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

TSR MHoC Budget Report 2016 Watch

Announcements
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm also checking with one of my RL treasury friends about whether you can actually put stuff in the budget that is yet to be approved, because I'm pretty sure you can't.
    Technically none of this has been approved because the Budget hasn't been passed?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Technically none of this has been approved because the Budget hasn't been passed?
    What I'm meaning is that there are things being budgeted for that are yet to even be put forwards and whether they can be included in a budget despite this, whether the budget is passed or not

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As I said, whilst it is not de jura a tax on consumption, it de facto is. If to pay for it we see a price hike of 20% the ultimate effect is an extra 20% tax on consumption, which is regressive. You can dress it up however you like but the ultimate effect is regressive taxation. And you say that is shouldn't be any higher than council tax for those in the cheapest properties, but what is the lowest easy to find rents? £80 a week? That's a tax of about £1300 a year, and there are few councils that charge that sort of price, even for the higher band properties, consider that the £80 a week would likely be in a lower band and you're almost certainly looking at a significant increase.

    So it should be done much faster but you still approve of a meagre 10,000 a year? The RL government puts your plans to shame.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The tax is on land only rent.

    No it's too slow.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    The tax is on land only rent.
    This is far from clear and impossibly difficult to get an accurate calculation of.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    The tax is on land only rent.
    I thought you understood it...


    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is far from clear and impossibly difficult to get an accurate calculation of.
    That's because Ground Rent is not what he thinks it is.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What I'm meaning is that there are things being budgeted for that are yet to even be put forwards and whether they can be included in a budget despite this, whether the budget is passed or not

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are right, the government cannot, this plan is based on a sugar tax that has not been detailed, a land tax with errors, and ambiguous spending plans; this is not a budget, it is a hypothetical spending review if legislation, that has not been written, is passed in the future.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is far from clear and impossibly difficult to get an accurate calculation of.
    Admitadely the definition is poor but the links below gave a mildly accurate picture. After all ground rent is paid by many people who live in leaseholds.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That's because Ground Rent is not what he thinks it is.
    It is "rent paid under the terms of a lease by the owner of a building to the owner of the land on which it is built.".
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Admitadely the definition is poor but the links below gave a mildly accurate picture. After all ground rent is paid by many people who live in leaseholds.


    It is "rent paid under the terms of a lease by the owner of a building to the owner of the land on which it is built.".
    So why is it that you do not actually understand it, something you are yet to demonstrate?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So why is it that you do not actually understand it, something you are yet to demonstrate?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The price is not the same as full rental price which you seem to be basing your calculations on.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    The price is not the same as full rental price which you seem to be basing your calculations on.
    When I get home I shall provide explanations by people who's job it is to understand.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    And another night goes by with no rebuttals from the chancellor

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    James Milibanter

    Will the Chancellor be answering any questions posed in this thread, or only the ones that suit him? By not answering questions, he is bring this government into disrepute. I look forward to reading the responses of my questions in the coming day or so.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Can I ask the Chancellor what he intends doing about corporation tax in the light of the disgraceful decision to let Google off with a very small payment in settlement for the last 10 years or so? Would he support all large corporations having to pay a minimum amount or percentage of UK sales income in corporation tax regardless of alleged profit or loss?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm also checking with one of my RL treasury friends about whether you can actually put stuff in the budget that is yet to be approved, because I'm pretty sure you can't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Everything in the budget has to be approved. The tax changes need a finance bill and the departmental budgets need approval with an SoI.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    James Milibanter

    Will the Chancellor be answering any questions posed in this thread, or only the ones that suit him? By not answering questions, he is bring this government into disrepute. I look forward to reading the responses of my questions in the coming day or so.
    The Chancellor has had some 'Wifi woes' unfortunately, so he's not been as active as he would have hoped. Though at this point he has connection so here is some of that precious "question answering" that everyone has been longing for.

