The Budget - will it make any difference ?

Jackthelad

Instead of Whoa is me, what are the government going to do?
How about what am I going to do for myself. Get rid of the box tickers, reduce State control/interference to a minimum and the size of a welfare state we can't afford. We were at our best when we had entrepreneurship, enterprise and self reliance in a free market. Wake up and smell the coffee there are no free lunches.

... "Whoa" is me ???

Whatever 'you do for yourself' it could be said that asking also what the government is going to do is fairly important - considering they control the purse strings, decide how the country is run, dictate policy on things like the Police, Armed Forces, energy supply, propose and implement new laws, constitutional edicts - you know, inconsequential things like these...

We also saw what happened with 'light touch' regulation when we allowed 'the market' to decide the unregulated use of derivatives. When houses were bought as investments and the bubble burst.

And strangely, foreign state-owned business giants have been buying up UK businesses. They must know something we don't about state-ownership...

And there are most certainly free lunches - dinners too - if you rub shoulders with the right individuals.

DaisyAnne

I certainly think Rachel Reeves understands and knows her brief and was glad to find I wasn't the only one who felt our Chancellor was in Sunak Land and using Newspeak a great deal of the time.

It seems to me, and I am no economist, that he has eased a little of what he was going to take from the JAMs but not helped the really poor or the never going to be able to manage in any way with the at least 8% inflation. Some will certainly become destitute.

The OBR has published a chart that shows that real household disposable income (a measure of how much you feel better or worse off) is expected to fall this year at the fastest rate since comparable records began in the 1950s. How that affects people who already have little or no disposable income I cannot imagine.

We already run 3 to 4 days a week with no power, and eat every other day only. I don't honestly think we will survive this year once 1st April price rises land

cc

Still huge Covid costs to pay for so he can't give much. Fuel tax is not expensive for him as rising fuel costs mean that he can get the same revenue from a lower rate of tax.

All countries of our wealth have had to deal with Covid and the continental countries have also shared the cost of the war in Ukraine. Their problems do not compare with ours.

The only difference is Brexit.

Dinahmo

MaggsMcG

NI needed to be raised and also for anyone still working to pay into it. We haven't been paying enough for Health and Social Care for many many years if you take into account all the medical breakthroughs and the cost of all that new medication. Also its why there is so little Mental Health help around. All the stuff we dont pay for at the front of the line has to be paid for somehow. May 2024 is the expected date for the next election.

You may be right but what about all those whose income is derived from either investments or rents? Neither group will be paying NIC on those sources of income.

I've said elsewhere that people who play the stock market have tax free (and NIC free) allowances of £24870 (PA and CGT) . Gains above the threshold of £12,300 are taxed at 10% - less than the basic rate of income tax.

Is this fair?

Quite right Dinahmo. We need to ensure all "income" is taxed in the same way.

Professor Christopher Painter
@PrfChrisPainter
·
10h
Budget Statements are often received well on the day, only for the small print to cause concern in the days that follow. Sunak's Spring Statement caused concern on the day and with closer inspection looks more and more disastrous, not least for those who desperately need help.

MaggsMcG

NI needed to be raised and also for anyone still working to pay into it. We haven't been paying enough for Health and Social Care for many many years if you take into account all the medical breakthroughs and the cost of all that new medication. Also its why there is so little Mental Health help around. All the stuff we dont pay for at the front of the line has to be paid for somehow. May 2024 is the expected date for the next election.

Why only those who are working? There are pensioners (and others) who have a higher income than those who are working. There are also some pensioners who still work because they HAVE to - because they don't have enough income from other sources.

Jackthelad

Instead of Whoa is me, what are the government going to do?
How about what am I going to do for myself. Get rid of the box tickers, reduce State control/interference to a minimum and the size of a welfare state we can't afford. We were at our best when we had entrepreneurship, enterprise and self reliance in a free market. Wake up and smell the coffee there are no free lunches.

