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

Statement from the Chancellor Of The Exchequer Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    IS there any citation for any of the figures or are you just going to admit that they have all been pulled out of somebody's rectum? Unless very nearly everything is considered a long term condition your prescription waiver is clear BS. In 2010/11 prescription charge receipts were £450m, the cost of waiving them is given as £430m. Let us not forget that you can already get a year of unlimited prescriptions for only £104 which can be broken down into 10 monthly payments of £10.40, and further let us not forget that something like 90% of prescriptions are "free" anyway given how many different things lead to free prescriptions including a number of long term illnesses that require frequent medication and simply being old which tends to go hand in hand with long term illness requiring frequent medication.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_charges (might look for official data later if I can be bothered)

    There are similar problems with the outpatients figures. quarterly DNA figures for NHS England outpatients first attendances sits at 460-480k and for subsequent attendances at about 1m, let's just say 1.5m. This means that per annum 6m outpatient aprointments were missed (the actual figure for the year to June is 5,878,413). With the charge being only £10 this would lead to a maximum of £60m p/a and not the £280m p/a given

    https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...vity/qar-data/
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm intrigued as to why you worked backwards to find the 2012/13 Crown Estate figure when the current data is publicly available as part of the annual report

    https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/med...rt-2016-17.pdf

    From that you will get the 2016/17 figure of £328.8m and from that make a reasonable estimate of £340-350m a year. Also nice to see you increasing Her Majesty's tax bill even more and aren't even able to get her rate before correct, the Sovereign Grant is temporarily being increased to 25%.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Your subsidy figures are iffy. This SPERI report gives total goods exports to the EU in 2015 as £115bn

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers...uring-exports/

    To have tariffs of only £1b would require them to be less than 1%. Under WTO MFN rules we would be looking at £4bn, and let us remember that if the EU were being vindictive (don't pretend it's unlikely) we wouldn't be looking at WTO MFN, or even regular WTO, but the EU protectionist tariffs.

    http://www.civitas.org.uk/reports_ar...r-eu-uk-trade/

    But let's not forget that it is the purchaser, not the seller, who pays the tariff.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It has already been pointed out that the mansion tax figure is well off as estimates put it at 1bn if you're the CPS or 1.2bn if Zoopla or Labour

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/t...tial-property/
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...outh-East.html

    You also say that the CGT changes would lead to a 65% increase, meanwhile the government reports and IFS give a completely different conclusion, in fact going so far as to say that revenues would likely decrease, especially in the short term

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/gb/gb...h10_gb2015.pdf
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Next up comes the Christmas bonus with Parliament giving the cost as £124m and not £152

    https://publications.parliament.uk/p...en/59/5907.htm

    Moving on to saving £550m by reducing coverage of the free bus passes to a very unclearly defined group (you're barely cutting coverage at all) could lead to significant harm. Without considering benefits to the mental health and well-being due to social inclusion and the knock on financial savings, or increased retail and commercial activity concessionary bus passes have a benefit cost ratio of 2.87, and the omission of retail considerations is notable given the majority of OAPs use their bus passes to go shopping

    https://greenerjourneys.com/wp-conte...ember-2014.pdf
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It appears that Chancellor cannot manage basic arithmetic believing 2.5 to be 1% of 120 and not 2.083%

    Nor are they able to work out that an eighth of £119,799m is just shy of £15bn and not the 12bn given

    Nor am I sure how even that £12bn gets fudged down to £8.4bn because that would require an increase in spending large enough to bring in a further £3.6bn which works out at about £24bn, or 1.2% of GDP. If we then adjust this for the actual £15bn adjusted cost we would require £6.6bn worth in VAT of new sales which would require £44.3bn of extra sales, or about 2.2% of GDP.

    These figures are simply absurd

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...etin_Final.pdf
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It’s fun seeing jammy dismantle this poorly costed budget #Jammy4Chancellor
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    x
    Responses in this thread will be addressed in one way or another. I accept that this draft of the Budget has some fundamental errors and while I cannot post all sources right now I will address one - to show that its entire content isn't 'waffle' for a lack of better words. While the language can be improved, the source for the presceiption charge measure is this on page 27. That is all for now.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I find it quite ironic to say that we have a lightly taxed aviation industry while having IRL THE HIGHEST APD IN THE WORLD

    http://www.airport-technology.com/fe...world-5647771/

    It's also quite amusing to see this being touted as being bad for the country when they then go on to implement measures to drive aviation out of the country with probably even BA moving their hub abroad and only offering short haul flights hopping from UK airports to the likes of CDG

    We do finally come across a relatively accurate figure though. in 2012,13, and 14 the UK consumed 242, 243, and 242bpd of jet fuel respectively, with the tax rate given that would lead to £6.4bn of revenues (throw in rounding errors and you're only a quarter of a billion off) if this consumption were to still be consistent today, of course that is before considering the rebasing of UK air travel to being short haul connections to the continent removing much of this revenue and probably reducing it's 3.4% contribution to the UK economy.

    http://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Unit...l_consumption/
    http://www.aoa.org.uk/2014/11/new-re...n-in-taxation/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I find it quite ironic to say that we have a lightly taxed aviation industry while having IRL THE HIGHEST APD IN THE WORLD

    http://www.airport-technology.com/fe...world-5647771/

    It's also quite amusing to see this being touted as being bad for the country when they then go on to implement measures to drive aviation out of the country with probably even BA moving their hub abroad and only offering short haul flights hopping from UK airports to the likes of CDG