    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Can I ask the Chancellor what he intends doing about corporation tax in the light of the disgraceful decision to let Google off with a very small payment in settlement for the last 10 years or so? Would he support all large corporations having to pay a minimum amount or percentage of UK sales income in corporation tax regardless of alleged profit or loss?
    This may not be a popular answer to the question but it's what I believe, there is already a sales tax and it's called VAT. Personally I'd rather we raised corporation tax and lowered VAT, but at 20% and 15% (respectively) they're at reasonable levels. I'm not going to give the spiel about how google are wealth generators and what's best for them is best for the economy. There are a series of tax avoidance legislations that I'm looking into which should claw back in the revenue lost by the big companies that are quite frankly, a little too big for their boots.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    There may have been a little Liberal input but the Liberal Secretaries of State not putting forward their plans for their departments, or requesting changes to their funding makes this a Labour budget by default. I have been told by someone heavily involved in writing the budget thehistorybore did not put forward the Ministry of Defence's proposals for the term which resulted in defence seeing a reduction, it is this lack of effort from Liberal Secretaries of State that has created the Labour budget.

    If the Chancellor is concerned about lowering consumption charges the decision to tax sugar is baffling, the human diet needs sugar in small amounts but the tax on sugar will hit the poorest the hardest. The costing for the 50p tax rate generating £3bn is taken from finding the average between the inflated figure Labour originally stated, and the higher figure from HMT, but the figure of £100m from the IFS has been ignored.
    The Sugar Tax will not be a tax on all sugar, I'm not proposing a Tax on apples. As the Health Secretary will confirm, it will be a tax on products which have a sugar contents that's particularly high, so sweets, carbonated soft drinks, unhealthy ready meals, that sort of thing.

    (Original post by The Financier)
    Before considering the contents of the report, a thank you must go to James for the time he has spent on this. There is much to go through, which is a credit to the amount of work this would have needed. On the other hand, the lack of any sources for research nor the methodology of calculation for the figures in this budget (a simple google sheet is sufficient) spoils this and would have made for a budget that would be more accountable. Nevertheless, the efforts of the Chancellor should most certainly be commended..
    I Thank the Shadow Chancellor for his comments and as for the sources, if it helps I'll compile a google sheet for him.

    Starting with tax reforms:

    Raising the Personal Allowance to £12,500 and the Higher rate threshold - A welcome increase for the middle class

    Reintroduction of the 50% rate on earnings over £150,000 - The calculated revenues are at significant odds with HMRC research and are too simplistic. The IFS studied the implications two years ago which found the reintroduction of the 50% rate is likely to bring in as little as £100m. As such, the rationale behind this tax hike is purely ideological and the projected £6bn in revenues is rather nonsensical.
    The tax changes will be welcomed by all, no matter if they're on low, middle, high, or very high incomes. I reject the notion that the additional rate being 50% will only bring in £100m, and I'll explain why.

    The people who claim the figure will be in the hundreds of millions claim so based on a tax system that isn't in place in the RL UK. Thanks to the other changes it is still a tax cut for the majority of the population. The money for the increased personal allowance and the increased higher rate threshold had to come from somewhere. According to HMRC itself, the revenue raised by the 50p tax rate is over £6bn.



    But that doesn't matter much, because thanks to the other changes, until you're earning over £200,000 you're still getting a tax cut.

    Reform the LVT to a Rental Value Tax - I remain sceptical as to the negative impact the proposal in the house may have on housing supply for long term renters in places like London where it is needed most.
    We're building 500,000 council homes, a lot of which, will be in London. This will ease the rental market as Landlords will have to lower their rates in order to compete with the State. The Rental Value tax didn't take long to work out in terms of the numbers. The sources for it are all on the alternative tax (amendment) bill, for which I'll be releasing a second reading or including in a finance bill a little later on.

