would put up prices in the shops, inflation would go up dramatically.

I believe the price of transport in high street spending is around 3% of the ticket price.

If fuel rose by 7p that would be about a 7% increase. Fuel price is about half the cost of transport.

So,without any profiteering, inflation would rise by 50% of 3% of 7% of the ticket price which is about 0.105% if my maths is correct.

Road hauliers put quite a different spin on things to perpetuate the massive subsidies they receive.

 

[Butts]

I believe the price of transport in high street spending is around 3% of the ticket price.

If fuel rose by 7p that would be about a 7% increase. Fuel price is about half the cost of transport.

So,without any profiteering, inflation would rise by 50% of 3% of 7% of the ticket price which is about 0.105% if my maths is correct.

Road hauliers put quite a different spin on things to perpetuate the massive subsidies they receive.

Strange then that prices have not fallen as fuel costs have...no great reductions in Bus or Rail Fares and even more tellingly Aviation

 

[me123]

Strange then that prices have not fallen as fuel costs have...no great reductions in Bus or Rail Fares and even more tellingly Aviation

As I'm sure you know, large transport companies often employ fuel hedging, which means that the increases and decreases are not always immediately felt by the consumer.

 

[Butts]

I do agree that a slight increase in fuel duty wouldn't have been the end of the world but 5p? That would have been around 7p increase at the pumps, so well over a £1 on every fill up for the average car. That would put up prices in the shops, inflation would go up dramatically.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you having a giraffe ?

Prices have not come down as fuel has so why should they go up as a 7p increase would still leave the price well below it's recent peak.

£1 is less than half the cost of a latte so hardly a recipe for hyper inflation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I'm sure you know, large transport companies often employ fuel hedging, which means that the increases and decreases are not always immediately felt by the consumer.

Substitute with ever (when it comes to decreases)

 

[furnessvale]

Strange then that prices have not fallen as fuel costs have...no great reductions in Bus or Rail Fares and even more tellingly Aviation

You highlighted one part of my post which, on its own, is completely out of context.

It is no surprise that shop prices have not fallen because, as my calculations show and if they are correct, each penny fall in ROAD fuel prices, lowers inflation by 0.015%.

It is vastly different for rail and air prices because of the lower duty rate on rail fuel and the non existent duty on air fuel, which changes the calculations..

 

[Busaholic]

the non existent duty on air fuel.

That is, to use an overused word, a scandal.

 

[miami]

That is, to use an overused word, a scandal.

However flights from the UK are taxed, just not in relation to fuel used. This is partly because otherwise airlines would fill up in foreign countries. It may be feasible to get a broader EU wide APD tax. I suggest lobbying your democracticaly elected members of the european parliament to see if they can propose it.

Airlines as a whole, unlike say the railway, have a good track record of reducing fuel usage, whether it's taxed or not, so APD does the job (to encourage other forms of transport over air) fairly well, it doesn't need to benefit efficient planes over non-efficient planes as airlines already have a policy to use more efficient planes. Given that the tax is the same if you're going from London to Brussels (which can be done in 2 hours on the train), or London to Sofia (which is a multi-day trip), it's actually a very good tax if you want to discourage use of planes for short haul, but want the benefits of easy cheap travel for longer trips.

Based on the CO2 emissions on an Easyjet Manchester-Berlin flight return, the tax:kg/CO2 ratio is similar to that of a car.

 

[Butts]

However flights from the UK are taxed, just not in relation to fuel used. This is partly because otherwise airlines would fill up in foreign countries. It may be feasible to get a broader EU wide APD tax. I suggest lobbying your democracticaly elected members of the european parliament to see if they can propose it.

Airlines as a whole, unlike say the railway, have a good track record of reducing fuel usage, whether it's taxed or not, so APD does the job (to encourage other forms of transport over air) fairly well, it doesn't need to benefit efficient planes over non-efficient planes as airlines already have a policy to use more efficient planes. Given that the tax is the same if you're going from London to Brussels (which can be done in 2 hours on the train), or London to Sofia (which is a multi-day trip), it's actually a very good tax if you want to discourage use of planes for short haul, but want the benefits of easy cheap travel for longer trips.

