What do you hope for in the budget?

I wouldn't notice if free bus passes were withdrawn as there is no bus service unless I drive 3 miles, then pay for parking to catch a bus.

Surely if a parent stays home to look after children, they would be freeing up nursery places for others or at least reducing the burden on tax payers for the government contribution to child care costs. Also jobs for those who are unemployed yet able to work may well help reduce unemployment figures. There is an economic thought that by reducing the number of people able to be employed demand on recruitment can increase the wages of this who do work thus one parent may be able to support the family. Of course this theory is based on there
being two parents. Nursery places would be easier for single parents and would be earning the higher wage. All great in theory, an awful lot of parents would just not want to be at home with children.

Maisie, I am sick of hearing about the black hole. I wish they would use a more precise term, so we know what they are talking about. These metaphorical words for political concepts are insulting. Why not use 'deficit', or 'overspend', or '£12Billion that is unaccounted for'? Even 'missing' would be marginally more useful.

Well, DD. I've looked into this. Apparently it's the projected overspend in this financial year.

However, some £9billion is for the settlement of the doctors' pay award and there's a projected spend of £8billion 'from reserves' Reserves seem to be a contingency fund for unexpected expenditure. But as there doesn't seem to be a figure for how much this fund is actually allocated in the budget I find it hard to work out if the £8billion is an 'overspend' or just what has been taken from the unspecified 'reserve.

The £22billion looks a bit like a fudge to me...

I also think it's a good idea to offer breakfast to children, but I'd widen this to include schoolchildren of all ages.
I've worked in educational settings where all students (and staff) ate a free breakfast and lunch together. It was just cereal and toast for breakfast and then tuna or cheese sandwiches or jackets with salad, but attendance was good and students were more settled. Many were so grateful for this too. I've seen a lot of hungry children unable to concentrate, over the years.

Good idea about free breakfast for children. They’re only trialling it in a small number of schools.
Questions I’m looking forwards to hearing answers
1. Will it really be available to all primary children?
3. Will it cover the cost of staffing?
The implication in the text says it will, where it says
It will also mean parents have the choice of an earlier start to the working day, with Labour saying this will help *families to get on, not just get by.* implies that it will.

A huge saving for parents wanting preschool care.

I suspect it won’t mean that it covers the cost of preschool care from 7.30 am, but rather just half an hour before school starts i.e. for us 8.45am.
So free childcare in the breakfast club for half an hour from 8.15.
Still not a bad idea.

2. Breakfast food.
Will it take into account children’s preferences and parent views on their children’s dietary needs for breakfast?
What sort of food will be on the menu?
We are told that carbs cause a high, then an energy drop, so protein content?

It’s a step in the right direction, and I like the way they plan to fund it.

'We’ll fund clubs by clamping down on tax dodgers and save hardworking parents over £400 every year.

What about the parents we’ve heard about on GN, accused of not being hardworking?

mabon1

People I know are living on benefits, they can afford things I am unable to buy as I am a pensioner, a wrong.

I can sympathise with how you feel as a pensioner, but what a lot of people don't realise when they see people on benefits buying the odd treat such as coffee out or having their nails done, is that this is all they have. They usually don't have any security, or money to save for emergencies. It's a very different, insecure way of living.
Of course there are still quite a few people around who think that if you're on benefits you should have absolutely nothing.

David49

Dickens

I think the whole council tax system needs a radical overhaul.

... some interesting ideas there, Doodledog

It needs changing radically forget banding change to to a % of house value right up the scale, if it was 1% a £500k house would pay £5000 a year , a £5m house £50,000.

Allocate it however you want but fairly.

So a pensioner living in a one bedroom flat worth say £400,000 would pay 4 times as much as a pensioner living in a flat worth £100,000 elsewhere in the country? Despite them both having the same pension income? House value has no direct correlation to income and ability to pay. A local income tax would be far fairer, then every adult pays a fair share, just like general income tax.

