Metrobeans
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Budget Report, Rt. Hon. Jarred MP

The Emergency Budget Report 2012

A budget with fiscal responsibility, sustainable prosperity, and economic liberty at its very core.

Introduction


As of this budget, the UK economy is enduring hard times largely attributable to the difficult circumstances we inherited from previous governments and of course the late-2000s financial crisis. In real life, we have entered into recession again since the last budget, thus we can assume that whilst the TSR economy differs in a number of ways, it too has entered the “double-dip” recession. The primary objective of the TSR Government is secure a quick yet sustainable recovery from this recession whilst still maintaining a decisive and fast deficit reduction strategy.

I anticipate that the TSR economy is currently faring better in many ways; from its rate of expansion, to the severity of its deficit, however, this Government seeks to improve both with this Budget.


Discussion of current growth forecasts

The ONS has reported the following figures for the first quarter of this financial year:

>UK GDP in volume terms decreased by 0.3% Q1 2012, unrevised from the previously estimated 0.3% decline
>Production industrial output fell by 0.5%, within which manufacturing output fell by 0.3 per cent
>Output of the service industries increased by 0.2%, while output of the construction industry fell by 4.9%
>Household final consumption expenditure decreased by 0.1% in volume terms in the latest quarter
>In current price terms, compensation of employees rose by 1.1% in Q1 2012 (that is to say that in effect, wages rose by 1.1% in the private sector)

The economy has contracted again (with GDP decreasing by 0.3%) and thus has entered recession due to two successive quarters of negative growth. This is the biggest issue affecting the British economy and will be combated with decisive radical action from this Government.

Whilst it is welcoming to see that the tertiary industry still grew in a difficult quarter, the large drop in construction is a cause for concern. However, it is important to point out that the construction industry has been falling in size and scope for the past few decades, and so a drop was expected. However, we do still wish to combat this.

Wages in the private sector grew, however, the rate of growth (1.1%) is lower than that of the rate of inflation for this period which may suggest a relative decrease. This Government has a number of plans outlined in this budget which will let each and every employee keep a higher proportion of their wage than before; which for all intents and purposes renders the issue redundant.

It is important to stress that these figures represent the real British economy and are thus only partially indicative of the situations facing the TSR economy, as I mentioned earlier, I strongly anticipate that the TSR economy is faring better. We have fewer taxes, we have lower taxes and we have simpler taxes: and we’re planning to better all three of those still. We have entered into this budget with a lower deficit. We have higher research investment than real life. Combining these aspects together mean that we have entered this second recession in much better circumstances than our real life economy, but more must be done to prevent the economy from contracting again and securing a quick yet sustainable recovery; and we have outlined what we believe is necessary in our proposals...



Our proposals

Our starting point

In effect, this Budget acts as an emergency budget to Mr Osborne’s earlier 2012 Budget. We’re not here to debate the merits and disadvantages of said budget, I personally thought it was a decent report, but considering that there are many differences between the TSR economy and the real world economy, in this budget I am able to do much more than Osborne ever could. These changes range from the fact that drugs are legal, to the welfare differences, to the Ground Rent Tax and more. Basically, I guess I should give a small thanks to the Libertarians.

Suffice to say, that particular budget had a surplus of -£90 Billion. And this is our starting point. My goal in this budget is to produce something which actively promotes growth, puts more money in to everyone’s pockets, less to the government and more to the economy that’s my motto, whilst at the same time not neglecting a quick and decisive deficit reduction programme which we must provide for the sake of stability. Unfortunately, I will not be able to balance this budget, though I doubt anyone was expecting me to do so. However, this budget will have a much lower deficit than the one in March, and that is a step forward, and will make it easier to balance the books sooner than is planned in real life.