Based on the CO2 emissions on an Easyjet Manchester-Berlin flight return, the tax:kg/CO2 ratio is similar to that of a car.

The SNP have pledged to "halve" APD from Scottish Airports if they are successful in May. I believe this would be carried out over a number of years. I suspect the Airlines will just "make up the difference"

 

[Dave1987]

A budget surplus by the government means in and of itself and by definition that Either Britain must export more in order to balance the budget - and that is highly unlikely. Or that companies have to borrow more and since most of the biggest are sitting on piles of cash that they don't know what to do with, that is highly unlikely. Or that private individuals will borrow more. The Office of Budget responsibility thinks that this last is what will happen - demand sustained by personal debt.
I'd rather the government borrowed more (or just created money - like they did for the banks' QE) and we can afford schools, hospitals and social security. Sorry, I've no desire to seek out Wonga because Osborne has some doctrinal desire to stop borrowing - but for the economy's sake, I have to hope you do!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Capital investment is at its lowest level for at least a decade!

Money can be created as already suggested -like in Quantitiave Easing. You miss the point that the government creates money - basically it does not NEED to borrow. It can just spend into the economy. Sterling is British currency, which would not exist if the government did not create it and accept it for tax payments and which banks too are authorised to create, but they've made a completer Horlicks of doing it. That is why Gilts are known in some circles as 'Welfare for Corporations'!

Well for a start the BoE is completely independent of the treasury, and the BoE is the one that has been doing the QE by basically making it easier for the banks to borrow money to lend to individuals for setting up business or mortgages. But it has to be careful that it doesn't devalue sterling! McDonnell wants to change the BoE so they are more accountable to him if he ever became chancellor (god forbid) so he could force them to pump more and more money into the economy which could be disastrous if it's not done properly. You seem to believe that the government can just print money without any consequence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looks like I've gained again from the budget (very few sugary drinks, and a lib-dem powered rise in income tax threshold). Doesn't mean I like it though, as those relatively small gains are offset by a massive impact on the most vulnerable in society, and are there as something to distract the massive gains for other sections of society like dirty-energy and a massive reduction in corporation tax. And seriously, who can possibly fill a £15,240 ISA every year? Take someone earning at the 75th-percentile level - so better off than 75% of the country - they take home £29,300.

Knock out £800 for rent, £400 for food, groceries, clothes, etc, £200 for bills, £300 for transport, and you're already down to under £10k left over for the year.

Who exactly will benefit from a £20k savings allowance in an ISA?

However I do agree with the "I'm alright jack" Dave1987, there is a psychological threshold around the £50k mark because for every £100 extra you earn
* £40 goes on income tax
* £2 on NI
* £18 on reduction in child benefit for a 2 child household

Leaving £40 in your pocket with 2 children, or £32 in your pocket with 3 children. Knock out the commuting costs and it actually means that you can end up in a situation where doing overtime not only has zero net income, but is actually a loss (you end up with £40 for a half day but end up paying that much in an extra train fare)

Once you hit £60k you're back up to earning £58 in £100.

Of course many families earn more than someone paying that 60%+ marginal rate, because they have two parents on £30k each out at work, netting £46974.40 in income and £1788.80 in child benefit, or £48,763.20

A one-parent family on the same gross wage of £60k will have a net income of £42126.20 and zero child benefit, earning £6,637 per year less, despite being paid the same money as a two-parent family.

But that's just a personal gripe from someone who likes their kids to spend time with their parents rather than with outsourced care providers from the age of 3 months!

Well apart from the "I'm alright Jack" bit at least someone understands where I'm coming from. It does seem there's a real apathy towards anyone in the country who works hard to get themselves into a comfortable position in life. Considering how much we are pushing towards a high wage society some people seem to believe we should all earn just above minimum wage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which party was it that increased VAT from 15% to 17.5%?
Which party was it that introduced Insurance Premium Tax?
Which party was it that introduced Airport Departure Tax?
Which party was it that introduced the Fuel Price Escalator?
Which party was it that introduced Income Tax levied against bank interest?
Which party was it that introduced the Community Charge to be paid by *all* adults?
I'll give you a clue - Gordon Brown is not a member of it.

