Budget? What budget?

"As a nation, we have been socialised to think of the economy in abstract terms. It is analysed as a distant entity that needs to be served, slavishly, to keep the big, scary beast from collapse. When we hear the Chancellor tell us that inequality has narrowed, that there are more people in work and that our public services are protected, we could almost believe him. That is, if we did not actually speak to any real people outside the Westminster bubble. We could suspend disbelief if we never spoke to any workers or reflected on what is happening in our communities.

Every time Members on the Government Benches cheer about the new jobs on the Government’s watch without any critical analysis of the nature of those jobs —short-term, insecure and low-wage—they lose credibility. On behalf of my community in North West Durham, I must convey extreme disappointment and anger at the Budget. Aside from the pantomime proceedings, it offered nothing to my community.

I shall give one example in illustration—the stamp duty giveaway. In the north-east, average house prices for first-time buyers are £125,591. That would mean a tiny giveaway of £11.82. Please forgive those people who have endured seven years of pay freezes—a typical prison officer, for example, who is now only £30 better off now than seven years ago—if they do not jump with joy at those announcements.

We need something completely different. We must be brave enough to say that borrowing is necessary for investment and that people must have a wage that they can live on—it is not fine to pay them a minimum wage that keeps them in starvation. I have met people who have been broken by this system and it is not their fault. The global banking crisis was not their fault. The recession was not their fault. The rules and traps of the system were not of their making.

To see the tears of grown working women and men flow directly as a result of Government policy tells me that we need a complete overhaul of our economic system. If the Government are not brave enough to do that, they must move over. If the economy does not work for everyone, it is not worthy."

From the debate on the budget yesterday.

This is an interesting article/video about whose fault it is that we are in the mess we are in, and what can be done about it.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/24/george-osborne-and-the-office-for-budget-responsibility-are-to-blame-for-the-economic-mess-were-in/

What a childish chancellor. Not thinking about how much the NHS needs, but would have given it more if Simon Stevens hadn't asked for it.

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/24/hammond-backtracked-on-funding-after-fury-at-nhs-bosss-demands

Has it been said before on this thread, that social housing wasn't mentioned once?

politics.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f5ab5efdb629954eb1b8df87b&id=46c00b3674&e=f5e4f66f33

Not forgetting that there are different national living wages or minimum wages for different age groups.
Under 25s are not deemed worthy of earning a living wage unless the person works for a living wage employer, when everyone over 18 is paid the same living wage.

You are right Maizie. It makes me more and more in favour of Basic Income.

The government don't exactly favour the private sector, either.
Someone in part time work is supposed to still search for more hours if on benefits.
Otherwise, if they do not show they have been looking hard enough, they can be sanctioned.

Just a reminder that the 'minimum wage' isn't, in fact, a 'living wage'

www.livingwage.org.uk/what-real-living-wage

Paying public sector workers (PSWs ) properly is something that is, firstly, either right or wrong in its own right. However, it is the only thing government really has control over. Although it could be argued that they shouldn't, since the cap was put in place they do.

There is a knock on effect of paying PSWs properly that means, if their wages are held down private sector workers wages are held down too. If they go up they effect the market place for other workers.

Minimum wage is something we have to keep an eye on. Obviously we all want people to be paid a living wage but it can have the effect, in industries where there are mainly low wage workers, of becoming a maximum wage.

Surely wanting to raise the minimum wage will help private sector workers.
Maybe single people on minimum wage won't receive benefits but those with a family will need them.

We should not be setting groups of people against each other. We need both sectors.

B*gger all in this so-called Budget, unless you plan to buy a house under 300 grand at least once a week and so - whoopee - no stamp duty!

That'll benefit the populace at large, won't it?

Is Phillip Hammond actually on the same planet as the rest of us?

no, not all on minimum wage receive benefits

OK but even taking that tax into account they still are needing benefits and they get almost nothing from that increase of their basic pay. This is where things need to be addressed. When you think about it by paying tax more benefits are needed.
As has been mentioned before - many jobs are seasonal and short term - every time a contract comes to the end the person needs to apply again for their benefits. Up till now these have been paid fairly quickly - with the new UC it would seem each time people need to wait 5-6 weeks with no money. It surely cannot be beyond the wit of Govt depts to agree that when people take these contracts they accept a document from the employer during the last month of employment detailing the fact that the work is ending. The claim could then start through the process with people only needing to wait a couple of months to be paid.
I am sure there are some holes in that but they should not be insurmountable.

