Budget

[Chilly]

Why is it stupid and pointless? If someone is doing something that doesnt really affect me, except to reduce MY tax burden, why the fuck should I care?

This is a liberal society. If people want to do things that harm only themselves, then they are pretty much free to do so and I really dislike laws that encroach onto that.

 

[rynnor]

Why is it stupid and pointless? If someone is doing something that doesnt really affect me, except to reduce MY tax burden, why the fuck should I care?

I dont care if people want to smoke but I think the arguement your presenting is flawed. If the people didnt spend their cash on booze n fags they would still spend it and get taxed (probably a bit less) but there wouldnt be the additional nhs burden.

 

[Gumbo]

I usually work 60 hours a week in the summer, 50 in the winter, my other half does about 20 hours, more when there's a lot to do, less when it's quiet. We have a 2 and a half year old daughter who we put in childcare as often as it's available, (mostly mornings) and her grandmother picks up the slack when my other half has to work.

Our household income is in the region of £35k, we get a small amount of tax credits, around £15 per week and the child benefit of £18.50 I think it is (it goes straight into her account and is completely used for groceries/petrol etc)

I am the archetypal middle class, middle England working man. We're neither poor, nor wealthy. We work hard, and don't claim benefits, aside from those mentioned above. Some months, we don't have quite enough money, then on the months when we have a bit to spare we put aside for those expensive months when we need heating oil etc. We get a couple of weekends away a year, we can't afford a 2 week holiday in the med, and we don't borrow money to pay for one. We don't owe DFS for a new leather suite, our sofa is a bit old fashioned and threadbare in places, but it's comfortable, nor do we owe PC World for a giant plasma (Clare's boy's bought us a nice TV as a thankyou for helping them out over a couple of years when they had shit jobs.)

This shapes my views, obviously. I am a product of my circumstances.

I am more than happy with the budget. On the face of it, I'm better off because of the higher threshold for tax, and lower NI, but then I'll lose a bit on vat and as the tax credits come down, but not significantly. Don't forget, the vat rise puts a whopping £25 onto a £1,000 TV, it won't stop them selling. On balance, I'll probably not really notice the difference. At the end of a tough month I'll still be short, I'll have a bit to spare at the end of a good month.

What I can appreciate is that the country is fucked. I think the government has done the best it can out of a bad lot, and I'm glad to see that something is going to be done to redress the balance of my taxes going to fund those who simply can't be arsed to work.

That gives you the background to my views. If I can be arsed, I'm going to wade into the discussion now and lay into things which won't be popular with the lefties on this forum at all.

 

[Chilly]

I dont care if people want to smoke but I think the arguement your presenting is flawed. If the people didnt spend their cash on booze n fags they would still spend it and get taxed (probably a bit less) but there wouldnt be the additional nhs burden.

A bit less? Almost all of the cost of a packet of fags is duty. When you buy a shiny new pair of shoes, there's a bit of VAt (might not even be the full 17.5% depending on the tarriff, kids shoes are tax free). You may have paid a bit of import duty from China, but that's not a vast amount.

A pack of 20 actually costs about 1.50 to the shop. the other 5 quid is tax. Now if I change my 100 quid on fags monthly to 100 quid on clothes monthly, I'm now giving about 20-25 quid in direct tax and tarriffs to the taxman instead of 70 or more.

It's not a stupid argument, it's not pointless. I want people (and if possibly only people not in my family that I dont like) to carry on smoking to keep my income tax down, TYVM.

 

[Tom]

Now subtract the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses from that £100.

 

[Jiggs]

This budget was the Gov saying: "We're going to slowly inflate the public debt away but lie about it, pretend we aren't and hope no one notices". The rest is just window dressing.

Capping housing benefit is the wild card, will be interesting to see how that plays out.

 

[Gumbo]

It's an incredibly tough one to quantify for sure, because non smokers can get the same illnesses as smokers, but I'm sure that cleverer people than me can factor that kind of thing into research.

I'd be happy for the tax burden on smokers to be higher anyway, put it through the roof. £15 for a packet would be OK by me. Smoking isn't a right, it's a privilege for the stupid to pay for. Smoking doesn't have a single redeeming feature to it, beyond raising tax revenue. So lets make it so expensive that only the really wealthy, really stupid can afford it. Price the poor out of it, and improve their health at the same time.

