Budget

[StraferJack]

Numbers, I'm not near a keyboard so can't link at the mo but throughout the noughties waiting lists were down and patient satisfaction went up

That's what you would want isn't it ?

[StraferJack]

I dont really mind the Sean thing either. Hell, Louisa just flat out calls me john all the time on here

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Numbers, I'm not near a keyboard so can't link at

> the mo but throughout the noughties waiting lists

> were down and patient satisfaction went up

That's true, but was it value for the rather huge amount of money they threw at the problem?

[StraferJack]

Again, comparisons not readily available but value wise it wasn't that much, and well within costs other countries spend on their systems

[numbers]

ah ok thats good to know, am sure I always see sean instead of strafterjack anyway! :)

and no, nothing will convince me that I was wrong to elicit a very loud laugh when I heard that Labour were worried about reckless & irresponsible spending. nothing.

that vital services including e.g. libraries are being shafted at the moment doesn't please me one bit, many other things too. but my initial point was a comment upon the budget and people being able to spend their own savings how they please.

[ultraburner]

I was hoping (from a personal point of view) that stamp duty would be bought into line; 3% for a small two bed house don't seem right.

But I'm down the pub drinking 400 pints then off to the bingo later so it's not so bad.

[malumbu]

Sadly I am now posting at the juvenille end of the debate so my point will go amiss with various mud slinging and facetious nonsense.

For what was supposed to be the Greenest Ever Government it was poo. They seem to have forgotten the environment.

Thats after Dave kowtowing to the Germans (Angela) and so not being hard enough on carbon limits for new cars.

[El Pibe]

"For what was supposed to be the Greenest Ever Government it was poo."

Probably the most disingenuous election posturing in history (with the possible exception of no universoty fees), given that most of the cabinet, including the environment secretary, are somewhere on a spectrum of openly hostile to the idea that we should do anything about climate change to outright climate change deninal.

It was never goping to be good for green was it.

[JohnL]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> and in ED you'd need to drink around 400 pints to

> save enough for a pint.

Does anyone notice if beer goes up by 1p it becomes 10p in many pubs ?

[StraferJack]

beer seems to go up many many times a year in pubs - rarely do I see much notieable change around budget time specifically

but if the 1p helps pubs then it's not necessarily a bad thing

[????]

numbers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just heard on radio that Labour are worried about

> people being 'reckless and irresponsible' with

> money. Their own money at that. Ah well, makes a

> change from them doing it for us I s'pose.

>

> Thanks Mr Balls, if that wasn't so hapless it

> would almost be funny.

This sums up the stupidity of this nanny state response for, you know, letting people themselves decide what to do with the money they have saved up in their own pensions schemes (no state guranteed final salary)

http://www.cityam.com/article/1395365346/labour-would-be-mad-oppose-osborne-s-pensions-liberation

Why do middle-class socialists just think they know what's best for everyone else in the world????? Paternalistic, patronising tossers.....

If I can afford it I will be putting more into my pension from now on in the direct knowledge that I don't have to buy a poxy annuity paying me ?6k a year for ever ?100k in my pot!!

[PokerTime]

I don't think Labour really think that. I think the worry is more along the lines of pensioners costing the state more. We already have a situation where half of welfare spending is on the over 65s (whether they paid into a pension or not). In the future we will have a bigger problem with a higher percentage having never taken out a private pension or or been part of an organised scheme at all. The pension model just doesn't work anymore. And it's a dilemma all governments across Europe are facing. How do you support a growing and longer living aging population, when the workforce can't pay for it?

[Loz]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> a poxy annuity paying me ?6k a year for ever ?100k in my pot!!

I read (Guardian, I think) somewhere that the average pension pot in the UK is about ?30k. So your average annuity will pay out the princely sum of ?1800 PER YEAR.

[????]

Well, I've said before to really solve it........ let's pool all our pension pots public/private/state pension and make a huge fund topped up by the state to a single universal pension paid on actuaruied life expectancy. Some additional tax breaks should then be applied to savings and investments. That would be truly socialist and solve the problem and benefit a significant majority of the population

But........I expect teachers/doctors/Fireman/civil servants/er...politicians on one hand and the company directors/bankers on the other, would hit the roof...

so most of us will end up with a relative pittance...and a significant minority (and not the undwerclass here - mainly relatively poor to medium paid private sector workers) with almost nothing, including many who have got used to cars/holidays etc....try doing any of thet on the standard state pension as is

[Loz]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think Labour really think that.

Me neither, since Balls has said he considered it himself. But, the rules of politics say you must oppose something and it seems there wasn't a lot in the Budget they could complain about. All Labour had on the evening of the budget was to be 'terribly appalled' at Grant Schapps' tweet, which was a bit of storm in a teacup itself.

[????]

Agree, the noise is mainly poltics. Balls would honestly be saying "We were going to do that but chickened out you fookers"

[PokerTime]

I think that's right.

Interesting solution from you there ????'s but you are right in those with most to lose would never let it happen.

Public sector pensions are already being forced to change. The public sector workers of the future won't be getting anything like the pension gravy train they receive now. Enjoy it while you can.

