• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Budget..I'm Gasping !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
How long will it take by Slashing everything in sight and trying to squeeze as much out of everyone in taxes to conceivably make the slightest dent in £900,000,000,000? And what is the actual ambition, if & when they should ever succeed in paying off that £900,000,000,000? Isn't it just so that the Uk's credit Rating isn't downgraded; i.e. so that they could borrow and get back into debt all over again?
I'm afraid it's easy to say things like "Roads are the enemy", but exactly the same increases in Fuel prices have to be paid by bus operators too, and the situaiton where everyone could use rail for all their transport needs is never likely to arise; not to mention that all the stuff that people want from shops has to get their by road transport (even if it uses Rail for part of the way), so costs & hence prices will inevitably rise there too.

Yes, I know I'm being rather simplistic (and I make a rather hypocritical exception for the Great North Road because I live on it). I'd have done things differently, partly by abolishing VED as part of a tax simplification programme and putting the cost onto fuel instead. I'd also start taxing aviation fuel, but then I'd have restarted bus regulation among other things. But is it good for the railways if we do our level best to tax motorists off the roads? I'm not sure. It's certainly good for the planet if we reduce road mileage. Going to the extreme with "Is your journey really necessary?" posters and fuel rationing might be taking it too far. Reducing the national speed limit by 10 mph is another option worth looking at.

As for borrowing, the target would be an equivalent of the Gold Standard by 2050. Following governments might abolish that, but I think it's reasonable. Also, AIUI, our interest payments will go up if we lose AAA credit rating, thus making the problem worse.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So why cut the top rate of tax? Why are they cutting jobs at HMRC instead of focussing on tax evasion and tax avoidance, typically by the super rich?
I understand the 50p tax rate was only ever temporary but it gives plenty of ammunition to suggest that these cuts are as much ideology as necessity.

Money is available for certain projects though, Universal Credit and HS2 to name two, the latter being a perfect example of borrowing to invest. The former on the other hand is an unworkable farce but then what do we expect when policymakers have never struggled to make ends meet.

What the Conservatives either don't understand or actually approve of is that the private sector does nothing for free. Look where privatisation of energy and transport got us :roll:. I suspect there was a good budget in 1997 because Major and Thatcher sold Britain to the highest bidder :roll:

Cutting the top rate was daft, I reckon. Mostly because of the signal it sent rather than any serious financial loss. Again, I'd have done things differently, by tearing up the entire tax code and starting from scratch using something resembling negative income tax. There would be no exemptions of any kind, but the child benefit, the state pension and various other things would go up to compensate for the loss of tax credits. I'd consider getting rid of capital gains tax to encourage investment, and allow one home to be exempted from inheritance tax, although it would be charged for all. Reducing the size of Revenue and Customs might be workable then, they would have less to do apart from preventing people from hiding their income. PFI would go completely, and there's a nationalisation list starting with the communications industry, passing through all utilities and finishing with airports. We'd also have no nuclear weapons by now, but would have airworthy Harriers in exchange, and two aircraft carriers to fly them off.

As for HS2, that would be under construction ASAP. That's true investment.

I also seem to have gone past 3,000 posts somewhere.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
The problem with putting tax on fuel and abolishing VED is that there are plenty of folk in rural Britain who genuinely have no alternative to driving - and never will have, because the idea of "public transport development" seems to peter out at city boundaries. We also end to ignore the very real problems of rural poverty and unemployment, exacerbated by having to travel miles simply to sign on
The 50p rate was a daft idea in the first place, created out of political posturing, and left behind as a booby trap for the next government; Darling said it was temporary anyway, so how the opposition can grumble is beyond belief. It brought in negligible amounts - in some analyses it actually cost the country money, as it persuaded more people to look into legitimate tax avoidance. There is nothing wrong with being rich, so long as that is achieved legally, and those taxes due are paid. Loopholes - such as that being used by eg Ken Livingstone - will always be sought, and, if necessary, closed
I just wish that the main driver in politics in the UK was something other than jealousy :cry:
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
I'd consider getting rid of capital gains tax to encourage investment, and allow one home to be exempted from inheritance tax, although it would be charged for all.

The trouble with abolishing capital gains tax is that all kinds of things we'd consider as income, will suddenly be declared as capital gains. Whats to say that the margin an antique dealer makes on buying and selling things is income rather than a capital gain(/loss)? Theres plenty of ways of using the same analysis in other industries too.

I think the best way of reducing the workload (and cost) of HMRC would be to align the allowances and rates for Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax (including National Insurance) and Corporation Tax. The incentive to then declare one kind of income as another is then completely eliminated.

It has to be said that with the continuing reductions in Corporation Tax does suggest that (at least for Basic Rate Income Tax payers) these 3 regimes are converging.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
The problem with putting tax on fuel and abolishing VED is that there are plenty of folk in rural Britain who genuinely have no alternative to driving - and never will have, because the idea of "public transport development" seems to peter out at city boundaries. We also end to ignore the very real problems of rural poverty and unemployment, exacerbated by having to travel miles simply to sign on

I know all about that. :( I just wish someone would do something sensible, like delivering public services through much smaller outlets (sub-Post Offices for instance, where there are any :roll: ) rather than constant centralisation. Ideally, nobody would ever need to leave the village, but that's probably long-gone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The trouble with abolishing capital gains tax is that all kinds of things we'd consider as income, will suddenly be declared as capital gains. Whats to say that the margin an antique dealer makes on buying and selling things is income rather than a capital gain(/loss)? Theres plenty of ways of using the same analysis in other industries too.

I think the best way of reducing the workload (and cost) of HMRC would be to align the allowances and rates for Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax (including National Insurance) and Corporation Tax. The incentive to then declare one kind of income as another is then completely eliminated.

It has to be said that with the continuing reductions in Corporation Tax does suggest that (at least for Basic Rate Income Tax payers) these 3 regimes are converging.

Makes a lot of sense.

Little addition to above, it might be possible to save a lot of money by not floodlighting public buildings or anywhere receiving public money. To set an example, start with the Houses of Parliament, turn off everything except the internal lights on Big Ben (so people can tell the time). Plenty of streetlights outside, and tourists can always come back in daylight. If a compromise is needed, only have the lights on during public holidays.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top