R41 – Ministerial Report from the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Second Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
R41 – Ministerial Report from the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Parliament 27 Budget) (Second Reading)


27th Parliament Budget Report 2018

Executive Summary

As of this budget our great nation is enduring difficult times as a result of the questionable decisions taken by prior governments and the economic uncertainty caused by the Brexit negotiation period. With the negotiation period soon to be over (we work on the assumption that there will be a withdrawal agreement) it is the objective of this budget that we shall begin to reshape the economy in a way that reduces needless examples of current spending and increases spending in areas that will deliver growth for our people while maintaining a firm commitment to fiscal conservatism such that we do not burden our children as a result of our own choices, this is no time to be profligate.

Macroeconomic Outlook

In order to create a more prosperous future for our people we must first assess where we stand in terms of the economic picture so that we can correctly assess our starting point. To that end this budget will assess where the UK currently stands with regards to four key areas..

Economic Growth and aggregate demand
Unemployment and Wages
Inflation
Fiscal Deficit and Debt

Economic Growth and aggregate demand
According to the Office Of National Statistics the UK economy grew at a rate of 0.4% in the second quarter of 2018 and translates to year on year economic growth of 1.2%, the lowest since 2012. Although household spending and retail sales have remained robust growing at a near moderate pace with service sector growth outpacing that of the wider economy for the second quarter in a row, business investment declined in the second quarter. The British manufacturing sector has also entered a technical recession with two consecutive quarters of negative growth and a decline in production, since the Office of National Statistics does highlight the fact that manufacturing export growth is still positive this highlights domestic weakness as the source of manufacturing woes (1). According to the Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecast economic growth for 2018 will be 1.3% and remain in the 1.3-1.6% range until at least 2023 (2).

Unemployment and Wages
According to the Office For National Statistics the unemployment rate in the UK for the June to August period was 4%, the lowest unemployment rate since 1975. In addition, the employment rate for the same period was 75.5%, a near record high and 289,000 jobs more than a year earlier, entirely driven by an increase in full time employment of 338,000 over the same period, there is also a record level of job vacancies. In addition to the unemployment statistics the Office for National Statistics also report that wage growth has also risen to 3.1% as the labour market tightens, the highest since 2008 (4). According to the Office For Budgetary Responsibility unemployment is forecast to 3.7% in 2019 before increasing steadily to 4% in 2023 as the economy creates 400,000 jobs (2). According to the Bank Of England UK wage growth will continue to increase to 3.5% over the coming years (5).

Inflation
According to the Office For National Statistics the consumer prices index reached 2.4% in the year to September, largely static in the three month period but at a lower level than earlier in 2018 (6). According to the Bank Of England the largest contribution to inflationary pressures came from rising transport and electricity costs while clothing prices actually fell. Rising transport and electricity costs can be easily explained by the increased price of Brent Crude which has risen by around 50% over the past year (from around $50 per barrel to around $80 per barrel) (7). According to the Bank Of England’s inflation expectations, they expect the consumer prices index to fall to 2% by 2021 (5).

Fiscal Deficit and Debt
According to the Office For Budgetary Responsibility In the 2009-2010 financial year the fiscal deficit peaked at £153.1bn or 9.9% of GDP. Over the ensuing eight year period ‘austerity’ measures have reduced this to £39.8bn or 1.9% GDP in the 2017-2018 financial year. For the current financial year (2018-2019) higher than forecast tax receipts (income and VAT especially) mean that the fiscal deficit is now projected to fall to £25.5bn or 1.2% GDP and then fall to £19.8bn or 0.8% in the 2023-2024 financial year. One notable success in deficit reduction has been the current fiscal deficit (day to day spending as opposed to capital investment) has been completely eradicated and the Office for Budgetary forecasts a current fiscal surplus exceeding 1.3% GDP by the 2023-2024 financial year. As a result of the significant fiscal deficit inherited from prior government, public sector net debt (the cumulative total of the fiscal deficit each year) peaked in the 2016-2017 financial year at a level of 85.2%, is projected to be 83.7% in the current 2018-2019 financial year and continue to decline through the 2023-2024 financial year to 75% GDP (2).

Overview
Since 2016 the UK economy has underperformed that of the Eurozone and USA with annual deficits in economic growth. At the same time the fall in the value of Sterling produced an inflationary shock which eroded real wage growth and in tandem with the uncertainty surrounding the Brexit negotiation period led to a reduced rate of GDP growth despite buoyant private sector employment and indeed is one of the factors responsible for the continued forecast of a fiscal deficit and high debt.

With the expectation of a withdrawal agreement and orderly exit from the EU on the 29th March 2019 this government does however find reasons to be namely optimistic with regards to future economic growth given that according to the International Monetary Fund the Outlook for global growth is expected to remain broadly static with growth in 2018 and 2019 forecast to reach 3.9%. In the major economies of the US, Eurozone and China growth is forecast to slow somewhat to 2.7%, 1.9% and 6.4% respectively in 2019 (3). Additionally this government believes that current economic growth forecasts from the Office For Budgetary Responsibility may be insufficiently dynamic in taking into account the potential for Sterling appreciation post-withdrawal agreement with ensuing implications on inflation and real wage growth supporting consumer spending. Although we do not doubt the methodology behind the forecasts from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility we do not expect persistence of weak business investment nor weak domestic demand for manufacturing services beyond 2019 and find the fact that service sector growth appears to be robustly recovering to be evidence of a likely post-withdrawal deal increase in GDP. This government does however acknowledge the threat of a Sterling appreciation to the manufacturing sector. Essentially, this government believes that there is likely upside potential to current economic growth forecasts.

The Starting Point

The starting point for Mhoc finances with this budget is very similar to that of the real world. Thanks to the passage of B1383 - Great Repeal Act 2018 the number of acts with a direct fiscal impact is minimal, indeed only B1425 and B1428 apply. These are outlined below.

B1425 abolishes NHS bursaries and replaces them with conventional student loans. This has the effect of reducing public spending by £0.4bn from the 2019-2020 financial year. It does however create an unfunded liability of an equal amount.

B1428 makes provisions for the created of a National Employment Database at a one off immediate cost of £0.1bn in the 2018-2019 financial year.

B1386 also makes provision for the levying of VAT at a rate of 20% on sales of reclassified class B narcotics but makes no attempt to cost this. According to the Guardian, the consumption of illegal narcotics in the UK generated £6.6bn in 2013 meaning that the estimated fiscal impact is a contribution assuming that 50% of illegal narcotics consumed would now be class B would be around £0.6bn per year (8). Although B1386 makes provision for this relaxation in 2023, this government will bring that forward to April 1st 2019 in the Finance Bill. Additionally, this government will levy an import duty on imports of these reclassified narcotics (rates and costing outlined further in this budget).