While we're at it, lets make it a criminal offence to smoke imported fags without a proof of purchase to say that you personally bought them yourselves. I bet every one on this forum 'knows a mate that can get you some cheap baccy'. Don't leave it up to HMRC to chase unpaid revenue from these people, leave it up to the police to treat them the same as drug dealers. They are robbing from every one of us who legitimately pay tax, by dodging the UK duty payable on tobacco.

 

[Scouse]

Some of the biggest cuts will be in higher education but unless your a student these wont affect you etc.

Its going to be very dependant on the services you use.

That's a very selfish view of the world rynnor.

"I'm not a student and don't have kids therefore I don't give a fuck if educational services are shafted"...




Edit: Gah. the thread's moved on 3 more pages. I'd better read it

 

[DaGaffer]

Now subtract the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses from that £100.

And there's still a net benefit to the Treasury. Problem with the whole "smoking-related illnesses/cost" argument is that eventually the vast majority of us end up in hospital in our old age being treated for something anyway. Yes, the type of treatments for smoking may be less than say, Alzheimers (although I doubt it), but in the long run the vast majority of us will be a burden on the state in some shape or form.

Take away the boozers and smokers (who, as I said, just soak all that extra duty right up) and you'd have to ramp VAT up by another 3% to make up the shortfall (cig duties are expected to be 9bn this year, and beer, wine and spirits around 8bn combined, the new VAT hike is expected to return 14bn) , and you'd be doing it on products that do have elastic demand, or you get it back on fuel duty, which is the only other inelastic opportunity.

 

[rynnor]

That's a very selfish view of the world rynnor.

"I'm not a student and don't have kids therefore I don't give a fuck if educational services are shafted"...

I wasnt presenting it as a world view just as a reality - you may notice big changes or you may not depending on what your circumstances are.

 

[Scouse]

Slippery slope - then we could stop all medical care for fat people, people who smoke or drink or do drugs because we shouldnt all pay for their habits huh?

And no sports injury treatment because thats self inflicted and no treatment for bikers because they are unsafe, same for horseriders in fact we wont need much at all in the way of healthcare.

No firemen because people shouldnt be stupid or clumsy - what a lovely world

Actually. I just said I'd stop child benefit. It's not as if, because you've had kids, you suddenly can't work, is it?

If you can't afford them don't have them.

I can see no knock-on effects to the health service. If you're ill, we'll treat you. It's not as if you can tell when you're going to become ill. Having kids is a choice, not something that happens "by accident"...

I wasnt presenting it as a world view just as a reality - you may notice big changes or you may not depending on what your circumstances are.

I don't care if I, personally, don't notice the big changes. The fact that I know about them is enough to be pissed off about them. And quite rightly so.

 

[Gumbo]

Nah, it's ok Scouse, we can jump around.

Higher Education.

I have 2 and a half year old daughter and I have high hopes for her education. I also want to see a massive cut in University funding, and far less kids going there.

There are way too many bollocks degrees out there, and from the demographic we see here on Freddy's, I bet there's a bunch of people doing them.

If my daughter turns to me and says she wants to do Surfing Studies at Plymouth Uni, I will be horribly, horribly disappointed. If someone in the private sector wants to create a surf school and a diploma which covers management of said schools etc fine, but state funding should not be going to this kind of bullshit degree.

I'm 35, and when I was 18 only the brightest went to Uni. That's not very long ago. Practically all University courses were meaningful and constructive and useful to employers. (We'll leave art history out of this). Now, just 17 years later, there is a perception that, again, there is a right to go to Uni. That even studying a bullshit degree is useful because it 'teaches you how to think'. Rubbish.

Universities are paid by the number of people they get onto courses. There is no funding weighting towards genuine useful degrees and we're getting a bunch of kids who shouldn't be there, doing courses which shouldn't exist. As a result, the tougher, but useful courses are suffering from a lack of applicants as these thick kids naturally pick easy but worthless courses.

 

[DaGaffer]

It's an incredibly tough one to quantify for sure, because non smokers can get the same illnesses as smokers, but I'm sure that cleverer people than me can factor that kind of thing into research.

I'd be happy for the tax burden on smokers to be higher anyway, put it through the roof. £15 for a packet would be OK by me. Smoking isn't a right, it's a privilege for the stupid to pay for. Smoking doesn't have a single redeeming feature to it, beyond raising tax revenue. So lets make it so expensive that only the really wealthy, really stupid can afford it. Price the poor out of it, and improve their health at the same time.

