eff01
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
(Original post by Morgsie)
Well said and I complete agree with you.

We will cut XYZ without thinking of the consequences, I have mentioned Rail Franchises as an example.

Add LGBT and Disability to the bit in bold

It is good to know that some in the Opposition are campaigning against this Reckless Budget but where does your Leader stand on it all?
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable member for pointing this out and I have amended my statement accordingly. Indeed my Leader will respond to this reckless budget in due course.
0
reply
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
(Original post by toronto353)
Happy with the alteration above?
*Posh voice* I suppose it will do... haw haw, pip pip, tally ho *posh voice*
0
reply
Mechie
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
(Original post by Morgsie)
It is good to know that some in the Opposition are campaigning against this Reckless Budget but where does your Leader stand on it all?
You could've just quoted me in and asked me?

First off, I'd like to say well done to the government for providing such a lengthy budget. What I'd like to ask first, though, is does this actually change anything? Do these measures actually take place (on TSR of course) without bills being passed? Also, what makes this an "emergency budget" (as stated in the title) as opposed to simply a "budget"?

The start of your report pee-d me off, with the classic Tory "it's the previous government" stance, when nothing has improved economically under the current RL Conservative government, and I think we can now move on and attribute the economic recessions down to a more globalised phenomenon.

When it comes to the closing of departments, I agree pretty much with what eff01 has said here:

eff01I condemn the Chancellor’s unnecessary closing down of government departments. With the Olympic games only a few days away and the first Olympic matches taking place today only a Conservative chancellor could make the decision to close the department that was pivotal (RL) in bringing the games to the United Kingdom. The chancellor says that art can be better managed by the Arts Council, but I ask the chancellor what extra funding will he provide to the Arts Council to deal with the burden of a departmental closure. The chancellor states that media policy can be better dealt with by the DfBWPs, but Mr Speaker, we later discover that the chancellor is slashing the budget of the combined department. This closure symbolises a tory led coalition that has no interest in the culture of the United Kingdom and is not interested in the sporting achievements of our heroic RL athletes in this RL Olympic year! Members of this house I am baffled to why this outrageous step has been taken, that will only save £3billion?

The department closures continue, with the government closing down the department for equalities, this isn’t surprising after all the RL cabinet comprises of only four elected female MPs and no elected MPs from ethnic minorities. I condemn this closure.

On the absorbing of the DfID into the FCO, I would like to ask the Chancellor what will be the new budget for the FCO? Isn’t it right to state that this government by closing the DfID has sent a signal to the international community, that TSRUK is not interested in the struggles and hardships of people living in developing countries, who struggle day and night to earn an honest wage which in many cases is less than $1 a day.

The chancellor has simply gone down the list of government departments and cut without thinking of the consequences or effects. I condemn the closure of the DECC, DfT and DEFRA. The chancellor wants to devolve these responsibilities to local government, but Mr Speaker, the chancellor is cutting the DCLG budget. How does the chancellor envisage local authorities to maintain their roads when he is cutting their budgets!?

I categorically condemn the closure of the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland office. A party that did not in RL opposition support devolution is now, in power launching an attack on devolution. How can the public take seriously the comments of this government on the United Kingdom to stay united when they are cutting their representation in government!


Introducing a "Minister for English Affairs" is unnecessary, seeing as the UK parliament is already completely dominated by English MPs and opinions.

I'm not sure you can actually legislate against a government proposing an unbalanced budget (which is rather ironic seeing as this budget isn't balanced, but hey, at least that answers my question as to why you've called it an "emergency budget"!) because if a future government wants to introduce an unbalanced budget then quite frankly they will. What if a budget actually offers a surplus to the government?

While I agree that abolishing VAT is a good thing, this really does question our membership of the EU, and quite frankly we should be kicked out of the MUN EU because of this. I suppose this is the government's round-a-bout way of managing to leave the EU without causing a fuss though, because you can now just say "we didn't leave, we were kicked out!". I know you're going to cite the Canon Amendment, and I'm aware of it and it's function, but in doing things we should really still have a think about how stuff is going to affect the UK on the world stage (and indeed other countries).

Sorry about my "tl;dr" post last night, I didn't have time to read it last night and it was a pretty bad way of putting it, and in hindsight I should've just left it until today and said nothing.
0
reply
eff01
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
(Original post by toronto353)
First of all, that was a great post. I may disagree with you on most of it (I agree with you when you agree with the Government ), but it is a great post. Now onto business, the merger is something that may be difficult for some to stomach, but I personally believe that it is a positive step forward in consolidating our foreign affairs. I aim to cut as little as possible from both departments combined, but there will be cuts. I can assure the Honourable member that I will ensure that the poorest are not affected by this cut and merger. This is a positive step forward for foreign affairs I believe and I relish the challenge of combining all our foreign policy into one department, but I believe that we can make this work.
Thanks!