Although no other acts of parliament influence public spending directly, there are a number of bills with minor effects on public spending within the government departments, most notably the Home Office. Such examples are outlined below.

B1412 significantly relaxes the law surrounding the sex trade. Although this government does not believe that additional taxation is required (the firms and employees will pay income and business taxes just like any other) the potential exists for the policing budget to be reallocated or in the future withdrawn from the Home Office Budget. It should be noted that according to the Guardian the value of sexual services consumed in 2013 was £5.6bn (8). The same is true for B1386 which reformed the classification of narcotics and reduces the level of police resources required to tackle narcotic abuse. Further details surrounding the aforementioned impact will be outlined in the future Home Office Report.

The Budget Spending Review (S1) outlines all current direct spending impacts and the change resultant.

Negligible costs to the treasury arise from the Justice, Education and Home departmental reviews.

Taxation

At a time when the public debt remains excessively high, the government remains keen to ensure that tax revenues are maximised but in a manner that is fair and proportionate.
This Government believes that there is much needed reform in our tax system.
We want to see more money in the pockets of our hard working families, we want to encourage businesses to grow, we want people to achieve their aspirations and we want to inspire a greater quality of life for all people.

The measures that we will take to achieve this are:

As per B1386 and the aforementioned 100% import duty to be applied, this government anticipates that legalising the consumption and production of now class B narcotics will generate around £1.1bn per year. Although hard figures are difficult to find this is based on the fact that Cannabis is the most widely consumed narcotic and that some evidence suggests that only about 35% is imported as opposed to grown domestically leaving a taxable market size of £1.1bn (11). This duty will take effect from 1st April 2019.

On the basis that vehicle ownership has a considerable cost to the environment and increases pressure on road infrastructure, this budget levies a 150% vehicle excise duty charge onto two car (or more) households. According to the Office For National Statistics there are approximately 7.6 million two car households in the UK and 1.9 million households with three cars or more paying a minimum of £130 in vehicle excise duty for each car each year (12) (13) (30). Allowing for the fact that two car households make up an estimated ~15% of car owning households and that there are 2.38 million registered disabled drivers, this government chooses not to impose this duty on such vulnerable people reducing the impacted number of households to around 8 million (14) (15). Charging 150% vehicle excise duty on each vehicle generates around £0.9bn per year. This measure will come into effect from 1st April 2019.

Our great nation contains an enormous amount of accumulated wealth with the value of all property in the UK exceeding £7tn (16). This government believes therefore that a small levy on the value of these properties paid annually is an appropriate way to spread the tax burden while relaxing it on the aspirational and working poor. To that end this government will levy a 1% tax on the value of properties exceeding £1m. (17) (31). According to the ONS there are approximately 870,000 properties valued at £1m each or more. This government has however opted against burdening those not in employment with this tax change and so will grant them an exemption. According to the Office For National Statistics the number of property owners not in employment stands at 39%, deducting this from our prior tax base means that the net benefit to the Treasury from this levy will be around £8.1bn and likely to grow as house price appreciation continues (18). The measure will come into effect from 1st April 2019.

Mr Speaker, it is now that we come to one of the flagship measures of this government, that is the removal of income tax from millions of hard working people in our great nation. As of April 1st 2019 the tax threshold for the basic rate of income tax will be increased to £15,000 per annum ensuring that the average hard working citizen no longer bears the burden of excessive income taxation. This reform will cost around £16bn per annum however that will be be negated through increased consumption from those with a lower marginal propensity to save (19).

Expenditure

Mr Speaker, as part of preparing our great nation for the future trials to come it is important not just to skirt around the edges but to perform a wholesale review of current public spending decisions and assess whether what the state spends taxpayers money on now is appropriate, sustainable and fit for purpose.

To that effect, this government has taken a number of tough decisions which are as follows:

Despite the plethora of benefits that currently exist the taxpayer is currently forced to bear the burden of paying for the winter fuel allowance of pensioners. This is a policy which costs £2bn per year and is not means tested (2). This government takes the view that in addition to tax simplification, welfare simplification should also be a focus. As such from the 1st April 2019, the winter fuel payments will be abolished.

This government believes deeply in sustainability, reduced emissions and eventually becoming a net exporter of energy and as such it will outline a number of measures in the next infrastructure review in addition to other policies being considered such as a Carbon Tax. With that being said, what this government does not approve of are needless pet projects without sufficient funding to really make an impact vs ideas like the aforementioned Carbon Tax or renewable investment. As such, from the 1st April 2019, the Clean air fund is hereby abolished saving the taxpayer more than £0.2bn through a reduction in the Department for Communities and Local Government Budget (20).

One of the greatest long term issues facing our great nation is that of demographic change and the increase in the number of pensioners. To address this long term threat to the taxpayer the majority of employees (along with their employer and government) pay into an occupational pension scheme based from the 1st April 2019 on a minimum salary split of 3% from an employer, 5% from the employee and then 1% from government (salary minus a pensions threshold of around £6k) (22). This cost to government exceeds more than £20bn per annum and that is something that this government cannot tolerate. To that end, from the 1st April 2019 the employer contribution to occupational pension schemes will increase by 2% to match that of employees and the government contribution to occupational pension schemes will be withdrawn. This is estimated to generate a saving to the taxpayer of around £26.4bn and rising along with increased net pension contribution. (23).

In this governments battle against wasted taxpayers money we come to foreign aid. In the 2017-2018 financial year the UK gave £13.9bn to foreign nations at a time when it burdens working people with taxation and businesses with insufficient infrastructure (24). Mr Speaker, this government finds that offensive! To that end, from the 1st April 2020 this government will hereby abolish the Department for International Development and reduce the foreign aid budget to a £1bn emergency fund managed by the Foreign Office to be allocated only during emergencies such as unexpected famine or earthquakes (25). This will save the taxpayer around £16.6bn per annum by 2023-2024.

Other Spending decisions

In the RL 2018 UK budget a number of decisions were taken which impact UK finances and that this Mhoc government disagrees with. These are outlined below in addition to their impact on UK finances.