There are some TSR bills which affect expenditure on top of Osborne’s budget and thus must be counted in this one. These bills are:
>B364: Negligible
>B380: Negligible
>B397: -£10.5bn (a previously un-costed VAT reduction)
>B408: +£1.2bn
>B417: -£0.9bn
>B438: +£15.4bn
>B441: +£6.7bn
>B443: (Substantial spending increases in research and development but not until the next tax year)

There are also some extra spending commitments in a few motions, such as the Thorium nuclear power motion, and the desalination plant motion. These plans however are too big in scope to begin in this financial year (you can’t start building a nuclear plant in the space of a few months), so these measures will not affect expenditure in this financial year.

In terms of policy differences, most (if not all) are included in detail in the the bills above, and it would be a waste of time to explain them here. But in general, we have a number of tax differences; Ground Rent Tax, Carbon Tax created. Business Rates, Council Tax abolished, VAT much lower, income tax much lower, and finally, councils are able to levy taxes to support locally provided services.

Cumulatively, the additional spending commitments and tax revenues bring the budget surplus to -£78.1 Billion (when factoring in the deficit from the previous budget).

So, even before this budget, the TSR Government’s public finances are faring better than those of our real world counterparts. This grants us much more room for manoeuvre. Our goal with this budget is to keep the deficit below 90 Bn whilst introducing a number of radical changes to promote economic growth.



Taxation

Income tax

The 5p and 15p rates of income tax will be abolished, the 25p rate shall be increased to 29p, though the threshold for this payment will remain at £0.1 Million. This means that income tax (to central government) is fully abolished for anyone earning less than £100,000 gross income (which is the vast majority of the population), effectively transforming income tax from being an attack on everyone, to being an attack on the super-rich elite only. It would be better if we could abolish it entirely and this was my initial goal because I would prefer to shift the tax burden away from income and over to land; however the revenue produced by the top rate is too useful when we are trying to keep a leash on our deficit, and I’m sure some of the hippy comrades in the House are happy that we have a tax to remove some wealth from the top, so I would think that the majority of the House will be in support of at least one aspect of this proposal, everyone from Socialist to Libertarian.

With this measure, we keep our competitiveness with the rest of the world because even with the increased top rate, the abolition of the lower rates mean that everyone earning less than £412,500 per annum will benefit, and only those earning more than this will pay more income tax under our proposal than they did before (abolition of top rates grants saving of £12500 to anyone earning more than 100k, and the increased top rate does not fully eat into this saving until earning more than £412,500 see https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0D...jJ4bFpQckpwVkE).

The abolition of the lower rates will produce a revenue change of -£55.82 Billion. The increase in the top rate will lead to a revenue change of +£3.768 Billion.

Together, this produces a revenue change of -£52.052 Billion.
Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£130.152 Billion.


Ground Rent Tax

We will raise Ground Rent Tax to from 54% to 61%. This will result in a revenue change of +£39.13 Billion.
Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£91.022 Billion.


Narcotics Sales Tax

Narcotics are legal in TSR Britain as a result of V397. In said act, it was decided that a commission will decide what rates to tax narcotics at, but this was never actually done in the end. This Government supports the Narcotics Act, but wishes to set a rate to tax narcotics itself rather than go through the commotion of a committee. We have decided this rate to be 19.5% of the pre-tax sale price. Alcohol and tobacco will be exempt from this tax, and shall continue to be taxed under the current duties system.

It is very difficult to pinpoint exactly how much revenue this would produce since drugs are not legal in the real world, so there are very few figures to calculate from, and even then the ones that do exist are likely to have inaccuracies, however, the Home Office estimates that the drugs market was approximately 41% of the size of the alcohol market back in 2003. It is very likely that this percentage is larger now since drug use has been acknowledged to be growing, however, for the purposes of producing a conservative estimate let’s propose that it still remains at this figure. The alcohol market in 2001 was worth £36,636,000,000, unfortunately I cannot find any more recent data on the exact size of the alcohol marker, so will extrapolate from here. Using the BoE’s inflation calculator we can assume that the UK alcohol market was worth in the region of £49,716,075,472 in 2011. 41% of this is £20,383,590,940, which gives us an approximate value of the narcotics market. And taxing this at 19.5% will bring in revenues of slightly less than +£4 Billion, which we shall round up to account for fact that my calculation used extrapolations defined for the previous tax year.