    We do finally come across a relatively accurate figure though. in 2012,13, and 14 the UK consumed 242, 243, and 242bpd of jet fuel respectively, with the tax rate given that would lead to £6.4bn of revenues (throw in rounding errors and you're only a quarter of a billion off) if this consumption were to still be consistent today, of course that is before considering the rebasing of UK air travel to being short haul connections to the continent removing much of this revenue and probably reducing it's 3.4% contribution to the UK economy.

    http://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Unit...l_consumption/
    http://www.aoa.org.uk/2014/11/new-re...n-in-taxation/
    Apd was removed on tsr, a move that actually increased revenue by 350-400m, which has me wondering how this move will bring in 3.2b
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to put on the record my thanks to Conceited for his work on this budget, especially considering the length of time it took to source agreement on all sides, and the significant compromises that had to be made last minute.

    I think there are some brilliant ideas and policy initiatives in there that will help us continue to grow Britain as an economic powerhouse for years to come.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Why is the licence fee being replaced with an out and out tax?

    Beyond that the collection cost for 2016/17 is estimated at £46.2m (£83.8m in 2015/16), in fact it has never nominally been £102m, at least not since 2008

    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/f...formation-AB19

    After that we get that there are 27.2m households in the UK, 3.8m of which are over 65s living alone meaning at the very most there are 23.4m which are eligible to pay this. At £150 per household this comes out as a maximum of £3510m and not the 4.1bn presented. This is of course before factoring out student households or households with more than one OAP (and no under 65s since I assume they will have to pay) meaning that not only are you forcing people to pay for the BBC who definitely don't watch the BBC, but you're also cutting BBC funding, or having to find the money elsewhere.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ouseholds/2017
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why is the licence fee being replaced with an out and out tax?

    Beyond that the collection cost for 2016/17 is estimated at £46.2m (£83.8m in 2015/16), in fact it has never nominally been £102m, at least not since 2008

    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/f...formation-AB19

    After that we get that there are 27.2m households in the UK, 3.8m of which are over 65s living alone meaning at the very most there are 23.4m which are eligible to pay this. At £150 per household this comes out as a maximum of £3510m and not the 4.1bn presented. This is of course before factoring out student households or households with more than one OAP (and no under 65s since I assume they will have to pay) meaning that not only are you forcing people to pay for the BBC who definitely don't watch the BBC, but you're also cutting BBC funding, or having to find the money elsewhere.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ouseholds/2017
    Is the plan not for them to make everyone pay? Meaning that pensioners and students will all have to pay, meaning this government is targeting the poorest in society and making them worse off.

    That’s what the numbers suggest
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Removing the Union subsidies seems a bit half hearted and there to try to trick people when it is followed up with "will also allow Unions to reapply for subsidies "

    Taking them away only to give them back again

    I'd be interested to see where the £90m figure comes from given I have varying figures varying from £11m when dealing with a small number of councils, to £108m ub facility time and direct payments back in 2012-13

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ctivities.html
    http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/cha...e_long_overdue

    The most recent I can find is £14.5m but with a lot of councils missing

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1489671593
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Is the plan not for them to make everyone pay? Meaning that pensioners and students will all have to pay, meaning this government is targeting the poorest in society and making them worse off.

    That’s what the numbers suggest
    Yes, the only way to get to £4.1bn is to tax all 27.2m households (and use rounding to get the other £20m)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    I'd like to put on the record my thanks to Conceited for his work on this budget, especially considering the length of time it took to source agreement on all sides, and the significant compromises that had to be made last minute.

    I think there are some brilliant ideas and policy initiatives in there that will help us continue to grow Britain as an economic powerhouse for years to come.
    Sure if you ignore the attempts to kill air travel in the uk and the analysis that suggests that a 10% increase in seat capacity will improve growth at 1% this budget has decided to ignore this and attempt to destroy the aviation industry completely.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Winter fuel payments bit is totally unnecessary given you aren't actually doing anything, but true to form the figures are wrong with the HoC Library stating estimated costs for 2017-18 of £2025m

    http://researchbriefings.files.parli...19/SN06019.pdf

    But beyond that the replacement system would surely cost money and thus reduce any savings further

    Let's throw two short sections together and say once again you're kinda putting in unnecessary stuff, but at least you're using real 3 year old data this time and implcitly have a 10% tax rate on, but then I suspect the formerly illegal sex market has grown IRL and the changes in TSRland would see further increases so again your figures are almost certainly wrong, unless you aren't looking at the 10% rate implied.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    If we assume that 2017 Q2 is a typical quarter we see annual visitor rates of 43m, multiplying by £5.80 gives a Border Force budget of £249.4m which is not an increase, as the Rt. Hon. Gentleman suggests, in fact it is cutting the budget by over 50% as it stands at £558m

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-may-confirms/

    As for tax reform, I shall give the Rt. Hon. gentleman the following advice: Vote Libertarian if you want to see tax code simplification, 10,000 pages gone within a few months.

    I think throw everything together and we must be looking at a deficit in excess of £100bn
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Once again the Libbers showing themselves the true party of opposition
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the Budget was on 22nd November... Why do you have this now?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.