Mr Speaker, the honourable gentlemen by stating that cuts will be made has signalled as I have previously stated that this TSR government is not committed to developing countries and this is unacceptable. I ask the honourable gentlemen and the chancellor:
1) what will be the budget of the FCO post merger &
2) How many jobs will be lost as a result of this merger.

The chancellor, Mr Speaker, has acted like a child who has just been given a fresh pair of scissors. Cutting recklessly without thinking through the consequences of his actions.

Mr Speaker, the chancellor and the Foreign Secretary may not be committed to international development, but I and this TSR Labour Party most certainly is.
1
reply
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by eff01)
Thanks!

Mr Speaker, the honourable gentlemen by stating that cuts will be made has signalled as I have previously stated that this TSR government is not committed to developing countries and this is unacceptable. I ask the honourable gentlemen and the chancellor:
1) what will be the budget of the FCO post merger &
2) How many jobs will be lost as a result of this merger.

The chancellor, Mr Speaker, has acted like a child who has just been given a fresh pair of scissors. Cutting recklessly without thinking through the consequences of his actions.

Mr Speaker, the chancellor and the Foreign Secretary may not be committed to international development, but I and this TSR Labour Party most certainly is.
The Lib Dem's are aswell
0
reply
RoryS
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
Wow! Lengthly! I definately commend the Rt. Honourable member (s) of the House for writing such an extensive budget report. However, I totally agree with practically everything that my Rt. Honourable friend eff01 has posted in the last couple of pages.
0
reply
Ysolt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
I agree with Morgsie that this is indeed an omnishambles when it comes to departments. It reminds me of the "bonfire of the quangos", which actually ended up in increasing government inefficiency because rather than cutting out waste, vital functions ended up being covered very poorly and with far less resources.
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Yeah, it's a revenue neutral Bill. The VAT decrease is covered by the estimated costs of all the savings of making drugs legal. This includes the savings from not enforcing drug policies and from not locking people up. To now count a budget reduction is counting these savings again.
Like I said, I wasn't aware of this as the figures were provided by someone else, I did obviously check the bill. There was nothing in the bill's text which suggested it was revenue neutral. I'm guessing it was discussed further down in other posts? I didn't think to really read them because as far as I could see with a very quick check, everything I had been provided with from my colleague was in order.

A little estimation? It's fairly easy to google and get someone else's estimate (wild guess) for how tax affects GDP.
No point, when I spoke about GDP much of it was in cases where it is standard practise to use 2011 GDP figures (such as calculating the deficit as a % of GDP). A lot of the major changes came into force in 2012 so had no effect on 2011 GDP, and the 2011 changes came so late in the year (literally the final week or two) that it would not have altered figures severely enough. Using actual 2011 figures provided a conservative estimate at least and I think most people would have appreciated that much more than guesses.

Ending an unfair tax is not subsidising! Furthermore, I'd consider it a priority over and above Corporation Tax. We're talking about two of the most damaging taxes for the poor with no justification whatsoever.

http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/defau...on%20ASI_0.pdf (page 14 table shows how far out of kilter these taxes are, and how stupid most of the studies done on this are, and page 31!).
Well to be honest, it kind of is. It's a subsidisation in everything but name. I cut that tax and I'll need to make up for the revenue somewhere else, let's say for arguments sake with a VAT hike. Then I'm asking ordinary consumers to effectively subsidise other's alcohol and tobacco habits. No such thing as a free lunch and all that. The money would have to come from somewhere, I deem that to be a subsidisation. Both the usage of alcohol and tobacco are lifestyle choices and are not particular good lifestyle options, and whilst I absolutely detest using government to influence moral behavior, and I'm sure you'll 100% agree with that, in difficult times we can only do so much and right now they are my last priority to cut.

But you've increase the rate. This means anyone earning over £100K is going to make their decisions in a different way (since, of course we make decisions at the margin). It's just a bit of an odd one.

Why do we feel the need to restore profit margins that are only gained at extracting land rents?
Well sure, but anyone earning that much is going to understand how to calculate tax and I advise you to check the following if you have not already:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0D...jJ4bFpQckpwVkE

The 25p rate has been increased, but obviously the 5p and 15p rates have been done away with completely. To someone earning £100k plus, those rates currently cost them £12500 a year. Without these rates, this makes those earning more than a £100k at least £12500. The 29p rate of course eats into this saving. But the file I directed you to represents a calculation which produces the point as which the amount of tax paid currently is equal to the amount of tax paid under our proposal, ie: the amount at which the £12500 is eaten into completely. This sits at £412500. Anyone earning less than that will pay less tax than they do now, anyone earning more will pay a bit more. And you can calculate how much this difference is by using the LHS and RHS equations (SEPARATELY) and compare the figures. So really, it's anyone earning over £412500 that will make their decisions in a different way, if they have any sense to realise that they make that massive saving with the abolition of the lower rates.