Hmmm during the boom years I remember when GB put the fuel duty escalator and beer duty escalator to go up by 2p every 6 months automatically which crippled the pub industry, and made fuel go up to about £1.50 a litre!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

McDonnell has made it perfectly clear that he favours borrowing only to pay for investment, not for day-to-day spending. BBC report



Since this announcement has been fairly prominently in the news within the last couple of weeks, it seems very unlikely that you could be unaware of it. I wonder, therefore, why you have once again chosen to post something on railforums that is verifiably untrue?

Sorry im not responding to anything you post anymore. If you have issues with my posts then report them. I believe McDonnell's fiscal credibility rule as much as I believe that Elvis is still alive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you having a giraffe ?

Prices have not come down as fuel has so why should they go up as a 7p increase would still leave the price well below it's recent peak.

£1 is less than half the cost of a latte so hardly a recipe for hyper inflation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Substitute with ever (when it comes to decreases)

Really? No I'm not "having a giraffe". I never mentioned "hyper inflation", but as an economy that relies heavily on fuel for transportation of goods and people around the country the price of fuel has a big impact on prices of goods in shops. The one thing haulage firms have always asked for is a stable fuel price. When Gordon Brown made fuel hit £1.50 a litre the haulage firms were begging for mercy.

 

[miami]

Well apart from the "I'm alright Jack" bit at least someone understands where I'm coming from. It does seem there's a real apathy towards anyone in the country who works hard to get themselves into a comfortable position in life. Considering how much we are pushing towards a high wage society some people seem to believe we should all earn just above minimum wage.

Some of us are just not comfortable that austerity hits those that can least afford it, while gives tax breaks for those that can.

Hmmm during the boom years I remember when GB put the fuel duty escalator and beer duty escalator to go up by 2p every 6 months automatically which crippled the pub industry, and made fuel go up to about £1.50 a litre!

You have a very strange memory. Firstly it was the Conservatives who introduced the Fuel Price escalator, first at 3%, then up to 5%. Yes, Blair/Brown increased it to 6%, making him 17% culpable, but it was Ken Clarke who takes 83% of the blame. Shortly after this Brown scrapped the escalator in 2000.

In Sep 2000, fuel duty was 50.89p .
In 2008 fuel duty was 50.35p, so actually during the boom years Fuel Duty didn't budge (well actually it looks like it dipped, to 47.1p in 2006).

Since then it's increased to 57.95p, a long way from Clarke's 5p/litre/year rises in the 90s.

You seem to think that under GB (Gordon Brown?) the price of fuel shot up to £1.50. This happened during Osborne's time. in 2010 fuel was £1.11 per litre, it was under Dave + George leadership that we started seeing £1.50 at the pump, and then back down to £1. It was nothing to do with Osborne or Brown, simply due to the price of oil worldwide as the big boys play silly buggers

As for the pub industry, the smoking ban killed that off, although an ongoing crack down on drink driving in the 90s and 00s had major affects on rural pubs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When Gordon Brown made fuel hit £1.50 a litre the haulage firms were begging for mercy.

It was during the time of David Cameron and George Osborne that "fuel hit £1.50 a litre". Except they didn't make it do anything, it was the price of oil on the global market that caused it to go up, and caused it to come back down.

The highest petrol went under Brown's leadership was £1.19 in July 2008. 6 months later it was below £1.

Under Browns chancellorship, which ended in June 2007, petrol had never risen about £1 a litre. It wasn't until October 2007 it did.

In Aptil 2012 it hit £1.42. From Nov 2010 until Dec 2014 it was over £1.20. This was entirely Cameron/Osborne, but again NOT THEIR FAULT.

Don't believe me, look at The RAC's graphs, or are they labour supporters too?

 

[Dave1987]

Some of us are just not comfortable that austerity hits those that can least afford it, while gives tax breaks for those that can.