I still anticipate that the revenues from this narcotics tax will in fact be much higher, but as I mentioned, it is difficult to calculate. I do however feel that my extrapolated figures provide a good estimate, and we can be sure that the tax will generate at least £4 Billion, but if better data is found then the projections will be recalculated before this makes it into law.

Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£87.022 Billion.


Value Added Tax

VAT will be fully abolished, as we believe this is necessary to:

a) Lower prices for consumers thus making their money go that bit further everytime they make a purchase.
b) Help businesses survive by granting them room to increase their margins significantly and finally
c) To simplify the system for business taxation by reducing the number of taxes they have to pay.

I must admit, if you had told me just two weeks ago that I would abolish VAT, I’d have laughed in your face, it is only recently that I have realised how much damage it does to our economy and we really are better off without it so the Government is proud to have taken the radical step toward getting this done.

This measure will result in a revenue change of -£20.9 Billion (figure taken from V441).
Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£107.922 Billion.


Corporation Tax

The Government believes that is absolutely essential that we promote entrepreneurism and a pro-business agenda especially in times of economic contraction. Fortunately, businesses are already much better off in TSR Britain than they are in the real world due to the fact that Business Rates, and corporation NI contributions were completely abolished, and now also VAT will soon take that route, however, more must still be done if only to offset the increase in GRT.

There are currently three rates; the main rate (24%), the small profits rate (20%) and the special rate (also 20%). We want to simplify the corporation tax system, and at the same time lower it for all businesses so that they can keep a larger proportion of their profits, which will help them invest it back into their companies which will benefit the economy and job prospects.

Our plan is to replace all three rates with one main rate; which will sit at 17%, thus representing a considerable saving for all businesses, big and small. This gives us the smallest corporate tax rate in both the G7 and G20. North Sea taxation will remain unchanged. Calculating the revenue change for this flat CT proposal is difficult because I have found it nigh on impossible to find up to date corporation tax figures, and the high complexities of the current system (mainly due to the system of marginal relief) means that pretty much all businesses pay a different rate to eachother so finding out how much profit in the economy is liable to tax is hard. It is tempting to simply extrapolate from past figures, though the most recent ones date back to 2009, and in this time period, the recession had hit corporate profits hard, so there was actually a large drop in taxable profits meaning using these figures as a taxbase would overestimate the drop in revenue by too large a margin. It has been decided that to produce an estimation, the January 2012 Effective Marginal Tax Rate, as judged by the Oxford Centre for Business Taxation will be used for calculations. This figure is still not perfect as it is from the previous tax year, but will suffice for estimation purposes. The EMTR stands at 22.3%. I would prefer to use the EATR (Effective Average Tax Rate) however I deem this figure to be inaccurate due to the fact it stands at 24.8%, which is higher than all current rates of Corporation Tax so is obviously not suitable for estimation purposes. The reason the EATR is so high is because the main rate of CT stood at 26% in 2011/12.
Anyway, in this tax year Corporation Tax is predicted to bring in revenues of £44.8 Billion. using the EMTR as an estimation of the overall CT rate, we can predict the revenue change for my flat CT rate with the following calculation:

Revenue change = -( 4.48E10 –(4.48E10 *17/22.3))
= -£10.648 Billion.

Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£118.57 Billion.


Fuel Duty

Fuel is currently very expensive in the real world, and as a Government we have wanted to do something about it for a long time.
Fortunately, our VAT abolition will benefit motorists as much as a fuel duty drop would. To keep deficit reduction on track, I say with regret that I cannot deliver a drop in fuel duty, however, I can promise that we want to freeze fuel duty at its current rate until at least 2015, which will help at least keep fuel prices more stable over the next few years whilst not costing us anything in this budget (but will affect budgets to come).