JPKC covers this below.
Ok damn, my bad. I was basing my knowledge of the bill on memory, I haven't had a proper readthrough it since then. I'm certain I'd have noticed that when I did read it and support it, but just plain forgot about the main policy itself now. Well that's certainly a gaffe from me.

No the miscalculation is all accounted for and corrected in the Welfare Bill. I don't think that in a position where we're £78bn behind each year, the best idea is to expand this by £7bn. It's madness.
I'm perfectly aware of that. I should apologise that I made myself unclear. What I'm referring to is the fact that much of the surplus in that act came from the recognition of the mistake. Basically what I was saying is, that whilst you probably would've tried to produce a surplus from it anyway, would you really have produced one so large if you had not made the mistake in the first place? Was the fact it was so sizeable not effectively down to accident? It's not a problem, but the idea that these surpluses are going to be left untouched (when we have left wing parties especially who usually demand Government investment); that is madness.

So we haven't reduced income tax at all then?

Want to do a budget? Whack GRT up to 85%, abolish VAT, abolish income tax and update the RI figures. I haven't even looked at the numbers but it should just about balance.
Well of course we have. At the central level it's gone for most people. Sure, they'll probably have to pay some at the local level. But we've not devolved everything down, so in the theory the rates which will be levied will be much lower than the ones before anyway and it still represents a saving, simply because councils have fewer spending commitments. Who knows, maybe they'll go for a similar policy to ours of levying a flat tax on the rich only.

But then with your proposal people are paying more tax anyway so it has the same problem as our proposal. That's a damn sizeable rate of GRT.
And it's not just the people who will suffer with a high rate, businesses will especially as they will hold more land. Think about agriculture businesses, it would absolutely decimate them. And even manufacturing, takes a lot more land to house a factory than a call centre. A small rise in GRT is fine, but when you're going that high you're gonna create real problems for these already suffering sectors.

I've just had a quick look at the numbers, rising GRT to that value would take an extra 170+ billion out of the economy. I was hesitant about even letting GRT get to 61% let alone 85%... That is gonna cost people, and the economy, a hell of a lot more than a small local council levy ever would.
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
(Original post by JPKC)
You are excused. :pierre:



Well actually the bill in question would have divided banks between their investment and retail arms - only one side would have been directly affected by the £50bn tax (relatively small compared to the amount of money made in the City every year). And it wasn't a tax out of spite, it was an attempt at getting financial institutions to put more thought into making investments (at the moment the whole stockmarket is governed almost entirely by reckless intuition), while also making it so that the financial sector paid the same level of tax as other industrial sectors in the UK. The argument that the tax would've destroyed the sector has no basis in truth or evidence, either. You need only look at Stamp Duty to see an FTT at work in British finance.
It's still an attack on a (perhaps unfortunately) important industry for this country. £50bn is a lot of money, it's more than corporation tax and stamp duty combined produce. To then go and levy that on one industry is going to hurt it a lot. I don't like bankers but to go and launch massive attacks on them is futile and will hurt us all a lot more than if you just let them be.


Hmmm. People avoid tax if the system is too complicated, they evade it if they can not pay it at all. The proposals here may be better for reducing tax avoidance (though not by much - 29% top rate compared to 17% for businesses), though it would do little to prevent tax evasion as 29% is still higher than 0%.
Of course, but we've taken steps towards making it a lot more reasonable. That's never going to get rid of tax avoidance entirely but will help at least.

Now to me that sounds like a nightmare. How is a government to formulate a sound tax policy if its competing with itself to lower taxes? The answer for you is, no-doubt, that a sound tax policy equal no tax policy. I don't want that political bias built into the government.
A nightmare? Oh, you mean dream? Councils will be competing on how much they tax, but also on how much they spend. People like spending. What you'll get is an equilbirium established where people are paying a tax they deem fair whilst still maintaining support for the social services that they want provided to them locally.


We've been the only Party so far this term to propose a business tax cut, and that was voted against by all of you. With regards to larger businesses, we'd prefer that they paid any tax before we began to raise the rates! (It's notable that we'd love a 0% rate for co-operatives!)
I'm afraid you can't couple in a business tax cut with measures that will hurt them more than the tax cut will help, and expect us to support it.


So the "stupid" people that don't vote deserve ****e public services? Great.
If they don't have the sense to go vote for something which affects them, then I have no sympathy for them.