1) At the Conservative Party Conference (and costed in the RL 2018 budget) Theresa May announced the cap on local authority borrowing for new house building will be lifted despite the fact that this will have to be paid for via central government or increased taxes at a local level, something this government does not support. Preventing this policy being enacted will save £1.2bn by 2022-2023. (9)

2) In the RL 2018 budget the Chancellor announced the creation of a new Digital Services Tax targeted at foreign multinationals. It is the view of this government that additional taxation is needlessly bureaucratic and exists only to cover up the failure of government to deal with tax avoidance measures such as transfer pricing. Not bringing in this tax is estimated to cost 0.4bn by 2022-2023 (9)

3) In the RL 2018 budget the government froze alcohol duty which this government considers to be a needless loss of tax revenue. Not enacting this freeze (this means alcohol duties will rise at CPI+2%) will generate a saving of £0.1bn by 2019-2020 (9).

4) In the RL 2018 budget the government announced that it would go ahead in around six months with a restriction on the play limit of fixed odds betting terminals to £2. Since this government believes that the domestic betting and gambling market should be largely unrestrained by government we oppose this chance. Preventing this limit from being enacted is estimated to generate a saving of £0.2bn by 2020-2021 (9).

5) During the summer and in the RL 2018 budget the government announced a significant increase in NHS spending averaging 3.4% per annum and amounting to an additional £27.6bn per annum by 2023-2024. This government believes that such an increase is extreme, excessive, immoral at a time when fiscal discipline is required and unsustainable. To that end, this government will restrain the increase in NHS spending to 2% per annum from the 1st April 2019. When factoring in a 2018-2019 health and social care base of £158.7bn and factoring in the immediate increase of £7.3bn according to the Office Of Budget Responsibility we arrive at the 1st April 2019 with a total budget of £161.8bn for the 2019-2020 financial year, a £4.2bn saving on the updated forecast from the Office For Budgetary Responsibility. (27) (2). By allowing for a 2% rise in annual expenditure the taxpayer is able by 2023-2024 to save £11.2bn per annum.

In addition this government believes that it is important that government policy keep up with modern society and technological change. Currently, government imposes a license fee on households in order to fund the BBC, radio stations and worse, local television (including a Welsh speaking channel) (21). This government fundamentally opposes this waste of taxpayers money! At a time when resources are strained our citizens are funding Welsh Nationalism and free television for the elderly over cancer treatment. To that end, from the 1st April 2020 the license fee will be abolished with the BBC either moving to a subscription or advertising based funding model in addition to potential part privatisation. It is our aim that the BBC be set free and able to increase their budget (2).

Having taken a number of decisions on tax and spend this government believes that it is vital to adequately fund key policy decisions as we strive for fiscal conservatism and economic prosperity. With this budget having so far generated more than £70bn per annum in revenue and having made tax reforms with a net cost of less than £10bn (more than made up for by other expenditure and spending decisions) this government does hereby allocate funds to key areas:

1) This government's commitment to the nations defensive and offensive operations is absolute. In the 2019-2020 financial year UK defense spending is forecast to be £52bn or 2.3% GDP based on a nominal GDP forecast of 2.198tn according to the Office For Budget Responsibility (28) (2). This government will from 1st April 2020 increase annual defense spending by £15bn per annum (3.3% of nominal GDP in the 2020-2021 financial year). Future defense spending plans will be laid out as part of a 2019 Defense Review.

2) One of the most important components in delivering sound economic prosperity is ensuring that our nation's infrastructure is world class and delivers for both people and business. Net Capital expenditure in the 2019-2020 financial year is forecast to be £48.4bn or 2.2% GDP based on a nominal GDP forecast of £2.198tn according to the Office For Budget Responsibility (2). This government will from the 1st April 2020 increase the infrastructure budget by £15bn per annum (in the Mhoc this includes housing, transport, energy, telecommunications and water). Future Infrastructure Spending Plans will be laid out as part of a 2019 Infrastructure Review.

3) As part of this government's belief in fiscal conservatism this government believes that the current and ongoing fiscal deficits are not something that should be tolerated by the people of this great nation and that reducing national debt over time should be a priority in order to reduce the long term tax burden on future generations and ensure our long term economic prosperity rather than live at the mercy of debt markets. Currently the fiscal deficit for the 2019-2020 financial year is forecast to be £31.8bn or 1.4% GDP based on a GDP forecast of £2.198tn according to the Office For Budgetary Responsibility (2). This government will from the 1st April 2020 spend £10bn less than it receives in revenue per annum such that on this measure alone we would reach surplus in the 2021-2022 financial year and continue to build a fiscal surplus.

4) The final measure to be announced in this budget cements the aforementioned belief in prudent government investments and fiscal conservatism into a single policy in order to put our great nation on a path to economic greatness. From the 1st April 2020 this government will create a Sovereign wealth Fund and British Business Bank. Using £15bn in starting capital this sovereign wealth fund will replicate the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund model (it’s value is greater than that of the entire Norwegian economy - zero net debt!) and via the British Business Bank invest in British exporters through a £15bn per annum automation fund from 1st April 2021 in addition to hedging overseas and having access to any fiscal surplus exceeding 3% GDP (it is the government's long term intention to maintain a fiscal surplus of 4% GDP) (29). Through this long term economic strategy we can tackle long term issues like debt and our current trade deficit.

Concluding remarks

Mr Speaker, at eleven pages long, with more than a page of sourcing and two spreadsheets (one containing itemised costing) this budget aims to set a new gold standard for future budgets. However, it does even more than that. This budget stimulates additional consumption via reducing the tax burden on millions of people. This budget stimulates additional investment via the abolition of a plethora of small taxes. This budget reduces current government spending and deals with big future issues like pensions and defense spending. This budget finally addresses both productivity and our trade deficit by creating a British Business Bank and automation fund to directly reduce the cost of production for our great British firms making them the most competitive in the world. Most of all Mr Speaker, this budget commits the Mhoc to fiscal conservatism and sustainable future economic prosperity.

Mr Speaker, i commend this budget to the House!