Department changes

In an effort make savings, the Government has decided to make a number of changes to its departmental structure. Assume that any department not mentioned in this section will remain completely unchanged; both in terms of its funding and its departmental structure.


Department for Culture, Media and Sport
The DCMS (or perhaps more accurately, the Ministry of Fun) shall be closed down completely and its assets and capital shall be put back into the Treasury coffers. We do not believe that this department serves any real purpose, the United Kingdom operated perfectly fine without this department before its creation in the 1990s (as the Department for National Heritage) by the Major government and we see it as more bloated, pointless, big government. Management of the arts can be better managed by the already existing Arts Council. Media policy can be managed by the Department for Business, Work and Pensions in conjunction with Ofcom where appropriate. And once the Olympics have passed, the responsibility for sport can be split up and represented by DH, DCLG and BIS.

The closure of this department shall bring in a expenditure change of +£2.8 Billion.
Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£115.77 Billion.


Government Equalities Office

GEO shall be closed down, with the majority of its staff being made redundant and the rest being transferred to other departments. Its responsibilities shall be transferred over to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

This closure will produce a saving of +£65 Million.
Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£115.705 Billion.


Home Office and Ministry of Justice

The Government will not merge these two departments officially, however, we propose that they should share the same budget due to the fact they both cover similar areas and close collaboration between the two departments will be easier if the two departments draw funds from the same budget.
This budget shall be £13 Billion this year. Currently, the Home Office has a budget of £8.9Bn, and the MoJ has a budget of £8.6Bn.

Our measure thus produces an expenditure change of +£4.5 Billion.
Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£111.205 Billion.

To some, that may sound like a disastrously large reduction, but our reasoning is clear: Drugs are legal in the United Kingdom, and the current budgets take into account the spending on drug enforcement programs and imprisoning drug users, which is not applicable to The Student Room. Transform, a pro-decriminalisation group estimated that the Government could save approximately £10 Billion if drugs were legal, and it is definitely safe to say that the majority of this would be felt from these two departments, so our reduction will not cause any issue at all.

Department for Intentional Development and Foreign & Commonwealth Office

The DfID shall be closed. Its duties and capital will be absorbed by the Foreign Office. A new ministerial role shall be created within this department; the Minister of State for International Development, who shall take on similar duties to the previous Secretary of State for International Development and still be granted access to cabinet meetings. The budget that this minister is allowed to spend on international development shall be decided by the Foreign Secretary, who will receive a much larger budget than before of £6.8 Billion. This is to ensure that international aid may continue, just at a decreased remit.

Closure (and asset seizure) of DfID and the slight increase of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget will together bring a saving of +£3.5 Billion.
Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£107.705 Billion.


Department for Business, Work and Pensions (DfBWP)

The Government has already merged the operations of BIS and DWP into one sole department (when it first came into office) and it shall remain this way.

BIS is on set under Osborne’s budget to receive cuts in every year up to 2015. It is allotted £16.3 Billion in 2012 but only £13.9 Billion in 2015, which represents a cut in both cash terms and in real terms. Our logic is; if BIS can survive on £13.9 Billion in 2015, then it can easily manage with £14 Billion this year (a £2.3 Billion cut, and in real terms, 14 Bn today goes considerably further than 13.9 Bn in 2015). Naturally, BIS doesn’t exist as its own department on here, but we can still cut the DfBWP budget by £2.3 Billion to achieve the same effect.

So, the Department for Business, Work and Pensions will see a spending cut this tax year resulting in an expenditure change +£2.3 Billion. This is necessary to fund our pro-growth efforts such as our VAT abolition and CT change, which we feel is going to help businesses a lot more than government schemes from DfBWP ever could.

This cumulatively brings the budget surplus to -£105.405 Billion.


Department for Energy and Climate Change, Department for Transport & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DECC, DfT and DEFRA shall all be closed down, with their assets and capital seized by central government, and their responsibilities devolved down to local government. This will bring a vast amount of savings to central government, equating to an amount of +£18.9 Billion. This measure vastly reduces expenditure whilst simultaneously improving the quality of these areas because local representatives understand their people’s needs better than we ever could.

Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£86.505 Billion.

Department for Communities and Local Government

The DCLG shall receive a funding cut as part of our plans to mobilise councils to becoming more self-sufficient by their own means rather than to the express hand of DCLG. This will result in granting them a budget which produces a saving of +£1 Billion. Technically, this department has two separate current DELs set to it, one to DCLG Communities, and one to DCLG Local Government, to simplify the process of funding this department, and to ensure DCLG has the full power to decide where our proposed cuts will hit it’s department, we will seek to change the matter so that the department is allocated one sole budget rather than the two.

Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£85.505 Billion.


Scotland Office, Wales Office and Northern Ireland Office

All three of these departmental bodies shall be closed down and their responsibilities shall be transferred over to the Department for Local Government and Environmental Affairs, where it is recommended that four ministerial positions will be created, “Minister of State for Scottish Affairs”, “Minister of State for Welsh Affairs” and “Minister of State for Northern Irish Affairs” and something entirely new; “Minister of State for English Affairs”, but the creation of these is at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and the Prime Minister. Despite being ministerial roles, if created, these four ministers shall be invited to cabinet meetings to ensure that the interests of all four constituent nations are represented at a cabinet level without the costly decision of giving each their own departmental body.

These three closures will free up +£37 Million.
Cumulatively, this brings the budget surplus to -£85.468 Billion.


Increase in welfare payments

Regrettably, this budget will result in a few redundancies. However, as difficult as it may seem, we believe that it is the right decision to govern in the interests of the majority (the taxpayers) rather than the interests of the minority (the redundant workers). The redundancies are part of the procedures which will bring irrefutably high savings, and it is these savings which are vital to funding our revolutionary tax reforms, and also vital to our crusade to decrease the size of government so that liberty may prevail. However, our decision will naturally result in an increase in welfare payments as part of the universal welfare credit; the Residents Income. To prepare for a worst case scenario, we shall overestimate the amount of people being laid off and assume all are entitled to the highest rate of the Resident’s income. This means that each worker laid off will cost £7904 per annum. Finding the number of workers being off is difficult, but for reference approx. 500 will be laid as a result of the DCMS closure. Other departmental changes will not nearly cause as many redundancies, and so we are going to say for calculation’s sake, that as a worst case scenario, 2500 will be laid off. This gives a revenue change of -£0.01976 Billion. This is easily within the margin of error, so my mathematician’s instinct tells me that we should just ignore it. (My logic may sound crazy to some, but what I’m saying is that there is no way we can avoid presenting partially erroneous figures, and the amount at which the deficit could change by due to this margin is going to be much larger than 0.01976 Billion).


Monetary policy

It is expected that interest rates will remain at their current (historically low) level through to at least 2013.
The Government wishes to launch a cross party Monetary Policy Exploration Committee at some point towards the end of its term to look into whether to change any aspects of our monetary policy and whether the Government should “repatriate” power over some of these matters from the independent Bank of England (such as control over interest rates).



Other proposals

Balanced budget bill

The Government intends to write a balanced budget bill, which will make it illegal for any TSR Government to pass an unbalanced budget after 2015, except in extenuating circumstances. This is a protective measure to prevent the mistakes of the past being repeated.


Spending commitments document

We have a constitution, a guidance document, a Hansard, but when it comes to keeping a track on all Government spending commitments ever made post-Repeal, we don’t have anything specialised. If someone wants to keep a track on what the Government in spending each year, they have to trawl through all of the previous post-Repeal bills. This isn’t an issue right now, but our tax system has already had massive changes made to it in just a few months. I feel that a few years down the line, it will be very hard for MHoC legislators to keep a track on what spending commitments have been made and how it affects future revenue and expenditure. What I propose is we create some kind of document periodically updated by the Chancellor (or maybe the Speaker if that makes the logistics easier) that lists spending commitments and any revenue changes brought into effect from bills. Think of it like a balance sheet, but it briefly details what the policy differences are too. So whenever you want to write an economic policy bill, and you want to know the situation at a glance, you can head on over to this document and it’s all there for you. I think it’ll be good for new members.


