The Budget

The sugary drinks tax cut was designed to distract the media from the fact that Osborne has changed his assessment of the economy twice since this time last year.
The UK is bumping along and talk of growth is greatly exaggerated.
Productivity is dire.
His tax revenue is not picking up. He is bricking himself incase we leave the EU and he won't step into Cameron's shoes.
He's putting money into the pockets of the affluent (higher tax band payers, capital gains tax payers, corporation tax payers) and taking it straight out of the pockets of the poor, the disabled and, disproportionately women.

5% tax on sanitary products is currently the lowest allowed under EU. The tax on these products are going to women's charities. As we are ruled by Brussels this can't be changed. As for women using newspaper I don't believe it.

I just wanted to add that as a 'left winger', I wasn't impressed by Jeremy Corbyn today. It wasn't what he said, it was his delivery. He didn't engage me emotionally and several times he had to correct himself after saying the wrong word. It was far from a polished performance and I was very disappointed.

It is true that there are many people in this country, especially older people who, having paid off or nearly paid off their mortgages, are fairly comfortable.

But there are also many people in their mid-thirties and below who are really struggling, and with wages falling, jobs becoming less secure and housing costs rocketing they face a very uncertain and stressful future. We have had several years of "austerity" now and, for all the damage that has been done to people's lives and their communities, there seems to be little to show for it.

As others have pointed out, the very people that you would expect a government to take particular care of - people with disabilities - are the people who have been penalised. In my view it is cowardly and unprincipled to target a group on what appears to be the grounds that it represents a relatively insignificant number of voters.

rosesarered* Your original comment was something to the effect that it was a good budget. You then got all sniffy because someone asked what was good about it. You say "I won't be taking individuals questions on this topic", so why comment at all if you're not able or prepared to back up your opinions? I'm not so sure that it is only "left wing" people who are unhappy about the treatment of the most vulnerable in our society. I think there are people who wouldn't necessarily see themselves as "left wing" who would feel uncomfortable about what is happening. Referring to Jeremy Corbyn's speech as "rabble rousing" presumably means that you think those Gransnetters who praised what he said are a "rabble", which I think is rather rude.

Sorry, I didn't realise there was a page 2 when I replied to Tizliz about business rates.

rosesarered you support the government and I respect that. However, my problem with answers from those who like you, are staunch government supporters, is that they never address the issue of the individuals who lose from the government cuts. You're right, most people in this country are not dirt poor. In fact, we're a very rich country. So why is it necessary to take money from people with disabilities, money that makes their difficult lives easier and enables many of them to have a degree of independence? Today GO announced another £1.3 billion worth of cuts to disability benefits. I'm not sure if that's in addition to the £12 billion already announced or not TBH.

Just this month it was reported by the BBC that almost 14000 - yes, 14000 - people with disabilities have lost their Motability cars when they were transferred from Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to Personal Independence Payments (PIP). That's more than 100 a week and means 45% of claimants transferred from DLA to PIP have lost their cars. Some of them will have used the cars to get to work, so will no longer be able to work. For others it will mean the difference between being housebound or able to take part in the community. Many will appeal against the decision (and many will win), but that's hardly the point. The government hopes to save £2 billion by replacing DLA with PIPs and it sounds like it will succeed. But what other support services will those who lose out have to turn to now? Many if not all of those services are already stretched very thinly, so how will they cope?

From January next year, the criteria for PIP will change and 640,000 claimants will have their payments reduced or stopped when their award comes up for renewal. These are people sick or disabled enough to need aids and appliances to help them manage every day living.

I could go on, but my point is how can it be right to reduce the incomes of some of the most vulnerable members of our society? Do those of you who support the government agree with this way of saving money? Are any of you affected by the changes or know someone who is?

In a pension scheme your employer will pay in too.
Gracesgran I think a Lib-Dem ex-minister (can't remember which one) made that point on the news this evening.

When you say little mention of those worse off than the majority of us, do you mean on this website, Granddaughter?
durhamjen I read it that Granddaughter means that disabled veterans are worse off than the majority of the general public who have not lost arms, legs, their sight or possibly all, or have ptsd.
If that is not what you meant, Gd then I apologise.