A mark of any civilised society is how they look after their sick, disabled and elderly. The welfare state isn’t a ‘free lunch’ it’s supposed to be a safety net for hard times and we pay for it with taxes and NI while we’re able to, so we can use it if we need to. Whether or not we can afford it, depends on how you look at it. It’s not the benefits that are unaffordable, it’s the incompetent administration processes. As just one example, at the moment a great deal of money is spent on repeated medical assessments for disability benefits. They’re poorly designed, the assessors in most cases are not properly qualified to carry them out and the mistakes are frequent, meaning people are left without support and resulting in expensive appeal processes of which well over 50% are successful. What’s the point of constantly reassessing a disability that will never change ?

Disabled people have fought for independence for over 50 years. What you’re suggesting would wipe all of that out and put them back in the institutions they fought so hard to get away from.

Very sorry to hear that MibsXX, I hope spring and summer will bring better times for you.

The "I'm alright Jack" brigade have been 'running' this country for 12 years now, and aside from their economic incompetence, they are about as corrupt a bunch of thieves as the UK could elect.

If they really believe in the "individualism" and "free market thinking" that is exactly what Putin and the Russian Mafia and its oligarchs are doing. I suggest the "I'm alright Jack brigade" leave for Russia at the earliest opportunity.

At least Johnson and many of his ilk have encouraged Russian money and its laundering in the UK, whilst wasting what resources we have, and undermining the British people at every turn. In other lives they might have been denounced as being treacherous - but in the free market world, actions such as those of P&O, and illegal attempts to prorogue parliament, and sponging off the rest of us with our tax money to buy faulty PPE from their dodgy mates seems to be acceptable.

The vast majority of commenters on here are clearly very caring and well adjusted souls, who actually believe in community, society and providing help to others when the chips are down.

This is not the Britain I was born into, and some of the actions of our representatives are shameful, where are the Clement Attlee leaders with integrity, or even the 1950s Tories who at least provide a semblance of support.

Sunak's smarmy approach is typical of the caricatures of used car salesmen or PR gurus. He clearly has nothing to offer the UK, to provide some stability, just lurching on from crisis to crisis, and jam tomorrow. He needs to take a look at what the French and Germans are doing, or maybe just get some education.

Interestingly, many of the front bench and other Tories who are in favour of the free market, small state etc are fans of Ayn Rand.

Despite her belief in free market capitalism, believing that those using social services are parasites and rejecting state control, in her later years when financially straitened following surgery for lung cancer she claimed social service benefits and Medicare.

As she had paid into Social Security she was entitled to claim it. I wonder what she would have done has she not paid into the system in America.

Another of her beliefs, followed by her acolytes, was that those who amass large amounts of private wealth are heroic supermen.

Pammie1

Jackthelad

Instead of Whoa is me, what are the government going to do?
How about what am I going to do for myself. Get rid of the box tickers, reduce State control/interference to a minimum and the size of a welfare state we can't afford. We were at our best when we had entrepreneurship, enterprise and self reliance in a free market. Wake up and smell the coffee there are no free lunches.

A mark of any civilised society is how they look after their sick, disabled and elderly. The welfare state isn’t a ‘free lunch’ it’s supposed to be a safety net for hard times and we pay for it with taxes and NI while we’re able to, so we can use it if we need to. Whether or not we can afford it, depends on how you look at it. It’s not the benefits that are unaffordable, it’s the incompetent administration processes. As just one example, at the moment a great deal of money is spent on repeated medical assessments for disability benefits. They’re poorly designed, the assessors in most cases are not properly qualified to carry them out and the mistakes are frequent, meaning people are left without support and resulting in expensive appeal processes of which well over 50% are successful. What’s the point of constantly reassessing a disability that will never change ?

Disabled people have fought for independence for over 50 years. What you’re suggesting would wipe all of that out and put them back in the institutions they fought so hard to get away from.

Well said Pammie1

The much touted 'welfare dependency' implying that recipients are either lazy and are being given benefits when they could easily get a job, or are otherwise exploiting the system is a deliberately engineered device to set one section of the population against the other. And it's so effective that many actually believe that if 'benefit scroungers' were forced into work, there would be enough funding for (example) veterans on the street or the "genuinely" disabled.

Governments choose their spending policies. This, and previous Tory governments have chosen to cut spending on the disabled, and on mental health services, etc. They have done this according to their ideology, not on what is left over in the kitty. The principle is, as one consultant told me, "to do more, with less" simply to cut expenditure.