Restrictions on local government levies

As you will be well aware, local government is permitted to levy its own taxes due to the Welfare Bill. Our proposals will lead to the inevitable rise of local levies (though we predict not by a significant margin), and we want to ensure that there are restrictions imposed on what councils can actually impose a levy on, and how much they are allowed to take-in from this. We believe that this is essential to protecting the interests of taxpayers, and to hold local levies to account who may not be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to keep people’s taxes low without a bit of a push from us first.



State of the public finances


Surplus (real life) without TSR bills passed so far included: -£90 Billion.

Surplus with TSR bills passed so far included but before this budget: -£78.1 Billion.

Factoring in all of the changes in this Budget along with the deficit in the previous (March 2012) budget, we arrive at a final, overall surplus of:
-£85.468 Billion

You will notice however that the deficit from this budget is higher than that of TSR before this report. I would like to say, as possibly the strictest deficit hawk in this House, that this is a non-issue, because by the end of this tax year, we could be certain that at least someone would try to use the large surpluses from the Welfare Bill and the Carbon Tax Bill to their advantage in a bill at some point anyway, so in the end the deficit would probably have ended up back at £90 Billion. What truly matters is that this deficit is lower than the deficit in real life so we have achieved something good here.



The following graph depicts the real life deficits for the past few budgets, plus the deficit in this budget for easy comparison.





We have decided to revise Government deficit targets so that the structural deficit is eliminated by 2016 rather than 2017. See the following graph for the data corresponding to real life targets, our targets, and the surplus in this budget for reference, all given as percentages of Gross Domestic Product:







Concluding remarks

The TSR Government has managed a great number of achievements in this report. We have abolished VAT, abolished income tax for the vast majority of people, lowered and simplified corporation tax, implemented an impressive number of reforms to services by placing them in the hands of local representatives to accelerate decentralisation, have announced plans for a number of key structural reforms to the fabric of our economic political makeup, all whilst decreasing the deficit by even more than than the Cameron Government. We are proud of what we have achieved here, as it represents a better deal for workers, business owners and consumers. I hereby commend this Budget to the House.
2
reply
Metrobeans
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#2
This thread will be open for 7 days. This is the first budget we have had in almost two years and clearly took a lot of effort to produce, so I hope honourable members will take the time to carefully read the report and debate the measures contained within it.
0
reply
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
Completely support this budget, well done everyone :banana:

Popping-Champagne-cork.jpg
0
reply
ByronicHero
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
So very tempted to stop reading at "we inherited from previous governments". In fact I have. I will read this tomorrow.
0
reply
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
NO WAY
0
reply
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by Morgsie)
NO WAY
How about you read and respect the work that have gone into it instead of responding with "NO WAY"...
1
reply
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by tehFrance)
How about you read and respect the work that have gone into it instead of responding with "NO WAY"...
Yes I have, I am appalled with the closure of Departments because In the case of Rail Franchises they span various Local Authorities, In other words some decisions should be taken at the National level
0
reply
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by Morgsie)
Yes I have, I am appalled with the closure of Departments because In the case of Rail Franchises they span various Local Authorities, In other words some decisions should be taken at the National level
You know not everything revolves around some stupid trains.
1
reply
Happy-Turtle
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
moustache
0
reply
Mechie
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
tl;dr
5
reply
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
There are a few things in this budget which are quite alarming and demonstrative of the lack of respect the Conservatives have for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. You intend transferring governance of the Arts from the DCMS to the Arts Council. That's fine, but there are four of them: the Arts Council (in England); the Arts Council of Wales; the Scottish Arts Council; and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland. Which of these is your chosen Arts Council? A little bit more detail is necessary before you simply close things down in the name of money. Similarly, you intend sacrificing the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In a body which has no devolution, this is a particularly odd thing to do. In all instances, especially with regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland, this transfers an enormous amount of power to the Department of Local Government. A department that is not fit to handle such power alongside its other responsibilities. In other words, these actions are demonstrative of a party, and a Chancellor, who has little grasp of what he is actually doing besides holding onto crude figures. Though my urging will have little effect on such a party, I do urge my colleagues in other parties to have respect for the nations of the United Kingdom and vote down at least these elements of what is, frankly, a quite shocking disregard for history and the right way of doing things.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
I'm a bit lost on all the impact of various TSR previous bills.