Spreadsheets

(S1)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
(S1 - Tab 2)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
(S1 - Tab 3)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Legislation and Items Resultant

- Finance Bill
- BBC Bill
- Pensions Bill
- Foreign Aid Bill
- Sovereign Wealth/Automation Fund Bill
- Attached Spending Motion

Bibliography

1) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gross...ries/ihyr/ukea
2) https://cdn.obr.uk/EFO_October-2018.pdf
3) https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/...date-july-2018
4) https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentand...et/october2018
5) https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/me...F752BF9DF0E19B
6) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/infla...18#main-points
7) https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/CO1:COM
8) https://www.theguardian.com/society/...to-the-economy
9) https://assets.publishing.service.go...stings_PDF.pdf
10) https://assets.publishing.service.go...ublication.pdf
11) https://theconversation.com/mr-nice-...own-weed-57707
12) https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...ng-family-trip
13) https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates
14) https://assets.publishing.service.go...17-revised.pdf
15) https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...tatistics-2017
16) https://www.savills.co.uk/insight-an...irst-time-ever
17) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8202056.html
18) https://assets.publishing.service.go..._ownership.pdf
19) https://assets.publishing.service.go.../Table_2.5.pdf
20) https://assets.publishing.service.go...-responses.pdf
21) https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-...-pay-for-top13
22) https://www.gov.uk/workplace-pension...government-pay
23) https://assets.publishing.service.go...ublication.pdf
24) https://assets.publishing.service.go...-spend2017.pdf
25) https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publi...gb2018/GB8.pdf
26) https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentand...eekly-earnings
27) https://assets.publishing.service.go...Accessible.pdf
28) researchbriefings.files.parliame nt.uk/documents/CBP-8175/CBP-8175.pdf
29) https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/
30) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...tionuktablea47
31) http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/...iod%5B%5D=1995

Easier to Read Version - Google Doc

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

Changes From first reading

- Tax abolition abolished
- Income Tax proposal amended
- Corporation Tax change abolished
- Outpatient Insurance abolished
- License Fee proposal moved
- Costing Changes

Attached Spending Motion for Purposes of Division

Finance Motion 2018, TSR Government


An Motion to grant assumed parliamentry consent for the changes to departmental spending contained in the 27th Parliament 'People's Budget'.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

This Government believes that this parliament conveined in the 27th parliament to discuss the spending decisions announced in the 27th parliament 'People's Budget' does hereby grant assumed consent for the following and its subsequent direct impact on Mhoc finances;

- That in light of the decision to abolish the clean air fund (provision contained in the Finance Bill), this House does grant consent to reduce the budget for the department of communities and local government by £0.2bn vs canon in the 2019-2020 financial year and each subsequent year herein.

- That in light of the decision to reduce NHS budget increases vs canon by 2% each financial year, this House does grant consent for this action beginning the 1st April 2019.

- That in light of the decision to increase the budget for the Department of Defense by £15bn per annum beginning in the 2020-2021 financial year and each subsequent financial year herein, this House does grant consent for this action.

- That in light of the decision to increase the budget for the Department of Infrastructure by £15bn per annum beginning in the 2020-2021 financial year and each subsequent financial year herein, this House does grant consent for this action.

- That in light of the decision to spend £10bn less (funded via changes made in this budget) than tax receipts equal beginning in the 2019-2020 financial year and each subsequent financial year herein, this House does grant consent for this action.

Notes and Changes to 27th Parliament 'People's Budget'
Spoiler:
Show
The 27th Parliament budget announced a number of key measures, some of which are not deemed to require primary legislation. As such this motion acts as a statutory instrument to obtain assumed parliamenty consent and set the actions contained in Mhoc stone so to speak.

The direct impact of this spending motion is to reduce spending in the 2018-2019 financial year by £14.4bn however this is offset by a number of other measures proposed in the 27th Parliament Budget report.

The total costings for the 2018 budget are linked below (Tab 3) with the deficit figures most notable below..

2019-2020: -£2.3bn (-0.1% GDP)
2020-2021: +£9.6bn (+0.4% GDP)
2021-2022: +£22.2 (+0.9% GDP)
2022-2023: +£38.4 (+1.5% GDP)
2023-2024: +£56.6 (+2.2% GDP)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

..

Measured from the budget which are no longer intended policy are;

Corporation Tax
The change to forecast corporation tax changes (a freeze rather than reduction) is abolished.

Tax Abolition
The 27th parliament budget outlined a number of tax abolition in a bid to simplify the UK's tax code. With the reform of income taxation this is no longer deemed afforable.

The abolition of the insurance premium tax, air passenger duty, the climate change levy, the banking levy and banking surcharge are hereby abolished.

Outpatient Reforms
The 27th parliament proposed to make outpatient medical insurance mandatory with an employer-employee contribution and as such, a cut in current health spending. It has been judged that this is an insufficiently developed idea.

The Outpatient Reform is hereby abolished.

..

Measures from the Budget which require primary legislation and are not contained in the Finance Bill are as follows;

- BBC Act to be brought forward in early 2019 removing the license fee and enacting the model of future funding.
- Pensions Act to be brought forward in early 2019 enacting changes to employer contribution
- Foreign Aid act to be brought forward in early 2019 withdrawing UK from relevant international treaty
- Sovereign Wealth Act to be brought forward in early 2019 to enact SWF, BBB and AF.

Link to 2018 Budget Below..

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing


0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#2
A reminder that if anyone wants this to go to vote, it needs to be requested by tomorrow's update.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
This is ultimately a second reading for the sake of a second reading, unless the Chancellor takes this opportunity to do what he has failed to go over the last 48 hours and respond to the criticism of this abomination.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
This is ultimately a second reading for the sake of a second reading, unless the Chancellor takes this opportunity to do what he has failed to go over the last 48 hours and respond to the criticism of this abomination.
I actually wanted to submit just the spending motion yesterday (the updated costing sheet is linked in both this and the finance bill) but as the guidence document stands even though the only things considered passed are the stuff in the spending motion, it will not be binding unless the report goes to vote.

Hence i had to submit a new second reading.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Rakas21)
I actually wanted to submit just the spending motion yesterday (the updated costing sheet is linked in both this and the finance bill) but as the guidence document stands even though the only things considered passed are the stuff in the spending motion, it will not be binding unless the report goes to vote.

Hence i had to submit a new second reading.
The spending motion serves no purpose and the speaker should have rejected it, if you're going to pointlessly adda day of debate perhaps you could try continuing the debate and respond to all comments, as you promised to, try keeping at least one promise this term
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
As posted on the first reading:

I'm glad to finally see a budget from Rakas21; it has been much anticipated. I will be including quotes direct from the budget as to make it clear what I am responding to and make it easier for you to respond. To make it easier to read, I will highlight the policies I agree with in green, those I am mixed on in amber and those I disagree with in red. I do note that this response comes nearly a week after the introduction of the budget as I have not had the opportunity to write this until now. Please take the time you need to respond sufficiently and feel free to post it on another thread if this is locked.

In short, I will not be voting for this if it goes to a vote, though I appreciate the effort put into this as a former Chancellor. It is an honourable effort although I think you agree with me that you should have begun work on it at the beginning of the term.

Revenue

On the basis that UK corporation tax is already set below the average rate for wealthy economies this budget will cancel the proposed cut in corporation tax from the current rate of 19% to 17% from 1st April 2020.