Very much needed Jen if a meat pie costs approx £7 to £8

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/16/a-budget-for-the-children-of-the-best-off/

An interesting analysis.
The comments underneath are good, too.

Haven't bought a meat pie for nearly forty years, but I did wonder, Anniebach. No wonder there are so many food banks.

Yet you still can't resist the urge to reply Nigglynellie

I didn't realise meat pies were so expensive

Just watched the paper review, the Mail claims it's it's a good budget for middle England - no surprise there

One of the things I have noticed about pensions is that public employers have to pay more for their employees pensions. Where are they going to get that from?
Is he trying to impoverish all the councils, etc?
Hang on; I can answer that myself.
I am surprised that anyone wants to be a councillor these days.

I do worry about the savings for pension or house. It seems to be good for saving for a deposit as you couldn't get that sort of interest elsewhere but I wonder about saving for a pension. In a pension scheme your employer will pay in too. I just wonder if this is the thin end of the wedge.

Just realised that should be £24,000 , £ 4000 pet GC. Must scrub floors faster

I have 6 GC how I wish I had £ 18,000 to invest for each, every year to secure their future. I am sure Osbourne and all his friends have, but actually they will not need it. Their future is assured. Cynical? you bet

I sent a link to my granddaughter who is looking for a job in teaching. She says that the only jobs available for next September are in academies in her area.

Don't think it made much difference to most of us frankly. Yes we gain sightly by the upgrade in tax thresholds but little else. Not many of us have a spare £20000 to put into an ISA in which the rates are abysmal anyway,and the frozen rates on fuel and booze do not affect us either. Academy status may interest some, my GD had a dreadful experience at one so a thumbs down on that for me.
A budget for the working people he ended with, well that will
affect most of our families so we live in hope.

Granddaughter, I was just asking if you meant people on this thread or not.
Thank you, you have answered my question.

Tizliz sounds like we'll have to wait for the detail to see what GO meant by 'small'.

Sorry, I won't be taking individual questions on this topic, or any other come to that.The Chancellor puts forwards his budgets (whoever the Chancellor happens to be) to show the state of the economy , not to show that he is a paragon of virtue.To hear Corbyn talk ' cuts, why should we have any cuts'
Doh! Is to be very glad that he is not, and hopefully will never be, in charge of our Nation's affairs.The world is not doing very well right now, economically, so to expect everything to be exactly as we all want it to be is
Naive at best.The Chancellor is not a cross between Mother Theresa and the best social worker in the world. The majority of people in the UK are not dirt poor actually, and the save £4,000 and have another £1,000 added, will please and help a lot of younger people.

I presume that I made an error in the eyes of the regulars on these threads and that has upset durhamjen and perhaps others. I was simply referring to the our veterans and the fact they and the disabled are so often ignored by society and those on social media. My apologies if my compassion has been mistaken for criticism of those on gransnet, perhaps I should just read the threads and leave the comments to those with a more eloquent understanding of these subject matters and the correct sensitive language one should learn.

So roses, if Corbyn was wrong, then the budget DID actually address inequality. Which bit was that then? I seem to have missed it!

Am glad that I didn't reply to Ab and her disingenuous question (we have been here before!) The left wing grans may enjoy argueing about the cost of sanitary towels and any other item they choose, ridiculous.What does that have to do with the budget, nothing.
It was indeed a fairly bland budget, and that's good at this time, no nasty surprises and a few good ideas.
Corbyn did his usual rabble rousing speech, which he is comfortable with, basically to rubbish anything and everything, because of course, he would do things so much better ( yeah right! )
The only passive/ aggressive ( whatever the hell that means )comments always come from the usual left wing suspects.
As has been said many times on the political threads before, some posters will not countenance anything good unless it has been put forward by Corbyn and his socialist supporters.

The other problem with the cut in business rates is that last year the government said that councils could keep their business rates to fund social care.
This is another cut, therefore, to council income, not government coffers.