Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR MHoC Budget Report 2016 Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I have highlighted where I have got the £6bn figure from and why I believe the tax will bring in £6bn.



    I'll leave it up to the Education Secretary to elaborate on the individual policy, though, while students may decide to live on in their country of study, they may well decide to return here. My personal view that if someone is committed enough to go abroad to study then they are undoubtedly committed enough to studying. I have seen it too often where people with degrees had got their degrees from an urge to live the "student lifestyle" rather than a desire to learn and as a result, I have people with degrees working beneath me right now and I'm an 18 year old with only GCSEs.

    You didn't address the suggestion that students be required to work here for a period of time in order to receive this funding, or more practically for them to have to repay it if they don't contribute for a set amount of time.

    Does it not make sense to ensure a guaranteed return on the investment? Rather than hoping some of them may decide to go abroad.
    I'll have to leave this up to the Health Secretary though I have written on PFI contracts somewhat briefly with regards to means of cancelling them. A full proposal in the form of a binding SoI will be released in the future with regards to the action the government will take to cancel them and their burden on our health service.

    I will wait for that then.

    We are obliged to seek multilatural disarmament as every other nuclear nation is. Whether or not you see it as possible is irrelevant. By scaling down our nuclear arsenal at least we show we're serious in our intentions. Though, nevertheless, with regards to trident the house both voted against disarmament and full renewal (pesky liberals) so there isn't really an alternative to scaling it down.

    The non-proliferation treaty is not enforceable, and is therefore ignored. It's not just in my view that it is impossible, the prospect that weakening our own defences will convince others to do the same is illogical. If you're going to do this, don't premise it on a falsehood. No other nuclear state will be inspired to do the same just because we have.

    [quote[-Much of the culture section either seems to be frivolous, like the expansion of the Great exhibition of the North, or need not be financed by the state like the investment in football. With the premier league being so lucrative, it seems more apt for them to bear the brunt of the cost.

    The cultural protection fund seems bizarre. Surely the only way to protect such sites is military force? What is mere money going to do against bombs and guns? Will this money be used to arm local militias? And why would the UK be acting unilaterally here, to protect cultural sites far, far away from our borders? Shouldn't this be a concerted international response?
    I'll leave it up to the Culture Secretary and Foreign Secretary to elaborate on this

    Fine.

    [/QUOTE]
    .
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    .
    Ultimately I disagree with forcing people to work here for a number of years. Practically speaking, if a student manages to get a study visa to study somewhere, there's no certainty that they'll get a work visa too.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    The GRT will bring in £63bn a year. If you see the revenue figures, you'll notice that I've not included council tax, business rates, or the current LVT. In contrast to the current LVT we're seeing less revenue being brought in, and compared to keeping council tax and business rates the GRT brings in an extra £9bn per year.

    [b]

    The £700m is coming from the Education Budget. The changes to our tax system mean that we do have more spending power where it can boost our economy and therefore revenues. As for unblocking drains, that will be up to local government which I have, indeed budgeted for.

    [b]

    PFIs are a burden on our Health Service and it's a travesty that they were ever introduced, I am currently drawing up plans as to how we can cancel them at the lowest/or no cost at all.

    I don't believe in cutting these salaries, our NHS like any other organisation needs management. Amazon probably pay people a lot of money, and they could probably save some money by cutting salaries, but why don't they?

    There is no competition on our railways, if a customer doesn't like a particular train service, they can't decide to take another one.

    [b]

    I am confused as to why people see upkeep costs as a problem, we already pay for the upkeep costs, if anything, opening up buck house will help pay for such upkeep costs.
    When has Buck House been seen as a symbol of national unity?

    [b]

    It's important to note that if one were recieving £26k in benefits that it's highly unlikely that they are in a position whereby they can earn anywhere near that much through working (assuming they can work at all). The first concern of the state should always be "are the people in as good a position as they possibly can be", after all, that's why we're in power.

    [b]

    I have said this a few times now but I'll say it again. The house voted against full renewal and full disarmament. If the house votes against descaling trident then it will be a case of de-facto disarmament as we'll have nothing to replace it.




    I know all about reading through comments *sigh*
    Can I think the Chancellor for such a detailed response. I hope that his wifi is better in the coming days.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Can I think the Chancellor for such a detailed response. I hope that his wifi is better in the coming days.
    No worries, and I hope so too
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    don't get me wrong, I very strongly support stripping back PFI btw

    would be interesting if you could pull some **** like abolishing and re-making the NHS so the entity with which they've contracted no longer exists
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    don't get me wrong, I very strongly support stripping back PFI btw

    would be interesting if you could pull some **** like abolishing and re-making the NHS so the entity with which they've contracted no longer exists
    Damn, that was actually one of my ideas
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh I have been recently inactive, and haven't bothered to read this thread, Great effort on the budget btw. Looks like I've been summoned.

    With the sovereign grant at the moment, the government is not allowed to decrease the amount of the grant, so the Monarch doesn't feel austerity when some other vital departments do. Since this doesn't make sense, I think the government should have the discretion to decrease the amount if they feel the Monarch is generating more than enough income to sustain itself. I doubt this objective can be very controversial. Nothing is forced, it can still increase, but they have the option to decrease if they want.

    Hope that clears the air. Feel free to vent and ask provoking questions in my direction, in regard to monarchy reform, of course.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Lol. You've not misread, you've misunderstood. To borrow £100bn it costs £2bn per year.

    IT will cost £2bn a year to pay back, with revenues of £2.5bn a year.
    A said in AtG, you're simply engaging in dodgy accounting, not doing it correctly.