While we're at it, lets make it a criminal offence to smoke imported fags without a proof of purchase to say that you personally bought them yourselves. I bet every one on this forum 'knows a mate that can get you some cheap baccy'. Don't leave it up to HMRC to chase unpaid revenue from these people, leave it up to the police to treat them the same as drug dealers. They are robbing from every one of us who legitimately pay tax, by dodging the UK duty payable on tobacco.

It doesn't work. Its been tried in lots of countries (Australia for example) and people will sacrifice other things to make up for the increased cost. Tobacco is a drug, and a particularly popular one if you're poor.

Every government knows that if they genuinely priced fags to stop the poor buying them (say, the equivalent of a week's dole a packet),the rest of us would have to make up the shortfall. And if I'm being super-cynical, poor people don't vote....

 

[Scouse]

I'm 35, and when I was 18 only the brightest went to Uni. That's not very long ago. Practically all University courses were meaningful and constructive and useful to employers. (We'll leave art history out of this). Now, just 17 years later, there is a perception that, again, there is a right to go to Uni. That even studying a bullshit degree is useful because it 'teaches you how to think'. Rubbish.

I don't disagree with most of your sentiment about Uni. I'm about the same age and have the same sort of view about that (though I'd disagree that most courses were quality 17 years ago - I think that we've been on a slippery slope, in educational quality terms, since the abolishon of "O" levels)...


However, they're not going to close Uni's and shut down worthless-as-shit courses. They're going to charge for them. Lots and lots of money. Just like the US educational system.

We'll have a load of fucking thick people with worthless degrees and a massive wedge of debt knocking about

 

[Gumbo]

Yeah there is the vote thing, I can see that, but if people give up other things to still by fags, surely that's win/win. They might only be paying 20%vat on the other things, or nothing at all if they give up non vat goods, but they'll be paying tons to still poison themselves.

 

[Gumbo]

Ah, no problems at all with the price of bullshit degrees going up, especially if that means their cost to the taxpayer is neutralized. It could even help to fund the bright, but poorer kids doing degrees which are useful.

We just need to take our heads out of the sand and realize that they are 3 years of drinking and relaxing and are not worth the paper they are written on.

It's a massive thing, why do you think we had to import so many polish plumbers over the last housing boom? Because all the kids who used to learn how to wield spanners have been off at an old poly learning how to use colours to promote creative thinking in the workplace environment, and are now polishing a seat in your local council 'envisioning' things. So we're still paying for them!!

Labour wanted to see 50% of kids in Higher Education. Why? Why 50%? Why not 30, or 70? I want to see the brightest there, I want to see them doing useful things, and at the same time I want to see those who weren't bright enough to do those meaningful subjects doing apprenticeships, going to the local technical college and learning a trade. I want a young, newly qualified electrician coming to me touting for business at a keen rate, realizing that he needs to work hard to earn some money for his new found skills.

Not everyone is bright enough to warrant a university education. It's a harsh truth, but some people just aren't that clever and the country needs to realize this.

 

[Raven]

Exactly that, cut the fat from local government, diversity auditors, creative awareness directors, traffic wardens and the like and retrain them in something useful. Both curbing immigration, saving money wasted on the public sector and also increasing revenue from income tax.

 

[Chilly]

you need traffic wardens. the streets would be fucked if there was no fear of parking in stupid places.

 

[Tom]

And there's still a net benefit to the Treasury. Problem with the whole "smoking-related illnesses/cost" argument is that eventually the vast majority of us end up in hospital in our old age being treated for something anyway. Yes, the type of treatments for smoking may be less than say, Alzheimers (although I doubt it), but in the long run the vast majority of us will be a burden on the state in some shape or form.

Take away the boozers and smokers (who, as I said, just soak all that extra duty right up) and you'd have to ramp VAT up by another 3% to make up the shortfall (cig duties are expected to be 9bn this year, and beer, wine and spirits around 8bn combined, the new VAT hike is expected to return 14bn) , and you'd be doing it on products that do have elastic demand, or you get it back on fuel duty, which is the only other inelastic opportunity.

I don't think its quite that simple. People will still spend their money. Of course a lot of that money will exit the country never to return, but not all of it. Add to that the social benefits of having more fit and healthy people knocking around, and I think its fair to say that the elimination of smoking and alcohol abuse might just be a very good thing.

Having said that, some people will always want to abuse their bodies.

