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

TSR MHoC Budget Report 2016 Watch

Announcements
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    You have done so already on a multiple of occasions.
    prsom
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I am in charge of financing policy and budgeting for departments, individual policy other than the policies that I have introduced myself are best left to their proposers to make the case for. You have questions about the taxes? Great, come to me. You have questions about spending? Great, ask me. You have questions about the NES? Then ask the proposer of the policy as he'll walk you through.it better than I can.
    Then offer me a repudiation (I think a refutation is a bit much, you're not great on those), but may I also remind you that the task of the treasury goes beyond the budget and other spending reviews, you should be able to say to several of the proposals "don't give me arbitrary figures", but you do accept arbitrary figures that don't even pass a rationality check.

    No, which is why there will be an end of term review also. The budget is non binding, it can only be enacted through SoIs and a finance bill. That's not to say that there shouldn't be a debate. It outlines the approach that the Government is taking economically and any spending increases or reductions in certain departments also.
    Care to read the post again, where did you get this crystal ball?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Then offer me a repudiation (I think a refutation is a bit much, you're not great on those), but may I also remind you that the task of the treasury goes beyond the budget and other spending reviews, you should be able to say to several of the proposals "don't give me arbitrary figures", but you do accept arbitrary figures that don't even pass a rationality check.
    Well, what do you want to know?

    Care to read the post again, where did you get this crystal ball?
    If for some reason the Government doesn't make it to the end of the term then so be it. I don't know what you want me to do about that.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Well, what do you want to know?



    If for some reason the Government doesn't make it to the end of the term then so be it. I don't know what you want me to do about that.
    I believe it is page 5.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    [/b][/color]
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    [/size]
    As has been said already, you will not get £6bn from the reintroduction of the 50p rate. To highlight this, Labour estimated that over the first 3 years of the 50p tax rate the extra revenues from it over the 40p rate was only £10bn, so what you are suggesting is half the increase will, in a third of the time, raise 60% this amount, and HMRC estimate the figure to be £100m, which the OBR deem a reasonable estimate

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25895480

    The Ground rent tax, whilst less punitive than the LVT, is still highly punitive on on 2.7m households in the private rented sector, with average payments of £3236.40 p/a, £2660.40 for those outside London, and approximately £5500 in Greater London, this is significantly higher than the council tax ty were paying before, and leads to a significant decrease in taxation for the richest in society who are now relieved on council tax all together. Further, based on the above figures, the revenues from individuals living in the private rented sector will only be approximately £9bn p/a. Supposing this £63bn figure is accurate, I assume that the majority of the remaining £54bn will be on rents for commercial buildings, costs that will be passed on to the consumer, an average of nearly £1000 per person, yet again, something that will hit the poorest hardest, so much for a progressive system.


    The Ground rent Tax is being amended, and the second reading will be released imminently. I must say that your stance is confusing as The Libertarians introduced the tax at 40% and the Tories later increased it to 52%. A 30% tax is beyond reasonable, and seeing as the land only rental value of land not owned by the public sector is £210bn (as can be seen on the ATA), whilst the majority of the tax will be on commercial property it won't be affecting consumer goods as per a previous debate that I had with you suggested.

    Finally, in all likelihood a sugar tax will do little good, merely looking at the case of the Danish introducing a tax on saturated fats we can see that it is an ineffective and regressive tax, yet again, a so called progressive government hitting the poorest hardest.


    We've already gone over the Sugar tax, it will be a tax on products that have a harmful level of sugar, and could also be implemented on products that use potentially harmful sweeteners also.

    It would be nice if we were told what £3bn p/a is being thrown at, seems somewhat reminiscent of a certain SoI that was withdrawn after only a day for simply throwing money at things without looking at current budgets or what it will be spent on. After this winter's once in a generation rainfall certainly the environment agency's recommendations for spending will increase, four fold, I'm somewhat sceptical, populist throwing of money at a percieved problem without finding out what actually needs doing first.


    The money willbe spent on a variety of flood defence schemes in the nations most at risk areas. Similar to the ones that have been used before except there will be more of them. We're looking at portable defences, flood and coastal defences, flood storage reservoirs, land management and a number of infratructure investments in roads and bridges.

    This strikes me as a severe area of concern. The cancellation of the PFI contracts will, in a best case scenario, decrease the nations credit rating and further amplify the crashes we are seeing on the FTSE. Worst case is that additional to this we see expensive and unwinnable legal battles costing vast sums of money just for the courts to say "pay up", so best case we save a bit of money in one place just to lose it somewhere else, worst case we don't even get the savings.


    It's very possible that even by buying out PFI contracts that we can still save money, though there are ways of going about it without having to spend as I have mentioned before.

