The Budget

I am not sure about this Tizliz but I thought the business rate relief was only for two years (currently) from what Osborne said - or rather what I heard so this may not be the case This budget measure is permanent.

I did hear someone say that this sort of change could help increase productivity but I can't see that. I guess this will enable a few businesses to invest and therefore improve output per person but I would have thought most of it would be taken up paying the trumpeted new "living" wage. All good - essential in fact - but I can't see an increase in productivity which is the biggest "miss" in our economy.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/16/a-budget-for-the-uks-tax-avoiders/

This is interesting. I wonder what accountants will make of it.
I also wonder if Osborne intended it. If not, he obviously has no idea what he is doing.

When you say little mention of those worse off than the majority of us, do you mean on this website, Granddaughter?
You can't mean the government, as just about everybody is worse off than the majority of them. Anyway, they have no compassion.

Perhaps you ought to read a few more threads if you mean on this website. There are lots of us who mention those worse off than us.

Saw this on Twitter and it rather sums up the lack of concerns in the Treasury

"10's of 1,000's UK disabled are veterans suffering from warfare injuries. Yet our Government has hit them & other disabled people hard by cruel cuts."

Surprised there is little mention of those far worse off than the majority of us. I pray that our nation soon recaptures compassion and we see considerable reductions in the greed and the ' I am all right mentality.'

Even if it only saved a penny a pack it would be worth it for the principle. Why should women be taxed for being female?

Can't believe we go on year after year with no attempts to reduce inequality. And if I hear the phrase "Hard working families" once more I won't be responsible for my actions. Do hard working single people not count? We already know that people who can't be hard working because of disability, illness or sheer bad luck don't count.

The cost of a month or two's supply of sanitary protection might equate the price of one meat pie, Anniebach, but that's hardly a fair comparison.

wilmaknickersfit can't understand about small business rates as there is already a scheme for rate relief for small businesses. We get 100% relief. Perhaps they mean small but not that small businesses!

One cannot eat newspaper, but the cost of sanitary towels equals sandwiches or a meat pie . So much easier to dismiss it as extreme than accept it's true and it is something some women have to do

Ah got it - *Ana - thanks

or even misselling

Nothing about the women's State Pension Age. If that was a private company it would be seen as misspelling!

It probably is extreme for those in that position Ana. Are you saying you don't believe that some people are now being put in that position?

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072zd9c Charity workers in England are calling for help as it's revealed some women are using newspapers as sanitary towels because of the cost.

One positive thing I did hear was that more small businesses will no longer pay business rates. That should help them when the introduction of the National Living Wage is introduced.

x posts, Gracesgran but I think the newspaper example is extreme.

No, NanaandGrampa. In 2000, the VAT on tampons and sanitary towels was dropped from 17.5% to 5%.

So the saving on a pack of 20 tampons at around £2.00 (and there are a lot which are cheaper) would be 10p. Of course, every little helps, but I don't see that there's any need for women to use torn-up newspaper for sanitary protection.

www.thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/budget_for_rich

The people's assembly take on it. Obviously I agree with them, otherwise I wouldn't put a link on.
Anyone in London going to take part in the march on 16th April, for health, home, jobs and education?

Ana the people using torn up newspaper were not asking for the VAT to be abolished on them; they still couldn't afford them and were grateful that they could sometimes get them from food banks.

I remember hearing of the people walking for miles looking for jobs in the 1930s using begged for newspaper in place of nappies as they could afford them - do we really have to get back to those days?

Granddaughter, it is shocking but what is worse is that by making cuts without investment in capital projects we are getting poorer and our tax take continues to decrease. I think we can all bear cuts if it is for the best but these seem to be just ideological.

Osborne tried hard to disguise his failure to produce a fair budget. I am afraid the harsh cuts hitting the disabled to give to the better off really got to me.

I was more shocked when I heard the genteman associated with help the heroes mentioned on local radio that 1,000's of disable veterans are affected by those harsh cuts. It had not struck me how many who fought for us are being penalized for their loss of limbs. Are we really a decent caring nation when we take from the disabled to give to the better off? How can we justify every MP and the better off benefiting and the expense of the vulnerable in society?

Wouldn't it fall by 20% if VAT was abolished on sanitary products Ana ?

Have you any idea how much the cost of sanitary products would fall if the VAT on them was abolished, Gracesgran? It would be a miniscule amount.

In my last post, that should have been "hard -working families".

I certainly saw it as a budget that did nothing to stop the growth in inequality nor to add to investment. I imagine small businesses will be pleased and that seemed a good move. I wonder, when all those who understand these thing have unwound it who we will find is taking the biggest hit; so far, in this government and the last it has been the poorest (please tell me you don't think women having to use torn up newspapers in place of sanitary towels is OK roses) and the infirm and I don't hear anything different from the analysts so far.

I thought JCs reply was good. It must be the most difficult speech to give and he put an alternative view of how the economy could be seen. Nothing too way out but including people as well as money in the perspective.

Some people will automatically say they like it and some will automatically say they don't. We usually have to wait until the Sunday papers for the real analysis.

That was in reply to Charleygirl

Just be glad you'vew got a house. Not sleeping on cold pavements like the poor buggers I saw in London at the weekend. And I bet you could manage without a car.

My gut feeling is that the tax on soft drinks will make no noticeable difference to the quantity consumed, or obesity over all, but as tax-raising measures go, at least this is one about which people have a choice. I can't help wondering though - if it was really about obesity, why just on soft drinks, and not on other sweet things, or even sugar itself?

Raising tax-free personal allowances is good. I've always felt that incomes below what one can actually live on should not be taxed at all, and at least things are moving in that direction. On the downside, the lowest paid are probably the least likely to benefit from this, as any benefits that they receive to top up their low income to a true living level will presumably be reduced by a similar amount, leaving them no better off.

The rest? Well, admittedly I didn't hear it all, but of what I did hear, most of it was just words, spin, screens and mirrors.

By the way, does anyone know how many times Osborne managed to squeeze in the expression "working families" in his speech? I didn't count, but it was more than enough times for it to start sounding rather ridiculous and to have me muttering obscenities under my breath!