Verdict on the budget?

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Sorry, that argument just doesn't add up.

that's reductio ad absurdum for you - QED I suppose - in a way

 

[Del_Boy]

The problem I see with making a lot of people a little better off (to an extent that frankly makes little difference for most) is that all these little amounts add up to a big amount. And that big amount has to be found somewhere (if Osbo isn't going to borrow - nuts!) - and it is found from areas that affect fewer folks with less to live on - and so the simple sums mean impact on them is greater. And all that for what. So he can boast about a Conservative government cutting the tax burden and delivering on a Tory manifesto promise. Well whoop-dee-doop George, glad you're pleased with yourself.

That works for individuals as well. Saving a little in each of your monthly bills soon adds up to a sum worth having.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

But he isn't the company sales manager so it's not relevant

OK, as a favour just for you, I shall change it to company finance director.

 

[bobmac]

I'm no expert in politics so maybe someone can help me out please.
I thought it said in the budget that those people who earn over £150,000 a year are now paying 5% LESS tax than they were before.
That can't be right surely?
Another 5% pay rise for his boss then and himself?

Please tell me I've got that wrong........

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

That works for individuals as well. Saving a little in each of your monthly bills soon adds up to a sum worth having.

Yes it does - and that's fine if you're in receipt of a load of bawbees - one day you'll have a shilling. But your gradually accumulated gain is going to come about as a result of someone else's step change loss.

 

[Rooter]

I'm no expert in politics so maybe someone can help me out please.
I thought it said in the budget that those people who earn over £150,000 a year are now paying 5% LESS tax than they were before.
That can't be right surely?
Another 5% pay rise for his boss then and himself?

Please tell me I've got that wrong........

I cant see any mention of it bob, all i can see for those earning 150k+ is a pension relief cut. The 40% take level has raised from 40 to 45k, making those on 150 a small saving, but not much in real terms.

 

[Del_Boy]

Yes it does - and that's fine if you're in receipt of a load of bawbees - one day you'll have a shilling. But your gradually accumulated gain is going to come about as a result of someone else's step change loss.

I'm still losing as well as I'm still paying in more than I'm taking out so everyone is a loser.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'm no expert in politics so maybe someone can help me out please.
I thought it said in the budget that those people who earn over £150,000 a year are now paying 5% LESS tax than they were before.
That can't be right surely?
Another 5% pay rise for his boss then and himself?

Please tell me I've got that wrong........

Quite probable - justified on the grounds that the more the boss has in his pocket at the end of the month the more will trickle down to his employees; well that's the good intent anyway. Though bosses who feel they've had it a bit tough last few years - with us all being in it together after all - might actually think they are deserving to hold onto it for the time being. But that's redistribution of wealth for you - down to those with it to decide if and when they are happy to give some of it away.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'm still losing as well as I'm still paying in more than I'm taking out so everyone is a loser.

I think the only monetary thing that we get from the state is tax relief on my pension contributions. Stopped getting child benefit for the children many years ago and we have never qualified for anything else of any nature, shape or form. But that's OK. I'm generally happy to pay my share and most of the time hold no resentments against those who pay less or nothing into the pot.

 

[Del_Boy]

I cant see any mention of it bob, all i can see for those earning 150k+ is a pension relief cut. The 40% take level has raised from 40 to 45k, making those on 150 a small saving, but not much in real terms.

Also there is no personal allowance on that wack so no benefit of that being increased either!

 

[vkurup]

I'm no expert in politics so maybe someone can help me out please.
I thought it said in the budget that those people who earn over £150,000 a year are now paying 5% LESS tax than they were before.
That can't be right surely?
Another 5% pay rise for his boss then and himself?

Please tell me I've got that wrong........

Not sure I saw anything on this one?? where is this..
Dont forget he has taken personal allowance away, so any cut would be welcome. The worst off will be 130-150K bracket.. no personal allowance and no tax cut. This is what keeps me awake

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Tate & Lyle shares slumped with news of the sugar tax.

They recovered a bit when someone told the smart London traders that T&L sold their sugar business in 2009.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

OK, as a favour just for you, I shall change it to company finance director.

It's all still irrelevant

 

[Kellfire]

... and I see yet again the drunks are being kept happy

Really? As a purchaser of expensive beer, I shall take this chance to remind you that we pay ridicuously high duty on alcohol compared to many countries in Europe. It makes me sad.

 

[bobmac]

Not sure I saw anything on this one?? where is this..

Sorry, wrong budget.

 

[vkurup]

Sorry, wrong budget.

Only late by a year... you did not miss much.. :whoo:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The Home Secretaries decolletage - only because it is subject of conversation. Attracted to; attracted by; or honestly didn't notice. I can't say I didn't notice and found it rather distracting - and with my gaze drifting from the fine figure of the Chancellor. For that reason alone perhaps the lady should have been a little more circumspect - and yes of course she shouldn't actually have to concern herself one iota - but...

 

[Hacker Khan]

The academy schools idea is an ideological pursuit, like hospital Trusts. It is intended to allow greater freedom for schools, but in the background makes it easier for schools to be gobbled up by big educational companies. Just like the NHS then. Probably good for the best schools and terrible for the failing schools. And these schols are not necessarily failing because of the lack of effort from teachers.

That is a slightly exaggerated view of it, but in some cases not too far off. The autonomy for schools idea promoted by the government is slightly flawed as the power will reside in the boards of the multi academy trusts. Individual schools themselves will have little autonomy, if any. Also the governing boards of the individual schools will lose most of their powers.

As for the multi academy trusts (MATs) then yes some are run by big companies, but some are run by schools themselves that have been classed as outstanding by Ofsted. Technically they are all charitable trusts so they won't be doing this to make a profit so to speak.

As with most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle, some MATs are run by empire building ego maniacs that are expanding far too quickly in an attempt to grab as many schools as they can. But some are run by dedicated people that prioritise the best education for their pupils. You just have to make sure you join the right one.

And as for the reason why schools fail then there are many reasons. But a failure of leadership (head, governors) is usually the biggest contributory factor. As poor leaders usually attract poor teachers.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

That is a slightly exaggerated view of it, but in some cases not too far off. The autonomy for schools idea promoted by the government is slightly flawed as the power will reside in the boards of the multi academy trusts. Individual schools themselves will have little autonomy, if any. Also the governing boards of the individual schools will lose most of their powers.

As for the multi academy trusts (MATs) then yes some are run by big companies, but some are run by schools themselves that have been classed as outstanding by Ofsted. Technically they are all charitable trusts so they won't be doing this to make a profit so to speak.

As with most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle, some MATs are run by empire building ego maniacs that are expanding far too quickly in an attempt to grab as many schools as they can. But some are run by dedicated people that prioritise the best education for their pupils. You just have to make sure you join the right one.

And as for the reason why schools fail then there are many reasons. But a failure of leadership (head, governors) is usually the biggest contributory factor. As poor leaders usually attract poor teachers.

I wouldn't really have believed that having the wrong head can so very quickly lead to problems - even where the teaching staff remained constant. I saw it at our children's primary school when a very good and well respected head left; unfortunately the replacement was a bit of a disaster - and of course the governors had become complacent with the school under the under the very competent custodianship of the previous head and had taken their eyes off the governors ball. The school went from very well performing into special measures in a matter of 2 years. All sorted now under new leadership and it is back performing very well.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Sadly I've become jaded and apathetic to it all and irrespective of the party delivering it these budgets are all the same. I can't change what is delivered and so simply take the pros of higher tax allowance with whatever negatives are thrown in with a world weary shrug.