This is It exactly * Anniebach*

All we hear is poor nurses, poor police officers, poor, poor teachers etc. No-one ever mentions ( or seems to care about) poor shop workers, labourers, machine operators etc.

I was always a proud Labour Party supporter ( a lapsed member ) but feel that they no longer represent me or anyone else in the private sector. Infact as the "owner" of our own SME we are probably the enemy of today's LP.

40 hours a week on minimum wage and tax is paid.

£300 per week tax £15.80. NIC £17.16 net pay £267.04

Most people with families earning the minimum wage also get some form of benefits. They are not earning enough to pay tax - when the basic earnings rate goes up the benefits they get reduce by almost the same amount - in effect the people who really need this extra money do not get anything.
On budget day I saw an item on one of the news programmes where they have a panel of ordinary people - varied ages and political beliefs - all of them agree that they would be willing to pay more tax if it went to public services such as NHS.

I agree Gilly, it's just trying to instil fear, if we don't pay the public sector workers more the country will fall apart. The worker in the private sector ? Who cares ,they pay tax, and if a farm labourer or a builders labourer uses food banks ? Not the same tear jerker as all those nurses queuing up at food banks. The unemployed , the nurse, the teacher are far more important than the private sector worker . Nurses and police use food banks ? I do not believe it.

£70 is better than a kick in the teeth!

Every little helps as they say. Over £1 a week

What I am trying to say Friday is that this Labour Party seem to focus everything on the "poor" people in the public sector . Forgetting that there are millions working hard in the private sector, struggling on low wages and paying their taxes to help fund the public sector. I personally don't think that firefighters, police officers, teachers etc are too badly paid ( okay so everyone would like more) and the LP seem to think that all business owners are fat cats creaming off the profits for themselves.

As if I worry about such things.
Next April I'll be £70 a year better off with the increase in personal allowance, definitely new car time.

People do have jobs

They appear to although, as statistically a person who works for one hour in a week is counted as 'employed', it would be interesting to see a detailed breakdown of so called 'employment'.

That aside, we perhaps need to look at whether 'full employment' should be our only goal and certainly whether one by which we measure the effectiveness of this Tory government.

People are earning less than they did in 2008. We were told 'austerity' would take decade to work out of the system; this has proved to be untrue. Meanwhile, little or no investment was made by the Tory government to support infrastructure or training and those with very little had more taken away and work became more insecure.

We have a whole generation of those who are in work or about to enter it, who look at the jobs market and see their future as bleak and depressing. They cannot see a time when they can have a normal life. Growth may not even be enough to battle inflation in the coming years. People are in jobs, yes, are statistically in employment, yes, but it does not give them a living. We have lived with the lie since 2010 that low unemployment is automatically good, jobs are automatically good. This is fundamentally, economically untrue for large swaths of our population.

With lots of people in jobs who can't earn enough money to have a decent life it is another reason to question about the Tory economic ethos.

Gillybob the wages of those in the private sector are not under the direct control of any government, so I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

Hammond is not a liar, and certainly not a liar ‘because he is a Tory’ how absurd.
The nurses pay is complicated, over half of the NHS staff received what amounted to almost a 4% increase in the last year.If you spread that out across all of the NHS it gives the figure that Hammond gave.

Actually, gillybob, the private sector lose out with the Tories as well.

Those two thirds of people living in inwork poverty are not all in the public sector.

Labour want a higher living wage.
Hammond will put it up by 33 pence an hour next April, for those over 25. That leaves it £1 an hour behind the real living wage, worked out by the Living Wage Foundation.

How much did the politicians accept for a pay rise this year? A lot more than the 1% capped pay they allowed any regulated pay.

Yes I am worried about my children but considering they both work in the private sector and not the public sector they are not even on the radar of this Labour Party !