Allira

maddyfour

growstuff
I love your bluntness. But you’re right, I will indeed be dead if, and when, any inheritance tax might be paid on my estate
However, since the money/estate will be mine, I will regard it as me paying any tax owing, dead or not. My children would not be paying anything if it were not for me having the money in the first place. Anyway, it’s just semantics, and I do not want to pay a single penny out of my estate to the government. I’ve paid tax all my life; I shall ensure there will be none to be paid when I’m dead!

I'm gonna spend, spend, spend!
In fact, I've already started 😂

Good for you!

Doodledog

growstuff

Doodledog Council Tax does get paid into a central fund and paid back to councils using a formula based on need. The formula is incredibly complicated. Historically, it's favoured poorer councils but the formula has changed, so wealthier councils are catching up. Not only that, but councils can raise their own income from (for example) parking charges (which is why some Central London councils have low Council Tax) and building new housing.

Oh, I didn't realise that. I thought they all charged different rates depending on what they need to do, which depends on how many disadvantaged people live in them.

I was advocating a fixed charge, though - not a variable one that depends on where you live, so that areas where there is (for example) less need for funded care, and more people paying CT for higher band houses can contribute towards those where the opposite is true.

That's how it's supposed to work in theory. I only know because I know the Finance Director for my local district council, who once tried to explain it to me. I live in a wealthy area and we get back much less from the government than we contribute (which is fair IMO). The system is one of the justifications for building hundreds of new houses because the council receives government grants for them. Councils are now allowed to invest in property. People with higher band houses do contribute to areas where there is less potential for raising money, although the Conservatives tweaked the formula, so this is less true. Council Tax is a weird tax because it's a clumsy form of wealth tax (with many anomalies).

maddyfour

growstuff
I love your bluntness. But you’re right, I will indeed be dead if, and when, any inheritance tax might be paid on my estate
However, since the money/estate will be mine, I will regard it as me paying any tax owing, dead or not. My children would not be paying anything if it were not for me having the money in the first place. Anyway, it’s just semantics, and I do not want to pay a single penny out of my estate to the government. I’ve paid tax all my life; I shall ensure there will be none to be paid when I’m dead!

I'm gonna spend, spend, spend!
In fact, I've already started 😂

Doodledog The aim of breakfast clubs isn't just to provide poor children with a breakfast. It's been shown that they improve behaviour because children are more settled when lessons start.

JANH

I would like to see our own people given social housing before immigrants.
We need a policy to stop so many small boats crossing over the Channel, more policing isn’t the answer - a deterrent like Rwanda was.
I wish people would learn to save and not waste money on nails/hair/make-up especially when they are asking for advice on how to manage money
If people cannot afford children, they are ways and means of stopping a pregnancy, the state should not have to pay for them. There should be no need for Breakfast clubs - how much does a piece of toast and a boiled egg cost per day - just an example.
Why did the Labour government pay most of the requested pay claims, taking us more into debt.

I'm not sure how the budget can deal with any of that.

How could nail varnish and make-up be rationed or sold only to those who are good at managing money?

What would you do with 'unaffordable' children if the state doesn't help them? Workhouses? Forced adoption? How can the budget help with those? I agree that there should be no need for breakfast clubs though - a rise in the minimum wage and better targeted childcare might help with that, and those things could come up in the budget.

Are you happy to have workers remain on low wages, even when they are highly qualified with responsible jobs and long hours? Won't that mean that fewer people will want to drive trains or work nights in hospitals dealing with death and disease? I'm happy that trains will run on time and that doctors should be less likely to leave the NHS.

Maisie, I am sick of hearing about the black hole. I wish they would use a more precise term, so we know what they are talking about. These metaphorical words for political concepts are insulting. Why not use 'deficit', or 'overspend', or '£12Billion that is unaccounted for'? Even 'missing' would be marginally more useful.

growstuff
I love your bluntness. But you’re right, I will indeed be dead if, and when, any inheritance tax might be paid on my estate
However, since the money/estate will be mine, I will regard it as me paying any tax owing, dead or not. My children would not be paying anything if it were not for me having the money in the first place. Anyway, it’s just semantics, and I do not want to pay a single penny out of my estate to the government. I’ve paid tax all my life; I shall ensure there will be none to be paid when I’m dead!