And these assessments are all part of the same ideology. Whilst it's true that some disabilities may improve with time, most will not. And some will get worse - by the very nature of the condition.

Who knows best regarding your health? Your GP, or consultant, who has your complete history at his fingertips (and maybe sees you personally on a regular basis), or an assessor with a pre-written one-size-fits-all questionnaire in front of him? Maybe the assessor is a qualified medical professional, but how much does he / she know about your condition - one for which you've had to see various consultants who specialise in the discipline that covers your disability?

I believe the 'assessment' is a trap - one designed to remove all but the obviously seriously disabled from the books, and lo! see what the disabled can do if given the "opportunity" to be declared fit for work by a cleverly designed check-list!

The mistakes you mention are now legend - even the RW tabloids balk at some of the mistakes. And the cost of this convoluted rigmarole outweighs its benefits.

Dinahmo

Interestingly, many of the front bench and other Tories who are in favour of the free market, small state etc are fans of Ayn Rand.

Despite her belief in free market capitalism, believing that those using social services are parasites and rejecting state control, in her later years when financially straitened following surgery for lung cancer she claimed social service benefits and Medicare.

As she had paid into Social Security she was entitled to claim it. I wonder what she would have done has she not paid into the system in America.

Another of her beliefs, followed by her acolytes, was that those who amass large amounts of private wealth are heroic supermen.

Ayn Rand.

Early in her career, she modelled two of her hero protagonists in two works (one unfinished) on a notorious serial killer - William Edward Hickman - who killed and dismembered a 12 year old girl.

She, Rand, admired the very qualities in him that made him who he was - and that is that he could not "feel or realise other people". His total inability to empathise with others is what drew her to him. She did not believe in democracy - called it 'collectivism' and wanted all 'social' programmes to be killed off.

She still has her admirers. Particularly among the Right both here and in the US.

She did not willingly pay the tax - believing it an evil necessity, because she would have been arrested had she refused to pay it. For the sake of factuality, I'm not sure she actually did rely on the money - she had towards the end of her life a small amount of savings, and this social payment was added to it.

MibsXX Thu 24-Mar-22 16:48:00

I'm imagining you have had benefits advice and know inside out what you can get. I really wish I could suggest something helpful.

We must make this cruel government understand what they are doing.

Well I learn something every time I come on Gransnet. Thank you for the heads up on Ayn Rand Dynahmo and Dickens.

This government is certainly ideologically driven that’s for sure. If Sunak hadn’t delivered such an uncaring budget, he wouldn’t last as chancellor in this set up. I wonder why people still believe that the economy is run like a household budget, balancing the books? Economic decisions are always based on ideological choices.

A timely lesson (Ayn Rand) that those sitting comfortably and not particularly financially affected or concerned may be only one accident or illness away from being a benefit claimant. She sounds a hateful woman.

Dickens - you are absolutely on the money with this sentence:

The much touted 'welfare dependency' implying that recipients are either lazy and are being given benefits when they could easily get a job, or are otherwise exploiting the system is a deliberately engineered device to set one section of the population against the other. And it's so effective that many actually believe that if 'benefit scroungers' were forced into work, there would be enough funding for (example) veterans on the street or the "genuinely" disabled.

That is the Victorian and Edwardian definition of the "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor".

The play "An Inspector Calls" - written by J.B. Priestley in 1945 and performed first in the 1940s, clarified exactly what the "free marketeers" in their ignorance know nothing about - economics.

The latest example of the play's main character Arthur Burling was stunningly portrayed at the Select Committee hearing on Thursday by P&O's Peter Hebblethwaite. He exemplified the worst business management traits I've ever seen in a CEO.

But, here we are in 2022, following exactly the same path as in 1912, when Priestley's play was set.

Why only those who are working? There are pensioners (and others) who have a higher income than those who are working. There are also some pensioners who still work because they HAVE to - because they don't have enough income from other sources.

Why pick on pensioners? There are many people who have chosen not to work (eg to stay at home with able-bodied school-aged children) yet claim pensions towards which they haven't contributed. Many of these people are at the front of the queue when it comes to looking down on working age 'benefit claimants', but IMO their situation is no different.