Well it's not fair that the cost of the pollution incurred by operating a fossil fuel engine isn't covered by the motorist, which I believe it should be. Who else pays? The victims? David you voted for the Carbon Tax if I remember correctly, and I can't drive as I'm paraplegic.
But it's also not fair to go and attack motorists even more than you are already in the name of striking down pollution. I actually wrote a dissertation on this kind of issue, well, actually it was "Is global warming really happening and does the government have a duty to take economic and social action in response?". But it covered whether the government should rise taxes on fuel. I got an A* for it so it must have been fairly decently argued.
If I went into detail then I'd be typing for hours, but nonetheless, when you're thinking about taxation you obviously have to weigh up the benefits and draw backs. I am not satisfied that decimating motorist's spending power with a highly regressive tax is worth it, because it sure as hell won't stop people using their cars anyway and so will have no positive effects on the environment. I thought you socialists cared about the poor? They spend a heck of a lot more of their income than the rich do, so it would hurt them most.
0
reply
RoryS
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
A major flaw which I see in the budget comes back to Morgsie's point on transport. I think another look at the Transport section is urgently required - for example, if the Department for Transport ceases then who will look after the franchises? (Under the 2005 Railways Act the Dept. decides Stock and Franchises)
1
reply
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
Who will decide Franchises and Rolling Stock if the DfT is abolished? As I have said previously which RoryS has pointed it out under the 2005 Railways Act is that the DfT Awards Franchises and deals with Rolling Stock.
.
Local Authorities will be bickering left right and center over awarding Rail Franchises. I agree with RoryS that you guys need to go back to the drawing boards and think things through and the consequences on policies.
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Firstly, congrats on writing this out. A budget is always long and hard word for any government and you don't always have the right people to do it. So good effort! :yy:

Now, I have just two quetsions (for now.)

1) How many jobs would go with the closure of the The DfID?

2) Also, why has nothing be said about the budget for Defense?
Thankyou

Toronto has answered this one already for you, but I thought I should answer you too.

The DfID employs about 2000 people. Now, the FCO is actually a pretty small department so it is going to need to take on a large amount of those DfID workers. I can't really see more than 750 needing to go but it is up to the Foreign Secretary. Asset sale will allow him to reduce the amount of jobs cut, which is in part one of the many benefits of merging this department rather than just cutting the already existing one's funding.

We decided that during a time of war, that a defense cut (which I had planned until only recently) would be irresponsible. So, that cut was removed, and hence in this budget, Defense spending and the structure of its department will remain unchanged.
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#93
Report 7 years ago
#93
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
What has a nation's medieval status got to do with respecting a nation and its people in the twenty-first century? Rakas has been dismissive both of Wales' status as a nation and its native language, which is far older than either English or French as it happens.

And this lack of respect (or care, to use your terms) has quite clearly spilled into the bills that the Conservative Party are putting forward. Birchington, above, welcomes the demolition of the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland offices following on from devolution. Fair enough, except if this house recognises devolution then your education bill is null and void since education is devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Michael Gove can no more change the curriculum for schools in Cardiff, Derry and Edinburgh than can your party on here, if this house recognises devolution. If we do not, then this budget bill comes into sticky ground. As I said above, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland have roles akin to a governor-general of one of the former Dominions of the Empire. In Scotland, they oversee the separate systems of governance and distinct legislation relating to Scotland is typically put forward in their name. The same goes for Northern Ireland since both jurisdictions have separate legal systems. Scotland, of course, having the greater distinction. The Secretary of State for Wales, too, has significant powers if this House does not recognise devolution. They are responsible for the Welsh education system (which is distinct) and the Welsh language to name the main ones. Ministers of State have not the power of responsibility to undertake the tasks which would fall on them were the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland offices to be abolished. To relegate each nation to the status of 'local government' smacks of something quite unsavoury. As to the Minister of State for English Affairs - hah, you have a whole parliament dedicated to English Affairs. You even have a Prime Minister (both here and in real life) who can see no further than England as the locus of power.

This place once had quite a mature attitude towards the other parts of the United Kingdom besides England. It's disheartening to see that regress to the stage where people are simply dismissive, even vindicitively dismissive, of the rights of all peoples to govern themselves in a manner they see fit. Like it or not, the Welsh are not the English. We think differently. We act differently. We create differently. Whether or not there was a Kingdom called Cymru in the High Middle Ages is irrelevant to those truths.
I said this already, those ministers STILL EXIST. They just work in the DCLG now. All that changes is they don't get their own department, they have to pack up their IKEA desk and the photograph of their kids and move it into the DCLG building. No biggie. They will no longer be a Secretary of State, but will be a Minister of State and will be invited to cabinet meetings unlike most Ministers.