    Lower VAT to 15% - I'm in two minds on this in that whilst I recognise it is a regressive tax, I would prefer a smaller reduction in the rate (perhaps 17.5%) whilst a budget deficit exists at this stage in the interests of financial soundness. At a time of low inflation a fall in the rate of VAT is unlikely to add a significant amount to what consumers are already feeling.
    I believe that when it's between the economy and the deficit, the economy comes first. We have low inflation at the moment, adding onto that a fall in VAT, adding onto that people paying less income tax, adding onto that people not paying council tax, people have more money to spend and as such can contribute to their local economies which in turn boosts the national economy, which in turn boosts HMRC's revenues, which in turn closes the deficit. When you look at the proposals individually, you miss out on a lot, but when they're looked at holistically, you see the bigger picture of what I'm trying to achieve with this budget. State investment to kick-start the economy, lower taxes on income and consumption to increase spending, and higher taxes on wealth to encourage economic activity.

    Increasing Inheritance Tax to 50% - It has often struck me that this tax is rather unfair due to its double taxation nature, and public attitudes seem to align with this. The Fabian Society recently found unanimous opposition across the political spectrum of voters they polled to taxing inheritance. An increase in the rate will only impact those who aren't rich enough to employ the tax planners that will find loopholes around it.
    I reject the notion that it will make poorer people worse off. For one, I've removed some of the exemptions that are employed to shimmy around the tax, and for another, the threshold is still £1m.

    Introduction of 20% Sugar Tax
    - If you are to propose a sugar tax, you need to be more upfront about the reasoning behind it. It is not the same as taxing cigarettes, where the substitutes are definitely less hazardous. There are too many similar substitutes that remain high in calories for this to have a meaningful impact on health and as the Institute of Economic Affairs highlights, it is financially regressive as the poor spend a much higher proportion of their income on such products. The £1bn you generate will be off the backs of those who are least able to afford it.
    Stating that a tax placed on goods containing dangerous levels of sugar will cause poorer people to be worse off is simply absurd. That would mean either 1) The market is trying to kill off poor people by making it the case that they can only eat foods that will give them diabetes before they're 40, 2) poor people are lazy and they only eat whatever's easiest (more sugary products) 3) The poor people all ignore the healthier options that have just become cheaper than the unhealthy ones due to not being eligible for the Sugar Tax.

    Now onto "Investing in our nation" (I note beforehand that you claim to be investing in electric cars, offshore winds and solar energy but have provisioned nothing in the budget for it. The funds required are likely to be significant so unless you always intended it to be a misleading soundbite, you should really specify the funds in the budget lest it not be an actual policy):
    Due to the whole departmental report showing exactly what the department's budget was going on, I didn't think its inclusion in the budget was necessary. Nowhere else have I included every single thing that the department was going to do when I've already explained so explicitly previously. If I had included all that was in the DECC report, it would have been claimed that I was just trying to boost the word count, when in actual fact I'd been trying to get the wordcount down in order to fit the budget into one post.

    500,000 Council Homes
    - Where will these be built? New homes are currently being built in England's highest-risk flood areas at twice the rate of housing outside flood plains so I am concerned as to whether you'll be placing more people at flood risk with this policy. It is futile to increase the flood defence spending if you exasperate the problem.
    The homes will be going where they're needed most, mainly in cities. When the Rt Hon Home Secretary releases his SoI on the matter it will all be made clear.

    Loans to students going abroad
    - Highly against. Foreign degrees are already cheaper and making it easier for students to go abroad will contribute to talent drain from the country at a time when we need to retain our brightest students the most.
    National Education Service:

    Without seeing what the National Education Service actually is, I'm unable to comment on the appropriateness of the funds it's been allocated. The Government should really have established this first before it was given funding.[/quote]

    These will be things best addressed by the Health Secretary and Minister of Business, Investment and Lifelong Learning.

    I believe that cranbrook_aspie has already given a brief overview of what the NES will do. But ultimately it's education for the Over 25s.

    Health Service and Railways:

    Cancelling PFI contracts - As already mentioned, this will lead to significant compensation costs which aren't accounted for in the budget. Efforts should be made to strengthen the NHS' bargaining power when procuring supplies, not merely funnelling more money at it.

    Rail Franchise takeovers - I struggle to see why this will make a huge difference. It is well known that most lines are at capacity, especially during rush hour. Making it public run does nothing to address the supply side issue. If you're cutting fares, you're still not doing anything to improve the quality of the journey, which won't be solved until capacity is added.