    Regarding increased funding for CAMHS, what a vague comment, what increase? Is it by 1p, or £1bn, it's a meaningless statement without a figure put behind it.


    It will be up to the Health Secretary to decide, though it is to be included in the £12bn of extra funding that the NHS needs.

    As for the first, this will merely increase strain on the NHS, as for the second, is this going to be free somehow?
    This is why we've pumped the NHS will further capital, so it can do all that it needs to do. The back to work assessment has been nothing short of a disaster, and moving it to GPs will do a world of good.
    It is good to see that for once the government actually managed to listen to complains ad, mostly, hasn't gone the Labour way of simply throwing money at things for the sake of spending, however, this trident "saving" amounts to the effective scrapping, this is not multilateral disarmament, it is de facto unilateral disarmament,something rejected both by this house and the population at large, with the need to dock or decommission most of the fleet and decommission the vast majority of weapons. The docking of 2 boats and total disarmament or the docking of all 4 with some disarmament would achieve this cut, I can only assume that the approach will be the docking of 3 boats and an approximate halving of the nuclear arsenal meaning a loss of always at sea deterrence and barely enough weapons ready for use to outfit even that 1 boat using the current 3 warheads per missile.


    Trident has to be scaled back, we can't have full renewal because the house voted against it and nor can we have full disarmament because the house voted against that too. We halving our nuclear arsenal, which means we won't have an always at sea deterrent, but in all fairness we won't need one.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2...land-32236184: Regarding the cost of renewal.

    What we do see however is that the government took the criticism of ANY funding for precision weapons and merely decreased it. Once again we must ask is a CEP of lewss than 1m insufficient? How much more accurate does the government want its weapons, and what sort of weapons, as the R&D costs varies wildly? The R&D cost of the Tomahawk cruise missile, for instance, was in the region of £5bn and I'm not even sure if that is inflation adjusted, given it was developed in the 70s


    This is an annual Budget and as such, the R&D won't stop this year. The Tomahawk cruise missile didn't take 1 year of R&D, it took several and as such the annual cost of its R&D wouldn't have been £5bn.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I must say that I like the Income Tax changes and the VAT cut, it's a shame there's nothing on NI in here though
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I must say that I like the Income Tax changes and the VAT cut, it's a shame there's nothing on NI in here though
    NI was a hotly contested issue in the Government, there was an idea to merge it with income tax, but I was opposed to it because I didn't believe that merging them would result in wages increasing by enough to counter people paying more tax.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    NI was a hotly contested issue in the Government, there was an idea to merge it with income tax, but I was opposed to it because I didn't believe that merging them would result in wages increasing by enough to counter people paying more tax.
    Ah, fair enough.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with NI is how much revenue it brings in which means it's hard to get rid off. It brings in £120bil overall. My search for it be broken down between employee contributions and employer contributions has proven fruitless but I would estimate from the rates that it's about £45bil and £75bil respectively.

    Employee contributions could quite easily be transferred into income tax (as they are after all simply an additional income tax anyway).

    Employer contributions on the other hand are basically a tax on companies for employing people, which whilst sounding ridiculous (because it is), are a tax that business can't avoid as easily as corporation tax. As such, the shortfall of removing them can't simply be made up by increasing corporation tax, as this would only increase tax avoidance so quite simply no matter what rate it is set at, it is never going to claw back that difference.

    So as ridiculous as it is to tax companies simply for having staff rather than on the profits they make, it can't be changed using conventional means of raising tax revenues (although I think a sufficiently large LVT could do the trick, although it would need to start pretty low and gradually be raised, with the NI being gradually reduced over time and eventually removed).

    Lime-man James Milibanter
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Will the MPs be given a chance to vote on these hypothetical spending plans?
    As has been mentioned the Budget in itself is not binding, each proposal will need to pass the House as a bill or SOI though. Usually Budgets are not voted on though I have no major objections with allowing some sort of vote, if there's a lot of demand for it. However this vote would presumably not be binding. Or at least the individual elements of the budget would still be eligible to go through Division as normal. It's an interesting situation actually.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    As has been mentioned the Budget in itself is not binding, each proposal will need to pass the House as a bill or SOI though. Usually Budgets are not voted on though I have no major objections with allowing some sort of vote, if there's a lot of demand for it. However this vote would presumably not be binding. Or at least the individual elements of the budget would still be eligible to go through Division as normal. It's an interesting situation actually.
    Thank you for the response, I thought budgets followed the real life procedure where they are voted on after the debate has ended.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Thank you for the response, I thought budgets followed the real life procedure where they are voted on after the debate has ended.
    I'll admit I'd thought so to until recently. Perhaps this is an example of where MHoC procedure could be changed to be closer to RL?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    This debate has concluded.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • 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.