I'm not going to comment on the issue of Wales I would like to request that this debate is had elsewhere though, for the record my opinion is that it is not a country; it is a principality, but that doesn't in any conceivable way lessen the importance of its people or its values and we have their interests taken into account.
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(Original post by Ysolt)
Not much tax here, where's it all gone, eh? I think I understand the ground rent tax, but I don't really think I get where the income tax changes are going. Local taxes are mentioned, are they really a good idea? As Morgsie said the approach to departments like transport is very reckless. The gist of this budget is one that I don't necessarily support: rolling back central government and increasing local taxes. I think efficiency is at risk, and I dont like the idea of cutting the equalities office especially.
Much of the tax changes are accounted for with spending reductions. Local taxes already exist in TSR, we are just devolving more power to local councils, and thus assuming that they will cope with their new responsibilities with increased local levies. We believe that putting power into the hands of the local representative rather than the central government is going to improve the quality of services provided because local representatives can better cater for their people than we can. What is important to say, is that in theory, the increases to local levies will need to bring in about 20 Bn of revenue to cover their new responsibilities. Our income tax cuts cost us 50 Bn, so local levies, even with their other spending commitments won't nearly be as high as the current central income tax.

The Equalities Office is a pointless office. Equality should be something that all government departments take into account, not just one. Cutting that office back will not do anything to harm equality. The whole thing is an Orwellian nightmare. And I suspect the office merely exists for the Government to say "Look at us, we have an equalities office!" We don't have time for showing off, so it can go, and all the other departments should have a little think about whether its bill promote equality or not.
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
(Original post by Birchington)
Firstly, congratulations to the Chancellor for this well-researched, balanced Budget. Although I'm about to offer criticism, I also appreciate the amount of work and effort that has gone into this. With that in mind, the Leader of the Opposition's comments suggests a complete lack of commitment to not only his party but the House itself.*
Thankyou

I'm broadly supportive of this Budget, particularly tax cuts and the consolidation of some aspects of Government operations. I disagree with several of the department closures, however, which I outline below.

The tax reductions and reforms look promising and have my full support. The removal of VAT *in particular should be supported from all sides of the House.

I support the decision to close the unnecessary DfCMS, and also the merger of DfID and the Foreign Office. I will oppose any attempts to scale back our international development commitments, but for now I trust the government will remain committed to our obligations to those less fortunate.
That is good to know. I think the VAT reduction is garnering support from most in here, as most realise how damaging it really is. And I am of course glad you support the bulk of our departmental changes.

The proposals to close DEFRA, DECC and DFT are reckless. I support localism, but not when devolving powers to local authorities is likely to cost more in the long term. How on earth are we going to have a co-ordinated, national transport strategy if the DFT's responsibilities are assumed by local authorities with distinctly different agendas? At a time when massive investment is needed for our roads and railways, this government has decided to abolish this important department.
An understandable concern, but rest assured there will still be a Minister of State for Transport, working within the DCLG. This allows central government to still oversee and co-ordinate transport efforts, just with local government now involved heavily in the decisions.

The same arguments apply for the future of our energy and climate change policy. Abolishing DECC at a time when we have a looming energy crisis and investment is again needed for our power stations, the government has acted with terrible shortsightedness and axed this department.
Again, a Minister of State for Energy will be employed. Central government still has some power to co-ordinate efforts such as these, it's just the cost burden is shifted down.

Localism works for the management of small-scale projects, but the government must answer how it hopes to co-ordinate a coherent transport and energy strategy for decades to come when it will axe the aforementioned departments.
Answered above.

I do, however, welcome the closure of the Scottish and Welsh offices, which are no longer required as devolution continues to evolve. The creation of an English Affairs minister is a great idea, one which will hopefully end the lack of representation for English interests in Whitehall.
It's good to see that finally someone understands what we've done with this, thank you.

I think a Balanced Budget bill is well intentioned in principle, but it would risk shackling future governments to spending plans they may wish to alter. Balanced budgets are all well and good, but forcing them on future governments does not accommodate future economic trends that may affect government spending and borrowing.
We will be certain to ensure that in extenuating circumstances, a government may overspend on its budget, though we'll reveal how we'll do this when the bill is actually launched.