    TFL bidding - Is this wise at a time when it's not even self-sufficient? Until TFL no longer requires grant funding, it lacks the competitiveness to fulfil the contracts without state support.

    Funding for CAMHS - An increase is welcome, though you haven't actually specified how much extra is being provided.

    NHS Spending - The point has already been made several times, but efforts should be made to manage the increasing cost of the NHS, not just fuelling it with extra money. We all value its service, however proper financial management will ensure more is gained out of the money we spend on it.
    I've already written my plans for cancelling the PFI contracts below, as for the transport plans, the TFL bidding was one of my own proposals to the Transport Secretary. To say that TFL lacks competitiveness isn't true, it's one of the most efficient in the world. I haven't stated how much extra revenue it would bring in because even if the state covers the costs then it should at least break even, obviously (as the Transport Secretary will attest) it will not bid for contracts where it is expected to make a loss.

    For the NHS, this is a thing for the Health Secretary (Kay_Winters) to discuss in an SoI.

    I have included the measures to be taken by departments because as a mid-term review it is important to not only include what's been done but also what's going to be done. There will also be an end of term review as to what we've achieved in Government and what other measures will be taken should we continue for another term.

    Reforming the Monarchy:

    Buckingham Palace - The increased revenue received from tours will be greatly diminished by the increased upkeep costs. What little extra profit is generated is rather meaningless financially, but diminishes the status of the palace.

    Sovereign Grant - How do you decide how much the Monarch will need for the next financial year? The index percentage of revenues from the crown estate is already reviewed every five years so I see this as unnecessary.
    Our minister for Constitutional Reform is McRite. Though the purposes of his measures aren't for increased revenues, royal expenditure was around £37m in 2014-15, so to have cut those costs even slightly, gives republicans such as myself a little less to shout about. As for the Sovereign grant, I'll allow McRite to elaborate.

    Welfare System:

    You have over-provisioned the benefit cap rather significantly (£60.75m, not 60.75bn? ) I support the introduction of a child benefit cap for three children, a reasonable compromise that the majority of deserving families will be unaffected by.
    Indeed, that was an error.

    I noticed other members pick on the increased Job Seeker's Allowance so I'll use this opportunity to elaborate on that decision. I am someone who has faced frictional unemployment a couple times moving in between jobs, though the current JSA was barely enough to cover travel for the week. I believe that JSA has the purpose of helping people find work, so if people need to top up their phones, travel around to find work, print off CVs, and so on, then the increased allowance will allow them to do so. Too many times have people been hampered from going to interviews due to lack of funds, I know this because it happened to myself and when I enquired about it, I found out that it happens multiple times a day (just in one Job Centre Branch).

    Defence:

    It is immediately clear that this is a neutered rehash of the defence review, yet it addresses none of the issues in the debate before (other than a smaller increase of funding for MI5). The defence policies prescribed do not address the concerns of the armed forces, and are once again reactionary prescriptions to trendy topics, not the main issues. The funding for development of precision warfare ignores the high precision of existing weapons as was highlighted in the SoI. Afghanistan development does not come under the remit of the MoD.

    You also lack specifics as to how you're decreasing the scale of the trident system whilst budgeting a saving of £1.4bn. That you commit to multilateral disarmament when North Korea remain extremely active in pursuing nuclear weapons research highlights the utter incompetence this government has displayed in it's defence policy.
    Wow, there was quite a lot there. I'll address some of these concerns though I'll allow the Defence minister thehistorybore to elaborate if needs be.

    With regards to individual policy, this is a budget report, these policies can be discussed in depth with a departmental review or an SoI. It's not my job to write out people's policies for them, after all, I'm (evidently) a busy guy.

    The Rt Hon member's figures were out by a factor of 10, yet they're still his policies so they've been included in his budget. Like I've said a few times now, nothing in the budget report is binding, it's a report, so it will be up to me to pass a tax/finance bill to get my tax changes through, and it will be up to the other members to get their proposals implemented via an SoI.