If we are still in the EU, surely a minimum rate of VAT is required, after something Thatcher signed up to.

Any funding for the introduction of the 99p coin or with the abolition of the DfT, for any new railways?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by Morgsie)
Yes I have, I am appalled with the closure of Departments because In the case of Rail Franchises they span various Local Authorities, In other words some decisions should be taken at the National level
Indeed, there will still be a minister for transport, he will just report to Lipvig.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by Rakas21)
Indeed, there will still be a minister for transport, he will just report to Lipvig.
Shades of the Heath super departments, or that of John Prescott in 1997? Hope the new minister has a good right hand for electioneering!
0
reply
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
This is full of errors. Your treatment of B397 is odd. The VAT reduction in there takes into account the lower costs from enforcement, so to then reduce the budgets here is double counting. You've made no effort to account for the improved state of the economy. It's also odd that you'd want to pick an arbitrary figure for Narcotics taxes, and to continue with the (far too high) taxes on Alcohol and Tobacco (which are incredibly regressive).

The income tax changes are odd, I'd much rather keep bringing it down across the board, corporation tax is one of the least damaging taxes - since it's on profits not revenues (and so I'd much rather focus on getting rid of income tax completely first). You've also completely misunderstood the Resident's Income - people being laid off will not increase welfare payments. On that note, you guys really should be increasing the rates in line with the new 2012 research on the topic.

In addition, I think it's a bit irresponsible to be increasing the deficit with it standing at circa £78bn.

It's an odd one, and there some stuff in there I support, but it's very muddled. Needless to say, I think we'll produce a better mix of tax changes in the near future. Oh, and how are you going to let local authorities fund the extra spending they now have to take on?
0
reply
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
I'm somewhat concerned that the extra responsibilities devolved to councils will require significant extra funding, which will in turn counteract the effects of national tax reductions.

Well done on putting so much work into the budget though.
0
reply
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by Morgsie)
NO WAY
Would you care to expand in depth as to what you are opposed to?
0
reply
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by tehFrance)
Completely support this budget, well done everyone :banana:

Popping-Champagne-cork.jpg
Cheers!
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by Morgsie)
Yes I have, I am appalled with the closure of Departments because In the case of Rail Franchises they span various Local Authorities, In other words some decisions should be taken at the National level
Allowing transport issues to be devolved to the local level will lead to improvements where they are demanded by the electorate. We here up at central Government have no grasp over what the transport needs of a tiny little town in say Wales would be, but the local representatives understand the needs of this town and it's people, so one would hope that its interests are served much better. That being said, as Rakas has said already, there will still be a Minister for Transport within the DCLG itself. For a long time, Transport and Local Government were actually part of the same department in real life anyway, and that worked fine for years. If there needs to be a railway that spans several local Government jurisdictions, then the Minister for Transport can help facilitate communications between these bodies, it is just the funding will come from local sources instead.