All in all, a good Budget for taxpayers and consumers, but one which also proposes some reckless department closures. A mixed bag, which has my broad support. I hope the government consider my comments and elaborate on their decision to close the aforementioned departments.
Thankyou, your feedback as with everyone elses will be looked at.
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
(Original post by RoryS)
Wow! Lengthly! I definately commend the Rt. Honourable member (s) of the House for writing such an extensive budget report. However, I totally agree with practically everything that my Rt. Honourable friend eff01 has posted in the last couple of pages.
Thankyou
I shall address the comments of your colleague as soon as I can.
0
reply
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
I am sorry but a Minister in a massive Department is not good enough
0
reply
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
(Original post by Jarred)
I said this already, those ministers STILL EXIST. They just work in the DCLG now. All that changes is they don't get their own department, they have to pack up their IKEA desk and the photograph of their kids and move it into the DCLG building. No biggie. They will no longer be a Secretary of State, but will be a Minister of State and will be invited to cabinet meetings unlike most Ministers.
You clearly don't get it, even if you've provided the stock answer you all dreamt up in the tory sub-forum again. In any case, as with the last "budget" this has kind of zapped my enthusiasm. I think I shall go into exile again for a while.

I'm not going to comment on the issue of Wales I would like to request that this debate is had elsewhere though, for the record my opinion is that it is not a country; it is a principality, but that doesn't in any conceivable way lessen the importance of its people or its values and we have their interests taken into account.
First it's a region of England not a nation, now it's a principality but not a country. Get some consistency why don't you. Anyway, don't bother to reply, I won't read it.
1
reply
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#99
Report 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by Jarred)
Like I said, I wasn't aware of this as the figures were provided by someone else, I did obviously check the bill. There was nothing in the bill's text which suggested it was revenue neutral. I'm guessing it was discussed further down in other posts? I didn't think to really read them because as far as I could see with a very quick check, everything I had been provided with from my colleague was in order.
"An Act to legalise, tax and regulate the narcotics industry - ending the fruitless and futile 'war on drugs' - and using the money saved from formerly 'fighting drugs' and the tax gained from the whole industry being brought into the formal sector, to reduce the level of VAT."

:confused:


No point, when I spoke about GDP much of it was in cases where it is standard practise to use 2011 GDP figures (such as calculating the deficit as a % of GDP). A lot of the major changes came into force in 2012 so had no effect on 2011 GDP, and the 2011 changes came so late in the year (literally the final week or two) that it would not have altered figures severely enough. Using actual 2011 figures provided a conservative estimate at least and I think most people would have appreciated that much more than guesses.
But surely it affects your planning going forward into 2013, 2014, 2015?

Well to be honest, it kind of is. It's a subsidisation in everything but name. I cut that tax and I'll need to make up for the revenue somewhere else, let's say for arguments sake with a VAT hike. Then I'm asking ordinary consumers to effectively subsidise other's alcohol and tobacco habits. No such thing as a free lunch and all that. The money would have to come from somewhere, I deem that to be a subsidisation. Both the usage of alcohol and tobacco are lifestyle choices and are not particular good lifestyle options, and whilst I absolutely detest using government to influence moral behavior, and I'm sure you'll 100% agree with that, in difficult times we can only do so much and right now they are my last priority to cut.
Cutting taxes on income is not subsidising work. Cutting taxes on consumption is not subsidising consumption. It is stopping unfairly taxing these things. At the moment, smokers and drinkers pay way over the costs they impose to subsidise everyone else. I don't think this is right, and ending that subsidy is not subsidising the original losers.

Well sure, but anyone earning that much is going to understand how to calculate tax and I advise you to check the following if you have not already:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0D...jJ4bFpQckpwVkE

The 25p rate has been increased, but obviously the 5p and 15p rates have been done away with completely. To someone earning £100k plus, those rates currently cost them £12500 a year. Without these rates, this makes those earning more than a £100k at least £12500. The 29p rate of course eats into this saving. But the file I directed you to represents a calculation which produces the point as which the amount of tax paid currently is equal to the amount of tax paid under our proposal, ie: the amount at which the £12500 is eaten into completely. This sits at £412500. Anyone earning less than that will pay less tax than they do now, anyone earning more will pay a bit more. And you can calculate how much this difference is by using the LHS and RHS equations (SEPARATELY) and compare the figures. So really, it's anyone earning over £412500 that will make their decisions in a different way, if they have any sense to realise that they make that massive saving with the abolition of the lower rates.
People don't make decisions based on the total amount of tax they are paying, but at the margins. Now someone earning £100K keeps 71p of their next pound, not 75p. That's where decisions are made, and that's why decisions are going to be affected at £100K, not £412.5K. This isn't controversial stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism



I'm perfectly aware of that. I should apologise that I made myself unclear. What I'm referring to is the fact that much of the surplus in that act came from the recognition of the mistake. Basically what I was saying is, that whilst you probably would've tried to produce a surplus from it anyway, would you really have produced one so large if you had not made the mistake in the first place? Was the fact it was so sizeable not effectively down to accident? It's not a problem, but the idea that these surpluses are going to be left untouched (when we have left wing parties especially who usually demand Government investment); that is madness.
Not so, the mistake was over £75bn, the surplus is £15bn. We could have pumped more of it into tax cuts (like you're doing here), but we decided to leave it as a surplus.