David49

Dickens

I think the whole council tax system needs a radical overhaul.

... some interesting ideas there, Doodledog

It needs changing radically forget banding change to to a % of house value right up the scale, if it was 1% a £500k house would pay £5000 a year , a £5m house £50,000.

Allocate it however you want but fairly.

I'm not sure that is fair though. You could have six people living in a £200k house earning £50k each and paying £333 each, and one person on a £15k pension in the £500k house down the road paying £5000 to have the same bins emptied etc.

Even with a 25% discount that's hardly fair.

growstuff

Doodledog Council Tax does get paid into a central fund and paid back to councils using a formula based on need. The formula is incredibly complicated. Historically, it's favoured poorer councils but the formula has changed, so wealthier councils are catching up. Not only that, but councils can raise their own income from (for example) parking charges (which is why some Central London councils have low Council Tax) and building new housing.

Oh, I didn't realise that. I thought they all charged different rates depending on what they need to do, which depends on how many disadvantaged people live in them.

I was advocating a fixed charge, though - not a variable one that depends on where you live, so that areas where there is (for example) less need for funded care, and more people paying CT for higher band houses can contribute towards those where the opposite is true.

Doodledog

I think the whole council tax system needs a radical overhaul. There are so many anomalies, from the different rates in different areas, the inaccuracies in the banding, the discount system (biglouis has a point), and more.

I'm not sure what would be fairer, though. The fact that CT pays for services shouldn't necessarily be linked to the hypothetical value of a house, as that has no bearing on how many of those services we use. Taxing on a 'per person' basis seems fairer, but that was the basis on which the poll tax was suggested and it was universally hated.

Obviously some get more out of the services than others, but that's the way a welfare state works - we all pay in, so when we need to we can all take out. At different times of our lives we will need different sorts of services, and that's as it should be. It makes sense that we all contribute whether we are using the services or not, so that when we do need them they are there. It doesn't matter whether or not we have children - we were all children ourselves once, and paying for children's services is just paying back what we took out then.

I'm thinking aloud here, but I wonder whether we should all pay a fixed charge that goes to a central fund that is then shared amongst councils on a per capita basis with loading for demographic differences. It does seem insane that it is poorer areas that pay the highest charges and get less back, because they have more people who don't pay, and more call on social welfare services. Westminster has the lowest charges - or if that has changed it is definitely among the lowest, which makes no sense when its population is wealthy. That would spread the load across the country and lessen inequality between areas. Or maybe not.

As I say, I don't know what's fair, but the current system isn't.

If anyone wishes to see what our Councils actually do with the money they have, I would suggest following

youtube.com/watch?v=IY0TfaJj3Dw

or

youtube.com/cccwatch

Where some very dedicated ordinary tax payers have been fighting for years to get truthful informed information from Colchester County Council, on where, how and why certain monies are distributed.

It is a very very, sorry tale but we would be all the better for watching and understanding it, when it comes to deciding how to cast out votes.

Wyllow3

For me the trouble is although I understand the different economic approaches broadly speaking, I don't know which is "right". Aren't there compromises which allow a little more borrowing?
I'm hoping the National Wealth Fund will work to kick start growth.

I think you have to go by what seems to you to be the most logical approach.

But a fundamental question to be asked is 'Where does a money initially come from?'

Also, to consider the truism that there are always two parts to a financial transaction, money paid out is received by someone (or some entity). Black holes don't really exist.