    Culture, Communications and Connectivity:

    Super happy about investment in broadband. Generally supportive of most of the tourism ad programs. As much as I enjoy football though, it is unnecessary to provide so much football related funding at a time when the Premier League is enjoying record revenues. They have commercial interests in spreading football abroad, it is unnecessary to pay for them.
    This is something for the Cuture Sec Imperion to go over with you. Though, I must say, that I commend him on forwarding me most in-depth AND Concise plans for his department out of everyone in the Government.

    So to summarise,

    There are a couple of positives in this bill. Investment in broadband is very welcome, as are campaigns to promote tourism to Britain. The maintaining of corporation tax at current levels, as well as the increase in the Personal Allowance and Higher rate thresholds are excellent proposals.

    However the rest of the tax plans in this budget are ideological, unfair and regressive. Whilst the government claims this budget ensures "those with the broadest shoulders bear the most", many of its tax policies will in reality be more likely to impact the poor the hardest. There remains a huge financial and energy security gamble on unproven technology. Compensation for the cancellation of agreed upon contracts is not budgeted and risks tarnishing the reputation of this country for honouring it's dues. It's defence commitments demonstrate how out of touch it is with one of the most fundamentally important areas of policy. Hence, I urge the house to Nay this budget.
    As for the PFIs, to compensate for their cancellation would cost £226bn or around £4bn a year, I do not intend (and neither does the Health secretary) on paying compensation for one of the greatest financial burdens the NHS has ever had to face. To nationalise the Contracts is to nationalise the debt which is something I'm (sensibly) concerned about doing. Whilst the £4bn is an option, there are ongoing discussions that are taking place to decide if that's the best thing to do. Another way of going about the cancellation of the contracts is to stop subsidies, highlighting that the PFI deals are not risk-free and pressure some renegotiations. I believe that the introduction of PFIs into our health service was one of the worst policy decisions by a health secretary in the last 100 years.

    There are plenty more I can say on PFIs, but I will leave it up to myself and the Health Secretary to come up with a proposal that the house can get behind.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    In regards to Health spending, which my honourable friend mentioned, I hope to, as previously stated, try and get my SoI out soon after he budget. I hope this will answer some questions about the funds directed towards the NHS.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    There's obviously been a lot of effort put into this and there are some interesting ideas in there so I'd commend the honourable member on that.

    This will obviously be debated more thoroughly but the largest problems I'd have with this after a first look are as follows:

    -6 billion in revenue from the 50p tax rate? A 2012 HMRC report estimated that the cost of lowering the 50p tax rate to 45p would be 100 million per year, so I don't know where this figure comes from. This tax is more ideological than economical, and will have a negative effect on business which the modest increase in revenue won't counterbalance. In a service-based economy, penalising the best talent like this is ill-advised.
    I have highlighted where I have got the £6bn figure from and why I believe the tax will bring in £6bn.

    -The part about funding students is needless. Any UK student studying in other EU countries will pay little, and plenty of students take advantage of this, either through Erasmus schemes or full degrees abroad. The EU is also investing billions into helping making studying in the EU cheaper, which makes this measure fairly obsolete on the EU level.

    As for studying in the USA, the UK will either have to provide hundreds of thousands of pounds in loan money per student, or provide so little funding that it will not incentivise anyone to go study there. There is also no guarantee of a return on this investment. If you are going to implement this, shouldn't you impose a requirement that the students benefiting from this funding should then have to work for a set amount of time in the UK? Otherwise it's money thrown down the drain since these internationally minded students may well go and use their talents in other countries.
    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.

    -Cancelling PFI contracts would incur significant costs in terms of compensation, which seemingly haven't been taken into account in the budget. Rather than just trying to fund the ever-increasing cost of the NHS it would have been nice to see some reference to the fact that the NHS overpays to an obscene degree when it comes to their equipment. Properly funding the NHS need not and should not be limited to providing more and more money.
    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.