Besides, it doesn't really matter where it came from. Is it a good idea (considering this government has targets to reduce the deficit oh so quickly) that with a £78bn deficit, we expand it by £7bn?

Well of course we have. At the central level it's gone for most people. Sure, they'll probably have to pay some at the local level. But we've not devolved everything down, so in the theory the rates which will be levied will be much lower than the ones before anyway and it still represents a saving, simply because councils have fewer spending commitments. Who knows, maybe they'll go for a similar policy to ours of levying a flat tax on the rich only.
So how much spending is cut? How much is transferred to local government?

But then with your proposal people are paying more tax anyway so it has the same problem as our proposal. That's a damn sizeable rate of GRT.
And it's not just the people who will suffer with a high rate, businesses will especially as they will hold more land. Think about agriculture businesses, it would absolutely decimate them. And even manufacturing, takes a lot more land to house a factory than a call centre. A small rise in GRT is fine, but when you're going that high you're gonna create real problems for these already suffering sectors.

I've just had a quick look at the numbers, rising GRT to that value would take an extra 170+ billion out of the economy. I was hesitant about even letting GRT get to 61% let alone 85%... That is gonna cost people, and the economy, a hell of a lot more than a small local council levy ever would.
Hello. Land Value Tax IS NEUTRAL AT WORST - that's right, it's the only one that doesn't affect output (because the decision of how much land there is isn't one made by humans, basically). Further to that, GRT should be 100% on a fairness basis, taking all of the extracted rents and putting them back in the public's hands, but we need some margin of error to allow for miscalculation of values and avoid land abandonment (which is what happens if you tax land at more than 100% of it's value). Indeed, over time - seeing human decisions from the valuations put on land, these should get more accurate and thus we can push further towards the single tax.

http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Efficiency.html
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#100
Report 7 years ago
#100
(Original post by eff01)
Mr Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the Chancellor for writing this budget. Clearly a lot of time has gone into it and I believe all members of the MHoC should take the time out and read it. I welcome the abolition of VAT and the increase in the Ground Tax, something I personally agree with.
Thankyou.

However my agreement with the government ends here. At a time of high inflation, unemployment and no growth, I disagree with the chancellor’s proposal to freeze fuel duty until 2015. The reality on the ground is that petrol is too high. Instead of helping motorists by proposing a cut in fuel duty, the chancellor is saying that he is not concerned with their plight and is willing to freeze duty until 2015 despite the reality of the economy changing, after all, only today was the fear of the Labour Party confirmed when RL figs for the economy showed that the UK was in its longest double dip recession for 50 years.
Need I remind you that VAT is currently levied on fuel, and bear in mind that VAT is 20 per cent in the real world. With that massive chunk of tax gone, fuel prices are considerably lower in TSR. Motorists will be suffering much less so when there's a whole 20% pre-duty value added tax being removed. A drop in fuel duty would have to be about 15p to make the same saving.
I would like to remind the Rt Hon. gentleman that the freezing of fuel duty will provide a real terms saving for all motorists in all of the tax years which follow on from this, we have thought in the long term and yet the Opposition has the thoughtfulness to disparage us for said action.

I condemn the Chancellor’s unnecessary closing down of government departments. With the Olympic games only a few days away and the first Olympic matches taking place today only a Conservative chancellor could make the decision to close the department that was pivotal (RL) in bringing the games to the United Kingdom. The chancellor says that art can be better managed by the Arts Council, but I ask the chancellor what extra funding will he provide to the Arts Council to deal with the burden of a departmental closure. The chancellor states that media policy can be better dealt with by the DfBWPs, but Mr Speaker, we later discover that the chancellor is slashing the budget of the combined department. This closure symbolises a tory led coalition that has no interest in the culture of the United Kingdom and is not interested in the sporting achievements of our heroic RL athletes in this RL Olympic year! Members of this house I am baffled to why this outrageous step has been taken, that will only save £3billion?
The Olympic Games are here, and will pass, by the time the bill which legislates the closure is brought into fruition. I wish to remind the Rt Honourable gentleman than the British created the modern Olympics and even hosted it twice, without the existence of the DCMS and they did a downright brilliant job of it too. The DCMS is a very recent creation and we can survive without it.

The department closures continue, with the government closing down the department for equalities, this isn’t surprising after all the RL cabinet comprises of only four elected female MPs and no elected MPs from ethnic minorities, LGBT and Disabilities. I condemn this closure.
If you want to play this real-life game, then fine, I'm gonna enjoy this...
Need I remind you that the first Muslim minister was a Tory.
That the first female party leader of the three main parties was a Tory.
That the first and only female prime minister to this day was a Tory.
That the Government which is finally granting homosexual couples the right to marry, is led by a Tory.