Either we pay a state pension or we don't. To tell people who have paid in that theirs should be reduced to pay for those who haven't is never going to be a vote winner, or a moral choice.

Yes, some older people are reasonably well off. Some of them will have inherited, or won the lottery, or robbed a bank, or invested in hedge funds. Others will have saved and/or paid into pensions from their modest earnings. Others will have been 'supported' by spouses. There will be numerous others who fit into none of those categories, and others who span many - people aren't easily categorised.

Some older people have been exploited all their working lives and never earned enough to pay into an occupational pension. Of those, some will have paid NI in their own right and others will claim that a partner's contributions cover theirs (ie the couple have paid 50% each).

Are you going to differentiate between these groups of people (and others) and decide who should have a pension and who shouldn't? Rather you than me.

Minimum wages and in-work benefits need to be shaken up - no doubt about it. But demonising pensioners is not the way to do it, IMO.

(and I am not a pensioner, FWIW - I have 4 years to go before getting mine, and when I do, I will not be made to feel guilty about claiming it)

As regards the budget, it is shameful that there will be (and are already) people who are unable to feed their children and heat their homes. Shameful.

We keep hearing about rising numbers of mental health issues as a result of the pandemic. How far are they going to rise when more and more people are unable to sleep because of worrying about bills that will make huge profits for other people?

Railman I think that a film of "An Inspector Calls" should be shown as part of economics lessons. There is an excellent version with Ken Stott which is shown on TV occasionally.

Priestley's message is still relevant today, sadly.

You're right about Hebblethwaite too. Absolutely shocking performance. It will be interesting to see if he accepts one or other (or both) of his next bonuses.

Doodledog

As regards the budget, it is shameful that there will be (and are already) people who are unable to feed their children and heat their homes. Shameful.

We keep hearing about rising numbers of mental health issues as a result of the pandemic. How far are they going to rise when more and more people are unable to sleep because of worrying about bills that will make huge profits for other people?

As long as the Right encourage the narrative...

"shouldn't have had children if they couldn't afford tthem"

"too many people claiming benefits as a life-style choice"

"I know lots of people on benefits with gazillion-inch TVs and new cars parked outside"

"people use food banks because it's free food, that's all"

... we will have this government in power. It's simply divide and rule, and it works. Every time.

There are people who 'game the system'. There are also ways of dealing with them. But it costs money to run a welfare system efficiently. Much easier to encourage the notion that people on benefits are largely "scroungers" and make them go through an obstacle course to claim them.

This is Sunak’s father-in-law with Putin

Sunak’s wife has half a billion invested in Russian companies.

Dickens

Doodledog

As regards the budget, it is shameful that there will be (and are already) people who are unable to feed their children and heat their homes. Shameful.

We keep hearing about rising numbers of mental health issues as a result of the pandemic. How far are they going to rise when more and more people are unable to sleep because of worrying about bills that will make huge profits for other people?

As long as the Right encourage the narrative...

"shouldn't have had children if they couldn't afford tthem"

"too many people claiming benefits as a life-style choice"

"I know lots of people on benefits with gazillion-inch TVs and new cars parked outside"

"people use food banks because it's free food, that's all"

... we will have this government in power. It's simply divide and rule, and it works. Every time.

There are people who 'game the system'. There are also ways of dealing with them. But it costs money to run a welfare system efficiently. Much easier to encourage the notion that people on benefits are largely "scroungers" and make them go through an obstacle course to claim them.

There is far more money gamed by those fiddling the tax system.

A case for sanctioning, Whitewave??

Doodledog I'm not picking on pensioners. That's why I wrote and others and mentioned pensioners who are still working because they have to.

My point is that the increased National Insurance is a tax by any other name, so why is it only being increased for those who work? If taxes do indeed need to be raised, they should be based on total income from all sources, not just on a person's work status.

PS. I am a pensioner and I still work.

Whitewavemark2

There is far more money gamed by those fiddling the tax system.

Absolutely - huge amounts. But for some reason, people only seem to be concerned about benefit 'scroungers'.

Either they don't believe it's true, or they are in awe of the very wealthy elite... or maybe they see themselves as Steinbeck's "temporarily embarrassed millionaires", and are just waiting for their luck to put them in the same category?