    And you truly have outdone yourself this time, not even managing repudiations.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    > Raise the Personal Allowance to £12,500

    Good.

    > Raise the Higher rate threshold to £50,000

    Will be canon anyway by 2020 but okay.

    > Reintroduce the 50% tax rate on earnings over £150,000

    Hell no.

    > Reform the LVT into a Land only Rental Value Tax

    I'll wait for the bill.

    > Lower VAT to 15%

    Good.

    > Increase Inheritance Tax to 50% and remove the exemptions of unquoted Business assets and agricultural land

    Hell no.

    > Introducing a 20% Sugar Tax to put the health of our nation first (£1bn)

    Good.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    > Reform the LVT into a Land only Rental Value Tax

    I'll wait for the bill.
    As for this, we released an amendment before, now we're just working on the second reading, it should be out tomorrow night.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    x
    Does the Rt Hon Gentleman have any intention to offer rebuttals to the content of the quoted post, many times they have been challenged to defending their travesty of a spending review and yet every time they have skulked off into the shadows unwilling to offer any rebuttals, nor to accept that they have grossly understated the deficit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    This is a broadly agreeable budget that does definitely help those who need it. There are some things I would like to see removed from the budget - namely the reduction of trident and the changing of the funding to the monarchy.
    The Chancellor is a Jeremy Lite- Also the sugar tax would be revised down as many companies would put sweetners in their products opposed to sugar. I read a news paper article which said Coca Cola was planning on dodging the sugar tax through use of sweeteners - All it will cause is a backlash and less products would be sold meaning the £1bn target may be a bit far fetched
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHelpfulMan)
    The Chancellor is a Jeremy Lite- Also the sugar tax would be revised down as many companies would put sweetners in their products opposed to sugar. I read a news paper article which said Coca Cola was planning on dodging the sugar tax through use of sweeteners - All it will cause is a backlash and less products would be sold meaning the £1bn target may be a bit far fetched
    I can't say I have a problem with that.

    After all, it's sugar that causes the major problems.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I can't say I have a problem with that.

    After all, it's sugar that causes the major problems.
    Its a broken idea though I also have serious disputes with the figure Milibanter has seemingly plucked out of the air. http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/wri...eport_2015.pdf Page 8 of this report shows that the fizzy drinks market is worth £15.7 Billion a 20 percent tax providing sales do not drop would reak the government 3 Billion pound- thats 97 Bn down on what Milibanter has said and if you took sugar or reduced sugar out of a lot of these products it will decrease demand- but here is the problem it will save the NHS money but It is very hard to monitor if every product has the sugar content stated in. You will either have to have a a body such as trading standards esqcue to monitor all of this . Also what would the threshold be. Sugar is in more or less every thing we consume
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHelpfulMan)
    Its a broken idea though I also have serious disputes with the figure Milibanter has seemingly plucked out of the air. http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/wri...eport_2015.pdf Page 8 of this report shows that the fizzy drinks market is worth £15.7 Billion a 20 percent tax providing sales do not drop would reak the government 3 Billion pound- thats 97 Bn down on what Milibanter has said and if you took sugar or reduced sugar out of a lot of these products it will decrease demand- but here is the problem it will save the NHS money but It is very hard to monitor if every product has the sugar content stated in. You will either have to have a a body such as trading standards esqcue to monitor all of this . Also what would the threshold be. Sugar is in more or less every thing we consume
    I would expect it to be banded based on either percentage or absolute added sugar content, with a 0% rate band for products below a certain content.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I would expect it to be banded based on either percentage or absolute added sugar content, with a 0% rate band for products below a certain content.
    So you don't even know? Communication at it's very gratest. I have another question for you/Milibanter- why are you sending £600,000,000 to a country which we went to war with- and we will be there again in a few years, I have friends in the Army and they say the Afghan war on terrorism had a secret motive to stop drug dealing so If we do this in real life we would be contributing 600 million quid so they could upgrade their war kit? I think this needs explaining a little more
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I can't say I have a problem with that.

    After all, it's sugar that causes the major problems.
    Lol, it's like when the Daily Mail said that you could get around the 5p bag charge by bringing your own bags.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Lol, it's like when the Daily Mail said that you could get around the 5p bag charge by bringing your own bags.
    Well that is a charge which is unfair anyway- You are effectively paying to advertise a company, I think if they want to charge for carrier bags they will need to take all logos of them. When you buy a carrier bag your effectively a walking advertising board for them
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHelpfulMan)
    So you don't even know? Communication at it's very gratest. I have another question for you/Milibanter- why are you sending £600,000,000 to a country which we went to war with- and we will be there again in a few years, I have friends in the Army and they say the Afghan war on terrorism had a secret motive to stop drug dealing so If we do this in real life we would be contributing 600 million quid so they could upgrade their war kit? I think this needs explaining a little more
    When we look to pass the sugar tax into law the Chancellor will of course write up a detailed bill.

    We went to war with a Taliban-led Afghan government - that government is no longer in place and a non-enemy government is in power instead. They will be the recipients of this money.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHelpfulMan)
    Well that is a charge which is unfair anyway- You are effectively paying to advertise a company, I think if they want to charge for carrier bags they will need to take all logos of them. When you buy a carrier bag your effectively a walking advertising board for them
    They should have to take their logo of all of their other products then as well I guess?

    If you want a bag without a company logo, buy one without a company logo, rather than one with a logo on at the supermarket checkout. Simples.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.