And finally that something as pivotal and fantastic as suffrage for women as we know it today, was brought in by a Tory Government.

Equalities should be and will be catered for by every part of Government in order to ensure that equality is more comprehensive and encompassing. The majority of these achievements were done without an equalities department. It's useless government showboating and we do not have time for it.

On the absorbing of the DfID into the FCO, I would like to ask the Chancellor what will be the new budget for the FCO? Isn’t it right to state that this government by closing the DfID has sent a signal to the international community, that TSRUK is not interested in the struggles and hardships of people living in developing countries, who struggle day and night to earn an honest wage which in many cases is less than $1 a day.
And I would like to ask the right honourable gentleman if he can read?
£6.8 Billion. As written very clearly in the initial report.

No it is not right to say that, if we had wanted to end aid we would have given the FCO a £1.2 Bn budget. But we didn't, because we value the role that international development can play, but also recognize that charity must begin at home first and have thus tried to produce a saving.


The chancellor has simply gone down the list of government departments and cut without thinking of the consequences or effects. I condemn the closure of the DECC, DfT and DEFRA. The chancellor wants to devolve these responsibilities to local government, but Mr Speaker, the chancellor is cutting the DCLG budget. How does the chancellor envisage local authorities to maintain their roads when he is cutting their budgets!?
No, the Chancellor with support from his Government has taken the decision to have a comprehensive review about what Government means. In these times, we have to question the role that Government must play in the future, what role it has in restricting our personal liberty, what role it has in restricting our economic liberty and what role it has in ruling our lives.

You know what role it is for all three? None. It should not tell us what to do, it should protect our freedom not limit it, but having so many departments of so much size and scope and spending, is detrimental.

The Right Honourable gentleman seems to have little understanding of the DCLG and how local government works in TSR UK. Local Governments may levy their own taxes ALREADY, cuts to DCLG are to produce efficiency savings and will not result in local government grant cuts because local government largely relies on itself and not on government grants in TSR UK anyway. Our proposals gives room for manouvre in allowing councils to become more self sufficient. To ensure that governance happens closer to home.


I categorically condemn the closure of the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland office. A party that did not in RL opposition support devolution is now, in power launching an attack on devolution. How can the public take seriously the comments of this government on the United Kingdom to stay united when they are cutting their representation in government!
Oh sorry about that, I forgot that I am just a carbon copy of William Hague's tenure of conservatism. I was of course completely involved in politics at the age of 4...
Mr Speaker I find it hilarious and also worrying to see how easy Hm Opposition finds it to bash devolution in one case and support it one paragraph later, it suggests great inconsistencies in their thinking, they asked how the public can take us seriously, I ask the same of them. What I must say is that the TSR Conservative Party and TSR UKIP as a coalition are committed to devolution. Our efforts in closing these offices will not hurt devolution, rather they will actually promote it and excel it. The ministers will still exist and simply operate out of a different building.

Mr Speaker, the chancellor estimates that approximately 3000 people will be unemployed as a result of his reckless measures, however Mr Speaker I state to this house that the cost of the chancellor’s irresponsibility will be greater.
Care to back that up? It is your word against mine.

Mr Speaker, the chancellor’s budget is poorly thought-out, reckless and has placed thousands of jobs in jeopardy today. The nation has looked to the chancellor for hope and direction at this time of great difficultly, but has left feeling uncertain about their jobs and future. The chancellor has attacked motorists by freezing fuel duty until 2015, despite the UK being in the longest RL double dip recession and food prices continuing to increase. This budget says nothing about growth, investment and the future of our young people. The Chancellor is silent on the issues of education and growth and has instead sent out a message that the TSRUK does not care about the plight of millions at home and abroad. The chancellor has simply sought to take the burden of responsibility off his shoulders and place it on the shoulders of others. Mr Speaker, I do not support this reckless budget and urge other honourable members to do the same.
Mr Speaker, this Budget has abolished VAT, has cut corporation tax and yet the Rt Hon gentleman complains about jobs. Our proposals will result in nothing more than allowing businesses to increase their margins and then go on to keep more of their profits, which can be used for investing back into the company, which can only result in more jobs being created which will easily offset any job losses as a result of our difficult but necessary proposals.
The public has looked to us to make every one of their days easier. We have cut their income tax, we have abolished their VAT to make their money go further. Our proposals will put more money into everyone's pockets, and that fully counteracts the hard aspects of everyone's lives as much as is humanely possible and will lead to reversal of economic contraction and lead to a boost to confidence.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (135)
62.79%
No I haven't decided yet (46)
21.4%
Yes but I might change my mind (34)
15.81%

Watched Threads

View All