You have a very strange memory. Firstly it was the Conservatives who introduced the Fuel Price escalator, first at 3%, then up to 5%. Yes, Blair/Brown increased it to 6%, making him 17% culpable, but it was Ken Clarke who takes 83% of the blame. Shortly after this Brown scrapped the escalator in 2000.

In Sep 2000, fuel duty was 50.89p .
In 2008 fuel duty was 50.35p, so actually during the boom years Fuel Duty didn't budge (well actually it looks like it dipped, to 47.1p in 2006).

Since then it's increased to 57.95p, a long way from Clarke's 5p/litre/year rises in the 90s.

You seem to think that under GB (Gordon Brown?) the price of fuel shot up to £1.50. This happened during Osborne's time. in 2010 fuel was £1.11 per litre, it was under Dave + George leadership that we started seeing £1.50 at the pump, and then back down to £1. It was nothing to do with Osborne or Brown, simply due to the price of oil worldwide as the big boys play silly buggers

As for the pub industry, the smoking ban killed that off, although an ongoing crack down on drink driving in the 90s and 00s had major affects on rural pubs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




It was during the time of David Cameron and George Osborne that "fuel hit £1.50 a litre". Except they didn't make it do anything, it was the price of oil on the global market that caused it to go up, and caused it to come back down.

The highest petrol went under Brown's leadership was £1.19 in July 2008. 6 months later it was below £1.

Under Browns chancellorship, which ended in June 2007, petrol had never risen about £1 a litre. It wasn't until October 2007 it did.

In Aptil 2012 it hit £1.42. From Nov 2010 until Dec 2014 it was over £1.20. This was entirely Cameron/Osborne, but again NOT THEIR FAULT.

Don't believe me, look at The RAC's graphs, or are they labour supporters too?

Ok I may have got the top price of fuel under Brown a bit wrong (I was sure it got that high under Brown but hey I'm wrong, it was nearly a decade ago now) it was still very very high compared to the years before, the highs it got to under the coalition was simply because of how high the price of oil got to rather than the taxes put on it. Why did Brown say the 50p top rate tax was "temporary"?

But the fuel duty escalator along with the Beer duty escalator was scrapped by the coalition. Osbourne cancelled the duty rise under the escalator a few times before scrapping it all together. Doesn't get away from the fact that Welfare was out of control under Brown either.

As I've said before I'm not surprised most people on this forum disagree with my political views as I am one of the few people with right wing political opinions, and most on here are either left or hardcore left wingers. People can link to websites that claim Labour were economically competent but these websites seem to be funded or sponsor by left wing charities or by left wing political parties so are hardly impartial. The important statistic is what the majority of the British people believe at the ballot box. And in the past two GE's the majority have decided they do not want Labour back in power. No one expected the Tories to win an outright majority at the last election, because it seems that people are targeted for abuse if they dare to say they don't vote Labour or a left wing party. And it would seem that some people on this forum object fiercely to the fact that some people don't believe the rhetoric coming out of the Labour Party presently. Then an organisation Corbyn used to chair did make death threats against his own MP's for the way they have voted in the commons. And people call the Tories the "nasty party". But they claimed that the death threats were OK because they classed them as "robust lobbying".

 

[miami]

Ok I may have got the top price of fuel under Brown a bit wrong (I was sure it got that high under Brown but hey I'm wrong) it was still very very high compared to the years before

But the fuel duty escalator along with the Beer duty escalator was scrapped by the coalition. Osbourne cancelled the duty rise under the escalator a few times before scrapping it all together. Doesn't get away from the fact that Welfare was out of control under Brown either.

The "fuel duty escalator" was scrapped in 2000, by Grodon Brown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator

The Fuel Price Escalator (FPE) was the practice of automatically increasing hydrocarbon oil duty (better known as 'fuel duty') in the United Kingdom ahead of inflation.
...
The fuel price escalator was introduced by the Conservative government in 1993 and set at an annual increase of 3% ahead of inflation, later rising to 5%. After gaining power in 1997, the rate of increase was raised by the Labour government to 6% per year. The last rise due to the escalator took place following the budget on 9 March 1999.
...
The end to the escalator was announced on 9 November 2000, following the UK fuel protests, of which it was a contributory factor.