This was something I was very glad to see (although I notice it is not included in the accompanying bill). Although the savings of cancelling this change are minimal, I believe it to be an important shift in the long-run. We appear to be attempting to pursue a race to the bottom when corporation tax is already comparatively lower than other similar countries. It is not a wise approach to taxation; it may not be paritcularly harmful to the public finances but it is part of a trend towards much greater inequality.

A policy is needed that is more imaginative and favourable to smaller businesses, of which improved growth is necessary if we are to maintain high employment and a sustainable model. Two potential ideas I believe could work are exemptions and/or reduced rates of business rates for certain businesses and lower employer NICs as to make it more desirable to employ in the months and years ahead where growth is predicted to be limited.
I would fund this with a slightly increased rate of corporation tax to start reversing the changes, but if this had been included in the finance bill I would have applauded you for your courage in taking on the more economically liberal members of this house.

Although B1386 makes provision for this relaxation in 2023, this government will bring that forward to April 1st 2019 in the Finance Bill. Additionally, this government will levy an import duty on imports of these reclassified narcotics (rates and costing outlined further in this budget).

I have little to say on this other than to note my support. B1386 was applied in a deeply flawed way and I am surprised but happy to see the Conservative Party do something to address that and bring a new source of revenue to the Treasury.

On the basis that vehicle ownership has a considerable cost to the environment and increases pressure on road infrastructure, this budget levies a 150% vehicle excise duty charge onto two car (or more) households.

Although I am glad to see the focus on environmentalism, I do feel it is worth noting that this could have unintended negative consequences for the so-called working poor who require two cars for purposes of travelling effectively. I would like to know the possibility of a lower percentage being levied on two car households and a higher percentage being levied on three (or more) car households.

The net benefit to the Treasury from this levy [mansion tax] will be around £4.6bn and likely to grow as house price appreciation continues. The measure will come into effect from 1st April 2019.

Upon reading this I was once again surprised by the courage of the Chancellor, because this has my complete support as a means of both reducing inequality and creating a quite noteworthy revenue source.

The basic rate of income tax will be increased to £25,000 per annum ensuring that the average hard working citizen no longer bears the burden of excessive income taxation. Although the cost of this measure is high at an estimated £45bn per annum this government believes that a small redistribution of the tax burden via the reduction in the upper rate income tax threshold to £70,000 will more than pay for this measure through generating an estimated £45.2bn in revenues.

It appears this was costed incorrectly as it does not appear in the finance bill. The original policy sounds over-ambitious although I have no criticisms as to the obvious ambition from the Treasury to help those who need it most, at least in the form of changes to the taxation system. The policy in the finance bill also has my support.

As of the 1st April 2019 this government does hereby abolish air passenger duty at a direct cost to the taxpayer of £4.6bn by the 2023-2024 financial year.

As of the 1st April 2019 this government does hereby abolish Insurance Premium Tax at a direct cost to the taxpayer of £6.3bn by the 2023-2024 financial year.

As of the 1st April 2019 this government does hereby abolish the Climate Change Levy at a direct cost to the taxpayer of £2.5bn by the 2023-2024 financial year.

As of the 1st April 2019 this government does hereby abolish the Banking Levy and Banking surcharge at a direct cost to the taxpayer of £3.2bn by the 2023-2024 financial year.

No, no, no and no! This is not a surprising set of policies from you as I know of your particular dedication to tax simplification, but this is a ridiculously irresponsible loss of £16.6 billion if the costing is correct. It is surprising, however, from the perspective of a former Libertarian Chancellor and I have to commend you for your dedication to your principles. I think you must have known that these would be ignored by those on the right of the house due to your other changes to taxation, despite how significant of a change it is. You could have made much more flashy changes to the taxation system for a similar loss.

Of course, there was another option to more flashy cuts in taxation. You later call your expenditure policies 'tough decisions', yet they are self-inflicted. You could have excluded at least one or two of these policies and instead spent more on public services as to actually make this budget palatable for those from the centre to the left.

Expenditure

Despite the plethora of benefits that currently exist the taxpayer is currently forced to bear the burden of paying for the winter fuel allowance of pensioners. This is a policy which costs £2bn per year and is not means tested. This government takes the view that in addition to tax simplification, welfare simplification should also be a focus. As such from the 1st April 2019, the winter fuel payments will be abolished.

If the problem is that it is not means tested, make it means tested! You addressed the issue, but you have just created a greater issue by removing an important source of income for some individuals in the winter.

This government does not approve of are needless pet projects without sufficient funding to really make an impact vs ideas like the aforementioned Carbon Tax or renewable investment. As such, from the 1st April 2019, the Clean air fund is hereby abolished saving the taxpayer more than £0.2bn through a reduction in the Department for Communities and Local Government Budget.

I do not have a strong opinion on this, but I will need proof that it is just a 'pet project' and does not have its benefits. Can you please provide evidence that it does not have benefits more significant than the small cost of £0.2 billion?

The license fee will be abolished with the BBC either moving to a subscription or advertising based funding model in addition to potential part privatisation of those things currently receiving license fee funding.

I do have a strong opinion on this, however. The BBC is an institution that I believe to be very important to our reputation as a soft power. The BBC operates in countries across the world; whenever I go to the Netherlands as I do every year I have always appreciated the existence of a Dutch channel and there is a strong audience that do. Of course, it could still exist using a business-based model with advertisement or subscription, but we all know it would not be the treasured institution it is now and its influence would be reduced.

I would not be opposed to more exemptions and reduced rates of the TV license fee for certain individuals and taking the money from general taxation instead, but this is way too radical of a change and one I am very disappointed with considering the relative moderation of this budget compared to my own. Indeed, my own policy while I was a Libertarian was more moderate (abolishing the TV license fee and funding the BBC through general taxation. In fact, that is something I would consider supporting now if it was provided with sufficient evidence, but I will not support a move towards its partial privatisation.

To address this long term threat to the taxpayer the majority of employees (along with their employer and government) pay into an occupational pension scheme based from the 1st April 2019 on a minimum salary split of 3% from an employer, 5% from the employee and then 1% from government (salary minus a pensions threshold of around £6k).

£26.4 billion is a significant amount of revenue. Who will lose out under this new arrangement and is it worth it?

From the 1st April 2020 this government will hereby abolish the Department for International Development and reduce the foreign aid budget to a £1bn emergency fund.

Along with the policy on the BBC, this is one of two policies that really struck me as much more radical than my own budget in a budget that is more moderate overall. One of our objectives with Brexit approaching has to be maintaining our reputation as a country and this will go a long way to convince the world that we are becoming an insular nation. I appreciate that there is a case for assessing the causes we support with the foreign aid budget, but this is an extremist policy by all measures and further than even UKIP have seemed to go.

