What do you hope for in the budget?

That even those on benefits pay tax too.

If they receive more than the single persons tax allowance/married allowance then they should pay tax. I realise it is just money going round in circles but it is ridiculous that some on benefits get more money than bonafide workers and don't pay tax!

Peanuts. If we're lucky.

M0nica

National debt is real and when the bank prints more money, also known as 'quantative easing' it fuels inflation.

We have all heard stories of the german inflation of the 1920s,that led to Hitler winning control of the country and all that ensued. Although the trigger causes were complex, it was when the previous German government tried to print themselves out of trouble by producing more and more bank notes, that the flak really hit the fan. In the morning a loaf of bread would cost 100 marks, by evening it was 250 marks.

There is also a lot of nonsense talked about 'household' budgets. The days of Mr Micawber and Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 19 [pounds] 19 [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 20 pounds ought and six, result misery.

In fact nowadays household financial management is quite complex. Housebuyers have mortgages, others will borrow to fund education - student loans and similar. At the same time we are saving for pensions. Older people take out money on Equity release, money and debt racking up until they die.

These days it is not just the government that doesn't run on aa household type budget, neither do most households!

It is now thought that the German government deliberately crashed the economy in the 1920s. Don't forget that some people (those with mortgages, other debts, asset holders and farmers, for example) gained hugely from inflation. France had occupied the Ruhr and the German government encouraged passive resistance. Workers were essentially striking (and not producing anything) but the government continued to pay them. As Maizie pointed out, it was the shortages which caused the inflation. Meanwhile, the French insisted on payments linked to the gold standard and Germany pleaded poverty and the reparation payments were rescheduled, which was exactly what Germany wanted, so that it could use hard currency to start re-armament. The situation was nothing like the situation in the UK today.

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 see that Martin Lewis has said that the treasury has ruled out abolishing the council tax discount for single occupiers, that is one less thing for people to worry about.

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.

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

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

That they leave inheritance tax alone. We’re not eligible at the moment but I don’t want to be dragged into it.

mabon1

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

It’s very wrong mabon, but I doubt there’ll be any changes with this government. They’ve shown their cards already and they’re not good for pensioners.

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.

maddyfour

That they leave inheritance tax alone. We’re not eligible at the moment but I don’t want to be dragged into it.

You won't be. You'll be dead.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

A very informative post thank you MaizieD.

... agree.

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.

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.

... some interesting ideas there, Doodledog

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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
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!