There then followed a period of 8 years of a labour government when the fuel duty reduced. Only when Gordon Brown stopped being Chancellor did Alistair Darling increase it again past its peak in 2000. In 2008 to 52.35p, then in April 2009 it increased to 54.19ppl, first rise in nearly a decade.

Osborne carried on this policy. Sure he dropped the fuel duty by a penny in 2011, but he'd already raised the tax take of fuel by 3p by increasing VAT, giving a net increase of 2p. He also planned to increase it by 3p a litre in 2012, but due to the massive increase in the cost of oil it got delayed, then scrapped, as the end result (increasing prices at pump above inflation to reduce the amount of petrol used) was happening anyway.

Given that Osborne was planning on continuing, or even exceeding, Labour's plans for fuel prices at the start of his Chancellorship, but changed his mind when global ecnomic factors came into play, there's no reason to assume Darling wouldn't have done the same thing.

 

[Dave1987]

The "fuel duty escalator" was scrapped in 2000, by Grodon Brown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator


There then followed a period of 8 years of a labour government when the fuel duty reduced. Only when Gordon Brown stopped being Chancellor did Alistair Darling increase it again past its peak in 2000. In 2008 to 52.35p, then in April 2009 it increased to 54.19ppl, first rise in nearly a decade.

Osborne carried on this policy. Sure he dropped the fuel duty by a penny in 2011, but he'd already raised the tax take of fuel by 3p by increasing VAT, giving a net increase of 2p. He also planned to increase it by 3p a litre in 2012, but due to the massive increase in the cost of oil it got delayed, then scrapped, as the end result (increasing prices at pump above inflation to reduce the amount of petrol used) was happening anyway.

Given that Osborne was planning on continuing, or even exceeding, Labour's plans for fuel prices at the start of his Chancellorship, but changed his mind when global ecnomic factors came into play, there's no reason to assume Darling wouldn't have done the same thing.

Hold on a second, you said Brown cancelled the fuel duty escalator. Yet it clearly states in the 2011 article that Osbourne was dropping it by a penny and cancelling the escalator in this page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12831894 so the escalator was still in place and Osbourne did cancel it then scrap it. The VAT rise was a shrewd move by Osbourne as it bought him in a lot of extra money. And Browns temporary reduction to 15% did little to make people spend more.

In all fairness to Darling, he was put into the job just as everything was going very badly wrong and he did give Labour a bit of a reality check. McDonnell on the other hand makes Ed Balls look like a decent candidate for chancellor.

 

[miami]

Hold on a second, you said Brown cancelled the fuel duty escalator.

Yes, I'm assuming you were only 10 when Blair got in (hence your name), but those of us a little older remember the "Fuel Duty Escalator" was introduced in the Major government. It was removed by Brown in 2000 and reintroduced from 2008 by Darling, at a far lower rate than Ken Clarke's 3p introduction and rapid 5p escalation (and Brown's increase further to 6p/year)

Yet it clearly states in the 2011 article that Osbourne was dropping it by a penny and cancelling the escalator in this page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12831894 so the escalator was still in place and Osbourne did cancel it then scrap it. The VAT rise was a shrewd move by Osbourne as it bought him in a lot of extra money.

Yes, it was the equivelent of a 3p fuel duty rise on it's own, and generally taking money off poorer people. You and I, fitting in the right-hand-scale by income on this graph from the IFS, were less affected.

I'd rather see taxes on the massive gains in house values over the last 30 years (as a charge on the house that doesn't need paying until the house is sold or inheritted), or a reduction in the inheritance tax bracket and increase in rate - say a £20k threshold and a 70% value on wealth above that.

And Browns temporary reduction to 15% did little to make people spend more.

I agree (aside from the missing apostrophe), a dumb political move, far better to have spent the money on infrastructure.