There are great causes to support as a state - and as one of the biggest economies in Europe - and this will quite simply reduce the amount of good we do as a country. It is a more than justifiable investment in the world around us that ultimately allows our upcoming and developing trade partners to be better off.

From the 1st April 2019 those employed full time will along with their employers be required to contribute 1% of their salary redeemable in the form of a voucher with which they are required to purchase private outpatient insurance.

An interesting policy, but a move in the wrong direction nonetheless. I do not feel comfortable with the idea of healthcare moving towards a system of payments, even if it is subsidised.

Spending

At the Conservative Party Conference (and costed in the RL 2018 budget) Theresa May announced the cap on local authority borrowing for new house building will be lifted despite the fact that this will have to be paid for via central government or increased taxes at a local level, something this government does not support. Preventing this policy being enacted will save £1.2bn by 2022-2023.

In the RL 2018 budget the Chancellor announced the creation of a new Digital Services Tax targeted at foreign multinationals. It is the view of this government that additional taxation is needlessly bureaucratic and exists only to cover up the failure of government to deal with tax avoidance measures such as transfer pricing. Not bringing in this tax is estimated to cost 0.4bn by 2022-2023.

In the RL 2018 budget the government froze alcohol duty which this government considers to be a needless loss of tax revenue. Not enacting this freeze (this means alcohol duties will rise at CPI+2%) will generate a saving of £0.1bn by 2019-2020.

In the RL 2018 budget the government announced that it would go ahead in around six months with a restriction on the play limit of fixed odds betting terminals to £2. Since this government believes that the domestic betting and gambling market should be largely unrestrained by government we oppose this chance. Preventing this limit from being enacted is estimated to generate a saving of £0.2bn by 2020-2021.

A mixed set of policies that I do not have much to say on here. Please inform us as to what the government wishes to do to address the housing crisis and help our pubs stay alive.

During the summer and in the RL 2018 budget the government announced a significant increase in NHS spending averaging 3.4% per annum and amounting to an additional £27.6bn per annum by 2023-2024. This government believes that such an increase is extreme, excessive, immoral at a time when fiscal discipline is required and unsustainable. To that end, this government will restrain the increase in NHS spending to 2% per annum from the 1st April 2019.

I am perhaps most disappointed by this out of anything in the budget and feel this to be the biggest reason of all that nobody who cares for the country should vote for the budget. Put simply, this is simply not based on any form of evidence. It is a false claim and I hope we will have a government next term who will not risk the NHS' future. Combined with your aforementioned pledge on increasing the prevalence of the private sector, I see reason to be very fearful as to this government's intentions.

This government will from 1st April 2020 increase annual defense spending by £15bn per annum (2.3% of nominal GDP in the 2020-2021 financial year).

This government will from the 1st April 2020 increase the infrastructure budget by £15bn per annum (in the Mhoc this includes housing, transport, energy, telecommunications and water). Future Infrastructure Spending Plans will be laid out as part of a 2019 Infrastructure Review.

In what way does this differ from real life and why should we trust that they will go to good causes if spending plans have not been outlined?

This government will from the 1st April 2020 spend £10bn less than it receives in revenue per annum such that on this measure alone we would reach surplus in the 2021-2022 financial year and continue to build a fiscal surplus.

I reject this obsession with a budget surplus. Although I do not wish to see a government be fiscally irresponsible, not spending enough is just as bad as spending too little. Ultimately, we are sacrificing our growth, our sustainability, social mobility, equality and the future of our public services for the sake of dealing with our budget surplus slightly quicker. It will only lead to greater dissatisfaction and a harsher move away from austerity in the future. It's time to move away from it now in a calm manner.

From the 1st April 2020 this government will create a Sovereign wealth Fund and British Business Bank.

Please explain if this is worth the cost and what the benefits will be. It is the area of this budget I have done the least reading on and as thus I do not see fit to offer an opinion in favour or against here.

Conclusion

After just over an hour and a half of writing you have my reply. I would be lying if I said I am not scared for what is being offered by aspects of the finance bill and, in particular, the coming spending motion. While my budget was dedicated to economic liberalism and mildly dedicated to austerity, this seems to be dedicated to austerity while not as concerned about economic liberalism, especially when it comes to taxation on the rich. This budget is unashamedly reflective of your character and history in the house and I am glad for the sake of debate you have created something that is more controversial than I expected, although due to its timing it appears it has been difficult for many people to offer a response. Perhaps overall interest in the budget disappeared a few weeks, if not a month or two, ago.

I will be opposing this at all points but considering the government's majority, I do hope you take into account my centre-left perspective.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Nay :pee:
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
What does this 'spending motion' do?
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by mr T 999)
Nay :pee:
Can you outline which of the secondary measures in the attached motion at the bottom you oppose since those are the only things voting against will impact.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Saunders16)
As posted on the first reading:

I'm glad to finally see a budget from Rakas21; it has been much anticipated. I will be including quotes direct from the budget as to make it clear what I am responding to and make it easier for you to respond. To make it easier to read, I will highlight the policies I agree with in green, those I am mixed on in amber and those I disagree with in red. I do note that this response comes nearly a week after the introduction of the budget as I have not had the opportunity to write this until now. Please take the time you need to respond sufficiently and feel free to post it on another thread if this is locked.

In short, I will not be voting for this if it goes to a vote, though I appreciate the effort put into this as a former Chancellor. It is an honourable effort although I think you agree with me that you should have begun work on it at the beginning of the term.

Revenue

On the basis that UK corporation tax is already set below the average rate for wealthy economies this budget will cancel the proposed cut in corporation tax from the current rate of 19% to 17% from 1st April 2020.

This was something I was very glad to see (although I notice it is not included in the accompanying bill). Although the savings of cancelling this change are minimal, I believe it to be an important shift in the long-run. We appear to be attempting to pursue a race to the bottom when corporation tax is already comparatively lower than other similar countries. It is not a wise approach to taxation; it may not be paritcularly harmful to the public finances but it is part of a trend towards much greater inequality.

A policy is needed that is more imaginative and favourable to smaller businesses, of which improved growth is necessary if we are to maintain high employment and a sustainable model. Two potential ideas I believe could work are exemptions and/or reduced rates of business rates for certain businesses and lower employer NICs as to make it more desirable to employ in the months and years ahead where growth is predicted to be limited.
I would fund this with a slightly increased rate of corporation tax to start reversing the changes, but if this had been included in the finance bill I would have applauded you for your courage in taking on the more economically liberal members of this house.