 

[Scouse]

Ah, no problems at all with the price of bullshit degrees going up, especially if that means their cost to the taxpayer is neutralized. It could even help to fund the bright, but poorer kids doing degrees which are useful.

The problem is that they won't fund the poorer kids. The price of all degrees is going to go up. Not just the shit ones.

I'd love a system where, say, the top 5% brightest got to go to University, completely free. The brightest kids aren't going to want to study shit in the first place...

 

[DaGaffer]

Ah, no problems at all with the price of bullshit degrees going up, especially if that means their cost to the taxpayer is neutralized. It could even help to fund the bright, but poorer kids doing degrees which are useful.

We just need to take our heads out of the sand and realize that they are 3 years of drinking and relaxing and are not worth the paper they are written on.

You do realise you sound like every other person around 20 years out of college lamenting on the state of education for, ooh, about the last 500 years?

It's a massive thing, why do you think we had to import so many polish plumbers over the last housing boom? Because all the kids who used to learn how to wield spanners have been off at an old poly learning how to use colours to promote creative thinking in the workplace environment, and are now polishing a seat in your local council 'envisioning' things. So we're still paying for them!!

There are two separate threads there; one is the decline in skilled labour, and the other is the growth in public sector bullshit jobs. I think the latter is going to be dealt with over the next few years, but the former? Its all very well moaning that your plumber is Polish, but that statement usually goes in hand in hand with "my Polish plumber is great, and dirt cheap too". Young people have been discouraged to enter skilled trades over the last 20-30 years because they're cyclical and exposed to cheaper rivals. Speaking as someone who learned a skilled trade before going to university; I know which route I'd recommend to my kids, and it isn't the oily rag route.

Labour wanted to see 50% of kids in Higher Education. Why? Why 50%? Why not 30, or 70? I want to see the brightest there, I want to see them doing useful things, and at the same time I want to see those who weren't bright enough to do those meaningful subjects doing apprenticeships, going to the local technical college and learning a trade. I want a young, newly qualified electrician coming to me touting for business at a keen rate, realizing that he needs to work hard to earn some money for his new found skills.

The 50% is a benchmark figure against other developed nations to encourage economic competitiveness; some education minister didn't just pull it out of his arse.

I can take your point about not accrediting crap like "surfing studies", but the value of a particular subject is not as simple as it looks; you can make an equally valid argument that a lot of extremely academic subjects put out an excess of graduates for the available jobs in their field, for example I have two friends with Anthropology degrees - when was the last time you needed a visit from your local anthrapologist? But it doesn't mean their degrees have no value either. I'd love my kids to be able to study something incredibly academic. As I said above, I went down the practical route when I left school and then hit a (very low) glass ceiling; university was the best thing I ever did, and for anyone with half a brain I wouldn't recommend any other option unless you've got the entrepeneurial skills of Richard Branson, or the feet of Lionel Messi.

Not everyone is bright enough to warrant a university education. It's a harsh truth, but some people just aren't that clever and the country needs to realize this.

It does. That would be why the figure is 50% and not a 100%.

 

[PLightstar]

Thats the problem, putting the price up does not solve anything, I don't smoke but my parents do, I know they will still buy it, if the price goes up because they are addicted to it. I was talking to my Mum about it on the weekend and she said they should outright ban smoking if its that much of a problem. Personally I don't have a problem with smoking, people should have the right to choose what they do with their money and free time, without prejudice from other people. But the government won't ban it because of the revenue.

As you Universities I didn't go, had the results but choose that it wasn't for me and after talking to mates and staying with them, it has reinforced my choice. I have done very well for myself and feel sorry for my uni mates because they are working in jobs that don't use their degrees at all. I think that degrees should be set up more like Apprenticeship or NVQ's where you get the business involved and you learn on the job as it were and work towards something instead of wasting 3 or 4 years of your life, would save alot of time and money. Also I think Universities should push for more practical degrees such as contracting, plumbing, building etc, this country is lacking in all tradesmen areas. But kids in schools are taught to aim towards be scientists or teachers or lawyers or council workers etc. Though I am not saying thats a bad thing, but all areas should be covered. I remember when I was in school and talked about following my dad's footsteps as a building and I was looking down upon and talked out of by the guidance councillor by saying underachievers don't go to uni and end up as a trademen, was so angry, education should be about choice not 'if I do well go to university'. The funny thing is I went to be a network admin and have ended up in the construction industry anyway designing control panels to control heating and cooling in buildings.