I think the future will see people having to release equity in their property to get by, but then, that's why the housing market has been allowed to boom out of control.

[????]

Yup - but annuities have helped that boom (BTL/housing etc) being so crap, the reform amy encourage some different behaviour.

Re Public Sector opension change, I know, I am aware of changes etc and that the PS pension of the past is going the way of history...at least this is now allowed to be debated on here and in wider society...a few years ago it was screams of derision and abuse for even daring to mention the real difference between pensions between different groups of workers and the up and coming problems, I still touch this with sensitivity as I got fed up of being completley missrepresented by the rabid, many of whom clearly didn't understand at a basic level difference in various pensions, what an annuity was, etc etc. My mum has a PS pension my missus will get one, I am not an enemy of public sector workers, pensions or the state.

[PokerTime]

I don't think anyone is an enemy of public sector workers really. But I do think it's not true anyomre to cite the public sector as underpaid as a whole. Whilst some positions, epecially at entry level are still poorly paid, there are plenty of jobs within the public sector that are not. Senior nurses, train drivers, etc earn decent wages. And that is backed up by all the data. The public sector has caught up with the private sector.

But I still have conversations with public sectors workers on 40k salaries who think they are hard done by. The reason being that they have become used to year on year generous raises etc and now expect that to continue forever. They don't stop to think who is going to have to pay for all of this. I think also the partnership with private companies in some public sector realms has helped being some salaries in line though too.

Where animosity does exist I think stems from that gap between poorly paid private sector workers and better paid public sector workers. Everyone works hard, but some have state provided and paid for benefits whilst others don't. And that's becoming true within the public sector itself, not just in comparison to the private sector.

I don't know what the solutions are. There aren't enough jobs. Many of those that do exist aren't secure or stable and many more don't pay enough. If we don't do something to change those three things, there'll be no money to give any of us pensions, state or otherwise :(

[Otta]

Public/Private sector, whatever. Someone on ?40k should be okay, but with the way things are they are struggling, that's why they're not too happy.

[PokerTime]

Exactly and what is it that makes things a struggle? High cost of housing, energy etc. Given that most people aren't earning anything near that, it really falls on deaf ears when Osbourne says things like 'the economy is recovering' or 'we are creating more jobs than...'. There does seem to be a real disconnect between MPs and the reality for many ordinary people.

[????]

No It's politics, he has to say it he knows the truth a. But what can he do about it realistically (will be the same for Balls btw if Labour win)

tax the rich - I believe, this doesn't work in terms of revenue it's an academic moot point and debatable I know, there aren't enough of them to deal with our levels od debt anyway there afe just a few 100,000 earning above ?100k. There is some symbolic justice perhaps but the risks in terms of actual revenue and more importantly what it says about the UK and enterprise are potentially hugely damaging. BTW I am not one of them!

I do support a rise in minimum wage (regionally tiered), which will uincidentally further raise the gap betweebn the very bottom any everyone else but I think our businesses by and large can support this without losing too much competitive edge

So it's just further tax on 'average workers' the bulk of us or to susutain our evergrowing levels of committment something has to give and massively....it will either be standards/waiting times in public services or, in the end, i think it will have to be free health at source to be honest, an unpalatavble truth and got to by my personal economic deduction and logic and not ideology I stress

Labour will face this as much as the 'con- dems' we just haven't enough money todo what we want to do as a state

PS Go Green as in renewable - energy prices rise, significantly buggers our manufacturing industry further with it being a major cost component, puts all our bills up, pie in the sky wishful thinking

[PokerTime]

I'm an advocate of land tax over labour tax. That would be a far better way to tax the wealthiest anyway.

[Loz]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do support a rise in minimum wage (regionally tiered), which will uincidentally further raise

> the gap betweebn the very bottom any everyone else but I think our businesses by and large can

> support this without losing too much competitive edge

I've never understood why some people are against regional tiering for the minimum wage. It would (hopefully) push businesses out of the SE and up north where a) they are desperately needed and b) there is more (and cheaper) housing available.

[PokerTime]

The problem is that the minimum wage isn't generous by any measure. A min wage will just about get you by in the poorest areas economically. It already is set at the low end of the bar. It only equals an annual full time salary of 13k BEFORE tax. So regional tiering would actually see a need for stronger increase across the more expensive areas of the country.

To give some idea. Two adults with two children, both working full time and on min wage would bring home around ?325 a week after tax and NI. Their rent in the North would be around ?150 per week for a three bedroomed home. That leaves 175 to cover food, clothing, toilets etc for a family of four. Travel costs to and from work/ child care. Untilities bills and telephone. It's not a great wage. And for a single parent it's an impossible wage to get by on without top up benefits and/or child tax credits. A single parent would pay around ?110 for a two bed property - more than half the take home pay.

I actually don't think a lot of people with decent incomes really understand the squeeze that ordinary working people have to manage under. That's why policies like freezing utility prices are far more helpful in real terms. We have to find a way to close the gap between wages and living costs, otherwise the economy is never going to recover.