Although B1386 makes provision for this relaxation in 2023, this government will bring that forward to April 1st 2019 in the Finance Bill. Additionally, this government will levy an import duty on imports of these reclassified narcotics (rates and costing outlined further in this budget).

I have little to say on this other than to note my support. B1386 was applied in a deeply flawed way and I am surprised but happy to see the Conservative Party do something to address that and bring a new source of revenue to the Treasury.

On the basis that vehicle ownership has a considerable cost to the environment and increases pressure on road infrastructure, this budget levies a 150% vehicle excise duty charge onto two car (or more) households.

Although I am glad to see the focus on environmentalism, I do feel it is worth noting that this could have unintended negative consequences for the so-called working poor who require two cars for purposes of travelling effectively. I would like to know the possibility of a lower percentage being levied on two car households and a higher percentage being levied on three (or more) car households.

The net benefit to the Treasury from this levy [mansion tax] will be around £4.6bn and likely to grow as house price appreciation continues. The measure will come into effect from 1st April 2019.

Upon reading this I was once again surprised by the courage of the Chancellor, because this has my complete support as a means of both reducing inequality and creating a quite noteworthy revenue source.

The basic rate of income tax will be increased to £25,000 per annum ensuring that the average hard working citizen no longer bears the burden of excessive income taxation. Although the cost of this measure is high at an estimated £45bn per annum this government believes that a small redistribution of the tax burden via the reduction in the upper rate income tax threshold to £70,000 will more than pay for this measure through generating an estimated £45.2bn in revenues.

It appears this was costed incorrectly as it does not appear in the finance bill. The original policy sounds over-ambitious although I have no criticisms as to the obvious ambition from the Treasury to help those who need it most, at least in the form of changes to the taxation system. The policy in the finance bill also has my support.

As of the 1st April 2019 this government does hereby abolish air passenger duty at a direct cost to the taxpayer of £4.6bn by the 2023-2024 financial year.

As of the 1st April 2019 this government does hereby abolish Insurance Premium Tax at a direct cost to the taxpayer of £6.3bn by the 2023-2024 financial year.

As of the 1st April 2019 this government does hereby abolish the Climate Change Levy at a direct cost to the taxpayer of £2.5bn by the 2023-2024 financial year.

As of the 1st April 2019 this government does hereby abolish the Banking Levy and Banking surcharge at a direct cost to the taxpayer of £3.2bn by the 2023-2024 financial year.

No, no, no and no! This is not a surprising set of policies from you as I know of your particular dedication to tax simplification, but this is a ridiculously irresponsible loss of £16.6 billion if the costing is correct. It is surprising, however, from the perspective of a former Libertarian Chancellor and I have to commend you for your dedication to your principles. I think you must have known that these would be ignored by those on the right of the house due to your other changes to taxation, despite how significant of a change it is. You could have made much more flashy changes to the taxation system for a similar loss.

Of course, there was another option to more flashy cuts in taxation. You later call your expenditure policies 'tough decisions', yet they are self-inflicted. You could have excluded at least one or two of these policies and instead spent more on public services as to actually make this budget palatable for those from the centre to the left.

Expenditure

Despite the plethora of benefits that currently exist the taxpayer is currently forced to bear the burden of paying for the winter fuel allowance of pensioners. This is a policy which costs £2bn per year and is not means tested. This government takes the view that in addition to tax simplification, welfare simplification should also be a focus. As such from the 1st April 2019, the winter fuel payments will be abolished.

If the problem is that it is not means tested, make it means tested! You addressed the issue, but you have just created a greater issue by removing an important source of income for some individuals in the winter.

This government does not approve of are needless pet projects without sufficient funding to really make an impact vs ideas like the aforementioned Carbon Tax or renewable investment. As such, from the 1st April 2019, the Clean air fund is hereby abolished saving the taxpayer more than £0.2bn through a reduction in the Department for Communities and Local Government Budget.

I do not have a strong opinion on this, but I will need proof that it is just a 'pet project' and does not have its benefits. Can you please provide evidence that it does not have benefits more significant than the small cost of £0.2 billion?

The license fee will be abolished with the BBC either moving to a subscription or advertising based funding model in addition to potential part privatisation of those things currently receiving license fee funding.

I do have a strong opinion on this, however. The BBC is an institution that I believe to be very important to our reputation as a soft power. The BBC operates in countries across the world; whenever I go to the Netherlands as I do every year I have always appreciated the existence of a Dutch channel and there is a strong audience that do. Of course, it could still exist using a business-based model with advertisement or subscription, but we all know it would not be the treasured institution it is now and its influence would be reduced.

I would not be opposed to more exemptions and reduced rates of the TV license fee for certain individuals and taking the money from general taxation instead, but this is way too radical of a change and one I am very disappointed with considering the relative moderation of this budget compared to my own. Indeed, my own policy while I was a Libertarian was more moderate (abolishing the TV license fee and funding the BBC through general taxation. In fact, that is something I would consider supporting now if it was provided with sufficient evidence, but I will not support a move towards its partial privatisation.

To address this long term threat to the taxpayer the majority of employees (along with their employer and government) pay into an occupational pension scheme based from the 1st April 2019 on a minimum salary split of 3% from an employer, 5% from the employee and then 1% from government (salary minus a pensions threshold of around £6k).

£26.4 billion is a significant amount of revenue. Who will lose out under this new arrangement and is it worth it?

From the 1st April 2020 this government will hereby abolish the Department for International Development and reduce the foreign aid budget to a £1bn emergency fund.

Along with the policy on the BBC, this is one of two policies that really struck me as much more radical than my own budget in a budget that is more moderate overall. One of our objectives with Brexit approaching has to be maintaining our reputation as a country and this will go a long way to convince the world that we are becoming an insular nation. I appreciate that there is a case for assessing the causes we support with the foreign aid budget, but this is an extremist policy by all measures and further than even UKIP have seemed to go.

There are great causes to support as a state - and as one of the biggest economies in Europe - and this will quite simply reduce the amount of good we do as a country. It is a more than justifiable investment in the world around us that ultimately allows our upcoming and developing trade partners to be better off.

From the 1st April 2019 those employed full time will along with their employers be required to contribute 1% of their salary redeemable in the form of a voucher with which they are required to purchase private outpatient insurance.

An interesting policy, but a move in the wrong direction nonetheless. I do not feel comfortable with the idea of healthcare moving towards a system of payments, even if it is subsidised.

Spending

At the Conservative Party Conference (and costed in the RL 2018 budget) Theresa May announced the cap on local authority borrowing for new house building will be lifted despite the fact that this will have to be paid for via central government or increased taxes at a local level, something this government does not support. Preventing this policy being enacted will save £1.2bn by 2022-2023.