Sorry for the rant could say alot more but have stopped myself.

 

[Gumbo]

Nice deconstruction. What do your anthropologist friends do for a living now? And your figure about 50% being the benchmark figure against other developed nations, is it working for them?

Out of interest, what did you return to Uni to do? And what was your oily rag trade?

 

[Scouse]

The 50% is a benchmark figure against other developed nations to encourage economic competitiveness; some education minister didn't just pull it out of his arse...

...It does. That would be why the figure is 50% and not a 100%.

Y'see, I think you've scuppered yourself here.

You're right, the 50% of people in University is thang is to encourage economic competitiveness against other developed nations.

However, 50% of people definately aren't bright enough to get a degree - unless degrees become so fucking easy as to be meaningless.

Which degrees are, nowadays.

 

[Gumbo]

Thats the problem, putting the price up does not solve anything, I don't smoke but my parents do, I know they will still buy it, if the price goes up because they are addicted to it.

Great, more revenue in the state of Gumbo's bank account from your addicted parents.

People beat smoking, and many other addictions all the time. I did when I was stupid enough to smoke, and had enough money in my pocket to do so, 15 years ago.

I like the rest of what you said though. I need to employ boat builders, I can't find any because they are dieing out. I have a £25k pa job here, which most 20 year olds would be quite happy to be on, the right person could easily be earning £40k by the time they're 30. They wouldn't need to be good at book learning, but need to be good with their hands. The only local college offering a course in boat building only manages to run one every 3 or 4 years now, but I hear their media studies department is booming.

 

[DaGaffer]

Y'see, I think you've scuppered yourself here.

You're right, the 50% of people in University is thang is to encourage economic competitiveness against other developed nations.

However, 50% of people definately aren't bright enough to get a degree - unless degrees become so fucking easy as to be meaningless.

Which degrees are, nowadays.

Why aren't they? By definition, 50% of the population are above average intelligence. You can argue that degrees are "too easy", but I don't think its that big a problem (there's always postgrad to differentiate the crowd more), especially as employers generally know the worth of degree by where you studied it. Like I said, people have been moaning about the expansion of higher education for decades, but its all really a matter of definitions. I'm far more concerned about the type of degrees being studied rather than the absolute number; lack of hard science and engineering graduates is what really damages the economy (but that's also part of a wider problem in the UK that scientists and engineers aren't respected or represented at the highest levels of government or corporations.)

 

[rynnor]

I'm far more concerned about the type of degrees being studied rather than the absolute number; lack of hard science and engineering graduates is what really damages the economy (but that's also part of a wider problem in the UK that scientists and engineers aren't respected or represented at the highest levels of government or corporations.)

Isnt that down to the lack of job opportunities in those areas though? Most people I went to Uni with had looked at the job market and judged where they could get a job and taken a degree accordingly.

 

[Jeros]

Sometimes its better not for young people to go to uni right away, I have only started and I am 25, I am much clearer in my mind in what I want to do with it, its just not "for the sake of going to uni" as some do. That said I wish I had done it when i was 18, but i did not have a clue then, not thought any fault of the education system, but I just found nothing a challenge.

The government should also stop fucking around with qualifications. I spent three years at college doing GNVQs that no longer exist!

And also if they want to get people on a modern apprenticeship make them pay a MINIMUM WAGE! When I did mine in 2004 anyone on a modern apprenticeship was not entitled to the minimum wage, I ended up doing 8-10 hours a day for 5 days a week for £80, it was pretty much a waste of a year.

 

[Gumbo]

Why aren't they? By definition, 50% of the population are above average intelligence. You can argue that degrees are "too easy", but I don't think its that big a problem (there's always postgrad to differentiate the crowd more)

You realise you've just acknowledged that the first 3 years are worthless without tagging on a fourth, whereas in the past it was hard enough to do the first three, and the Batchelors was degree enough. You've acknowledged the dumbing down.

I'm far more concerned about the type of degrees being studied rather than the absolute number; lack of hard science and engineering graduates is what really damages the economy (but that's also part of a wider problem in the UK that scientists and engineers aren't respected or represented at the highest levels of government or corporations.)

I'm 100% in agreement with you there though.

 

[DaGaffer]

You realise you've just acknowledged that the first 3 years are worthless without tagging on a fourth, whereas in the past it was hard enough to do the first three, and the Batchelors was degree enough. You've acknowledged the dumbing down.

Worth less, yes, worthless, no.