(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
There are a few things in this budget which are quite alarming and demonstrative of the lack of respect the Conservatives have for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. You intend transferring governance of the Arts from the DCMS to the Arts Council. That's fine, but there are four of them: the Arts Council (in England); the Arts Council of Wales; the Scottish Arts Council; and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland. Which of these is your chosen Arts Council? A little bit more detail is necessary before you simply close things down in the name of money. Similarly, you intend sacrificing the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In a body which has no devolution, this is a particularly odd thing to do. In all instances, especially with regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland, this transfers an enormous amount of power to the Department of Local Government. A department that is not fit to handle such power alongside its other responsibilities. In other words, these actions are demonstrative of a party, and a Chancellor, who has little grasp of what he is actually doing besides holding onto crude figures. Though my urging will have little effect on such a party, I do urge my colleagues in other parties to have respect for the nations of the United Kingdom and vote down at least these elements of what is, frankly, a quite shocking disregard for history and the right way of doing things.
I find your attack dissatisfying, I was born in England, and I'm pretty sure Rakas was born in Scotland, so even in our leadership team we already have a representation for the two largest constituent nations of the country. To say we have no respect is unfounded when we come from all over the UK and thus have an interest to keep things good in our home constituent nations.

First, consider that a typo overlooked by myself and the Government, change "Arts Council" to "Arts Councils". Arts in each constituent nation can be managed by their respective arts councils without the need for an entire ministry devoted to it. I like art, but we don't need a department for it so the councils can manage it, and I'm sure they'd do a much better job of it too.

Secondly, whilst these SoS positions are to be removed, they will be replaced with Minister of State positions, taken on by people who shall be invited to Government meetings in the same way which current SoS's are. These ministers are very much their respective Secretary of States in everything but name. The only reason they can't be called SoS is because they no longer head-up a whole department. But they can easily work within DCLG, and in fact prosper there. With all four constituent nations based there, cohesion between the ministers and each nation's interest can be better handled. Closing down these departments has nothing to do with making savings or clinging to crude figures of whatever you claim which I find offensive: the savings are tiny, way within the margin of error so that is not what we are trying to achieve with this. It is about making Government smaller and working better, having these ministers working in the same place is an improvement as they can work together, along with the resources of the DCLG which I am certain will be useful at some point in their day to day operations. Why have smaller departments dotted all around when you can have similar portfolios operating out of the same place, it makes more sense and actually can improve the services provided. And the small cost of their operations will bring no negative impact to DCLG at all.


(Original post by barnetlad)
I'm a bit lost on all the impact of various TSR previous bills.

If we are still in the EU, surely a minimum rate of VAT is required, after something Thatcher signed up to.

Any funding for the introduction of the 99p coin or with the abolition of the DfT, for any new railways?
TSR law overrules EU law, so whilst you are 100% correct that the EU has a minimum VAT rate (and thus we couldn't do something like VAT abolition in the real world), MHOC rules allow us to overrule anything we want and we have chosen to overrule that in this case.

I'm afraid not on the 99p coin, maybe another year
See my response to Morgsie for an addressing of your rail concerns.
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
There are a few things in this budget which are quite alarming and demonstrative of the lack of respect the Conservatives have for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. You intend transferring governance of the Arts from the DCMS to the Arts Council. That's fine, but there are four of them: the Arts Council (in England); the Arts Council of Wales; the Scottish Arts Council; and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland. Which of these is your chosen Arts Council? A little bit more detail is necessary before you simply close things down in the name of money. Similarly, you intend sacrificing the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In a body which has no devolution, this is a particularly odd thing to do. In all instances, especially with regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland, this transfers an enormous amount of power to the Department of Local Government. A department that is not fit to handle such power alongside its other responsibilities. In other words, these actions are demonstrative of a party, and a Chancellor, who has little grasp of what he is actually doing besides holding onto crude figures. Though my urging will have little effect on such a party, I do urge my colleagues in other parties to have respect for the nations of the United Kingdom and vote down at least these elements of what is, frankly, a quite shocking disregard for history and the right way of doing things.
Do all four really need an individual arts council given the significance of England over the other regions.

There will still be ministers for each region, think of it as a departmental management change.

Why is it not fit? Do you doubt Lipvig's ability and if so why?

'The right way to do things', i believe your historian bias may be getting in the way.
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

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (69)
23.71%
No (222)
76.29%

Watched Threads

View All