In the RL 2018 budget the Chancellor announced the creation of a new Digital Services Tax targeted at foreign multinationals. It is the view of this government that additional taxation is needlessly bureaucratic and exists only to cover up the failure of government to deal with tax avoidance measures such as transfer pricing. Not bringing in this tax is estimated to cost 0.4bn by 2022-2023.

In the RL 2018 budget the government froze alcohol duty which this government considers to be a needless loss of tax revenue. Not enacting this freeze (this means alcohol duties will rise at CPI+2%) will generate a saving of £0.1bn by 2019-2020.

In the RL 2018 budget the government announced that it would go ahead in around six months with a restriction on the play limit of fixed odds betting terminals to £2. Since this government believes that the domestic betting and gambling market should be largely unrestrained by government we oppose this chance. Preventing this limit from being enacted is estimated to generate a saving of £0.2bn by 2020-2021.

A mixed set of policies that I do not have much to say on here. Please inform us as to what the government wishes to do to address the housing crisis and help our pubs stay alive.

During the summer and in the RL 2018 budget the government announced a significant increase in NHS spending averaging 3.4% per annum and amounting to an additional £27.6bn per annum by 2023-2024. This government believes that such an increase is extreme, excessive, immoral at a time when fiscal discipline is required and unsustainable. To that end, this government will restrain the increase in NHS spending to 2% per annum from the 1st April 2019.

I am perhaps most disappointed by this out of anything in the budget and feel this to be the biggest reason of all that nobody who cares for the country should vote for the budget. Put simply, this is simply not based on any form of evidence. It is a false claim and I hope we will have a government next term who will not risk the NHS' future. Combined with your aforementioned pledge on increasing the prevalence of the private sector, I see reason to be very fearful as to this government's intentions.

This government will from 1st April 2020 increase annual defense spending by £15bn per annum (2.3% of nominal GDP in the 2020-2021 financial year).

This government will from the 1st April 2020 increase the infrastructure budget by £15bn per annum (in the Mhoc this includes housing, transport, energy, telecommunications and water). Future Infrastructure Spending Plans will be laid out as part of a 2019 Infrastructure Review.

In what way does this differ from real life and why should we trust that they will go to good causes if spending plans have not been outlined?

This government will from the 1st April 2020 spend £10bn less than it receives in revenue per annum such that on this measure alone we would reach surplus in the 2021-2022 financial year and continue to build a fiscal surplus.

I reject this obsession with a budget surplus. Although I do not wish to see a government be fiscally irresponsible, not spending enough is just as bad as spending too little. Ultimately, we are sacrificing our growth, our sustainability, social mobility, equality and the future of our public services for the sake of dealing with our budget surplus slightly quicker. It will only lead to greater dissatisfaction and a harsher move away from austerity in the future. It's time to move away from it now in a calm manner.

From the 1st April 2020 this government will create a Sovereign wealth Fund and British Business Bank.

Please explain if this is worth the cost and what the benefits will be. It is the area of this budget I have done the least reading on and as thus I do not see fit to offer an opinion in favour or against here.

Conclusion

After just over an hour and a half of writing you have my reply. I would be lying if I said I am not scared for what is being offered by aspects of the finance bill and, in particular, the coming spending motion. While my budget was dedicated to economic liberalism and mildly dedicated to austerity, this seems to be dedicated to austerity while not as concerned about economic liberalism, especially when it comes to taxation on the rich. This budget is unashamedly reflective of your character and history in the house and I am glad for the sake of debate you have created something that is more controversial than I expected, although due to its timing it appears it has been difficult for many people to offer a response. Perhaps overall interest in the budget disappeared a few weeks, if not a month or two, ago.

I will be opposing this at all points but considering the government's majority, I do hope you take into account my centre-left perspective.
All aspects relating to taxation have been answered in the finance bill thread.

With regards to the abolition of foreign aid this is a simple matter of priority. If one subscribes to the view that the state should where possible limit the level of spending and taxation then spending money to solve other people's problems is not morally jusifiable. That money spent on foreign aid represents a choice between granting aid to an Ethiopian or building shelters for the homeless on our streets. As a One Nation Conservative who believes rigorously in the moral duty of government, foreign aid cannot be a justified reason to tax our populous.

With regards to the NHS spending increase i consider your reply to be a classic trope. The NHS has for decades devoured ever greater public funds, it has faught against any and all attempts to increase efficiency or cut future expenditure and yet when a government presents a budget that guarantees that it's funding will rise with targetted inflation it is considered to be too little. At what point do we accept that an obese patient (the NHS) must be forced to diet.

With regards to defense that is a £15bn per annum increase vs RL. It brings defense spending to 3.3% GDP as part of a funding split that i believe will allow the nation to achieve true greatness.

With regards to Infrstructure these will be put to the House early next term if re-elected to government. Not only that but if these spending reforms are granted passage, i will hereby commit now to put the future Infrastructure report to vote so that all MP's may decide if the money is being spent on worthy promises.

The previous model of austerity has ended with most departments now flat over the next few years according to the OBR. What this budget does is commit the Mhoc to a path of future fiscal prudence.

So this policy is essentially three pronged. Firstly we will create a sovereign wealth fund which over time will allow us to accumulate a fund from which we will be able to leverage the UK Government's financial might in order to invest in our firms, protect the security of future UK pensions and generally create a buffer from which to draw upon in times of need negating the need for harsh cuts to public spending. Secondly we will create a British Business Bank which will act as a competitor to private banks and provide targetted and much need capital to firms and startups, this can be tied in with the sovereign wealth fund such that success is amplified. Finally this government will through the British Business Bank provided funds for an automation fund which will allow exporters based in the UK to reduce their production costs ensuring that they are the most competitive in the world.

So you see Saunders, the infrastructure proposals in tandem with the fund/bank proposals in tandem with the commitment to fiscal dicipline and in tandem with the increase to the defense budget put our nation on a path to greatness. In one stroke (by voting for these spending proposals - remember that nothing else in the budget is impacted by your vote here since everything else is primary) you can to ensure fiscal dicipline, to finally put us on a path to a trade surplus, to provide the infrastructure that our people and businesses sorely need and to protect our nation through vital defense investment.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#11
This has been sent to a vote by the Leader of the Opposition.

Division! Clear the lobbies!
0
X
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

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (48)
23.19%
My career doesn't need one (28)
13.53%
I'm sick of studying (43)
20.77%
I can't find a course I want to do (5)
2.42%
I don't know enough about them (15)
7.25%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (68)
32.85%

Watched Threads

View All