    -Multilateral disarmament? No other nuclear state has the slightest intention of getting rid of their nuclear weapons, and good luck persuading the likes of Russia and North Korea to do so. If you want to scale down our nuclear capability at least admit it will be unilateral, rather than entertaining an impossible pipe-dream.
    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.

    [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?[/QUOTE]

    I'll leave it up to the Culture Secretary and Foreign Secretary to elaborate on this

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    That is what I was referring to with the political can of worms.
    I have written briefly on the PFI contracts.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Ok I have had a good look through the budget now.

    First of all I would like to thank the right honourable gentlemen for putting together a detailed budget. Let us hope this kind of Government efficiency can continue right through this turn.

    Taxation
    - You state that reforming the Land Value Tax into a Ground Rent Tax will bring in £63 billion a year. Is this £63 billion extra a year, and if not does that mean the calculations on the change in revenue is completely wrong?
    - I would like to welcome the introduction of a Sugar Tax. Whilst this may be an unpopular view in my party I believe that helping the nations health is something all governments should strive to work for. What will my right honourable friend be spending the £1 billion on, and will it go to health related causes?
    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.

    Investing in our Nation
    - By offering £700 million in student loans to study abroad, we are taking away £700 million away from other causes. Where will this £700 million come from?
    - Again, I welcome the increase in flood defence spending. Will my right honourable friend commit to not only building flood defences, but using some of the budget to carry out vital work unblocking drains which, in my area, nearly caused 6 hours to be flooded on 1 street.
    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.

    Improving our health and rail services
    - By cancelling contracts, the government runs the risk of looking like a government who would stop at nothing just to control more services. Would a gradual uptake of services to the state not be better in the long run so that the government can make sure the NHS can handle what it has at the moment, rather then making a mess of things all at once
    .- "948 NHS Managers got paid more then £100000 in 2014". "The average pay packet taken home by hospital CEO's is around £190000." - Whilst these people do a tremendous amount of work for the NHS, and they should be praised for it, would the right honourable gentlemen not agree that cutting these salaries would raise much needed funds for the NHS, no matter how much it would raise?
    - Nationalising the rail service will result in less competition and higher prices. The government will have another area to tax and, in times of crisis, use the rail service to gain funds for the government. I believe the current competition is the best way for prices to remain at a low price.
    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.

    Reforming the Monarch
    - I repeat my earlier sentiments in an earlier post about who will pay for the upkeep of this royal household? All funds from Buckingham Palace open days currently go to the Royal Households Trust so I presume by taking that away you would pay for the upkeep and maintain it at its current level, if not increasing it.
    - Buckingham Palace has often been seen as a symbol of national unity in times of crisis. By making it a more public building, you run the risk of Buckingham Palace becoming less of a focal point and more of another British Building that has been their for years.
    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?

    Creating a welfare statement that works for us all
    - I broadly welcome the points made in this section, however by increasing the benefit cap, you get a situation, especially in London, where it is more profitable to be out of work then in it. Work should always pay, and if you are better of sitting on your behind all day, then why would people go out to work for low paid jobs. Would the right honourable member not prefer to see an increase in people getting to work in London, rather then making the decision to work or claim benefits easier for some of the lowest paid in our society?
    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.

    Defending our nation and proving justice for the people
    - An increase in the cyber intelligence budget by £300 million is something I broadly welcome.
    - You state you will decrease the scale of Trident. What exactly will be cut from trident. I would like it to be noted I oppose the cutting of any trident, as it is essential to this countries defences. We live in an uncertain world, and it is about time members on the opposite benches realise this.
    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.


    Concluding remarks
    Once again I would like to thank the chancellor for a detailed view of the economy as a whole. I look forward to hearing the response of the chancellor. If any questions have been answered, I would be grateful if the chancellor could point me in that direction, as I did not have time to read through all the comments.
    I know all about reading through comments *sigh*
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'd also like to add that unless I missed something whilst there are 500,000 council houses being built, this is being done as an average of 10,000 per year for half a century, so really there isn't much being done there at all.
    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.
 
 
 
  • 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.