Council reviews would be good. I am lucky to live in a beautiful, quiet area 'far from the madding crowd' but, considering the huge amount I pay for this tax, I get very little. No street lights. No police presence, water streaming down the roads, wearing away the surface into huge potholes and vary rare road clearing, hedgerows growing until they meet across the roads. The milkman, paper man and other delivery drivers complain and suggest removing their services as the road surface is so bad. I don't use the schools or library services. The amounts paid in Council Tax and the Road Tax are a complete waste of my money. Perhaps this Govt could pass on some of their many, ill-deserved freebies, including their extra heating allowances, to more deserving cases. More snouts out of the trough!

Dickens

^I think the whole council tax system needs a radical overhaul.^

... some interesting ideas there, Doodledog

It needs changing radically forget banding change to to a % of house value right up the scale, if it was 1% a £500k house would pay £5000 a year , a £5m house £50,000.

Allocate it however you want but fairly.

I would like to see some compassion and honesty from the government.

A very interesting thread. Lots of different views but mainly indicating that there are still more things we have in common than those we don't.
I am still hoping this government can make some changes which start to restore a more equal society. One where hard work is rewarded but no-one goes hungry.
Unfortunately, for most of my lifetime we've scraped along ignoring all calls for investment in infrastructure or climate change, so that now there's nothing put by to get us out of any crisis.
However the profits made by some indicate that there was money around that could have been put to better use.
I'm gutted that Sir Kier has allowed himself to be caught up in a gift trap over clothes and spectacles, what an unnecessary own goal!
I really hope it's not too late to start fixing some of these problems which require long term programmes and all party support.

Doodledog Council Tax does get paid into a central fund and paid back to councils using a formula based on need. The formula is incredibly complicated. Historically, it's favoured poorer councils but the formula has changed, so wealthier councils are catching up. Not only that, but councils can raise their own income from (for example) parking charges (which is why some Central London councils have low Council Tax) and building new housing.

I think the whole council tax system needs a radical overhaul.

... some interesting ideas there, Doodledog

JANH

ILovecheese
Not sure I have ever read a post I have disagreed with more.
Particularly about what sounded like enforced

You have totally misinterpreted my comments, what I meant was that pregnancies do have to happen, nothing about abortion. In my area there are many mothers with 3/4/5 children by different fathers who pay nothing toward the child care and that those children are now having to be effectively brought up on on the state - this is unfair to other families who work hard to pay their own way.

In my area there are many mothers with 3/4/5 children by different fathers who pay nothing toward the child care...

I don't question that there are mothers who have children via different fathers - fathers who may or may not be present and lax in paying child maintenance - but I do question how you know so many, to the extent that you know the fathers are multiple and that they don't pay anything towards the upkeep of their children.

How can you know so much about so many people? And how many is many anyway?

I think the whole council tax system needs a radical overhaul. There are so many anomalies, from the different rates in different areas, the inaccuracies in the banding, the discount system (biglouis has a point), and more.

I'm not sure what would be fairer, though. The fact that CT pays for services shouldn't necessarily be linked to the hypothetical value of a house, as that has no bearing on how many of those services we use. Taxing on a 'per person' basis seems fairer, but that was the basis on which the poll tax was suggested and it was universally hated.

Obviously some get more out of the services than others, but that's the way a welfare state works - we all pay in, so when we need to we can all take out. At different times of our lives we will need different sorts of services, and that's as it should be. It makes sense that we all contribute whether we are using the services or not, so that when we do need them they are there. It doesn't matter whether or not we have children - we were all children ourselves once, and paying for children's services is just paying back what we took out then.

I'm thinking aloud here, but I wonder whether we should all pay a fixed charge that goes to a central fund that is then shared amongst councils on a per capita basis with loading for demographic differences. It does seem insane that it is poorer areas that pay the highest charges and get less back, because they have more people who don't pay, and more call on social welfare services. Westminster has the lowest charges - or if that has changed it is definitely among the lowest, which makes no sense when its population is wealthy. That would spread the load across the country and lessen inequality between areas. Or maybe not.

As I say, I don't know what's fair, but the current system isn't.