2016 Budget

See my post above... The Torys are going to take money from the disabled.. They are going to change the system of points so many who now qualify won't in future.

There may be a revolution in the House of Commons like there was last autumn when Osboure tried to take away tax credits. In short he failed to do that so is going to take it from another area where people cannot defend themselves.

 

That it's been seen by some as almost a 'pre-election' Budget (and the promised cuts being pushed right back to the end of their term) has made both myself and some political commentators suspicious.

What's the reason for this? Is it a pre-referendum sweetener, or in readiness for a change of Leader and/or an early General Election? Yes, there's now a fixed term parliament act, but there's still 2 ways of getting around it [1].

I'll kick of with this one: The Conservatives smell defeat in the EU referendum, DC will resign, BJ becomes new Leader, the next bit in their cunning plan is that he engineers a vote of confidence in the Government, Conservatives vote against themselves (well, the Government was against what the electorate wanted), plus they have a new Leader and want the electorate's mandate, as they wanted an election after GB took over from TB. Just how could Labour give a vote of confidence to the Government and maintain any credibility? Then there'll be an election before the cuts hit or Labour can get their act together.

I wouldn't put anything past them.




[1] Other being two thirds majority vote of Commons, but once again, would Labour, SNP, etc. MPs vote for another 4 years of 'Tory Misrule'?

 

'Sugar Tax':

Can't find any precise details (maybe there aren't any yet?), so based on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35824071

"Aimed at" those mentioned, but it could hits lots of other stuff.

Many squashes are not "pure fruit juices", Strawberry Ribena for instance contains carrot extract and other flavourings. 'Juice Drinks' are not pure fruit juice, some are diluted because of their intense flavours, for example Blackcurrant or Blueberries, some to make them cheaper by diluting to say 50% juice and adding water, sugar, Citric Acid and flavourings, and others are like the latter but use artificial sweeteners so they can be labelled 'reduced sugar'.

Any squash, even 'reduced sugar' would most likely be hit by sugar tax, unless all the natural fruit sugars were removed and completely replaced by artificial sweeteners.

Carton 'juice drinks' without artificial sweeteners are typically around 115g/sugar, so would attract the higher rate of 24p/Litre tax, and make them more expensive than cartons of pure juice. Many of those using diluted juice with artificial sweeteners would still be hit by 18p/Litre tax.


[1] Although it appears to me that the ones buying loads of fizzy drinks of a lunchtime are skinny teenage students from the nearby school, and the obese shoppers have their trolleys full of biscuits, pies, burgers, chips, cakes, etc.

[2] 24p/L tax, but you could buy 1L of 49g/L untaxed drink and add 31g of sugar (costing just over 1p)yourself and pay zero tax.


P.S. When this tax doesn't work, I expect it to be rolled out over a whole range of foodstuffs.

 

Yes, and as with other Budgets, I can also foresee loads of problems with interpretation and challenges as to what's in/out, but suspect after the initial furore all categories covered by 'sugar tax' (and thinking about the wording, will they be actually connected to sugar content?) or will they be included in a schedule linked to obesity, and therefore not requiring any further legislation, so any foodstuffs/drinks could have a massive tax(maybe 30% ?) imposed at any time.

 

I'm certain they would. By the time they've paid their rent or mortgage, council tax, water, gas, electricity, fuel to get to and from work, telly tax, phone bill etc etc, I can't see how they could afford to eat. To be honest, anyone on such low income would be better off finding an excuse to claim benefits, then they'd get most of the bigger bills paid for them, while not having to spend 50 quid per week or more just getting to work.

 

Would you care to do me the courtesy of letting me know which bit of my post you disagree with @Anthony Rogers ?

 

The bit about " claiming benefits, then they'd get most of the bigger bills paid for them " .

I've been unable to work due to ill health for 6 years now. You get so much rent rebate and so much council tax rebate. THAT'S IT ! ! !

It's a totally fallacy that you can claim benefits for this and benefits for that .

How do you think I live on £101 a week ?

Do you think I get help paying my water, gas/electricity, tv License, phone bill etc etc

 

I dont believe anyone on that sum of money for working a 40 hr week should pay income tax.
Wages are being kept at stupid levels by importing labour from poorer countries.

Everyone should get a living wage for a weeks work.
Cant say what that should be, but I'm sure its not impossible to work out.

 

Anthony, you are missing kids.
If you had some you would get a lot more, nobody likes us ones living alone.

 

I didn't mean that benefits claimants get ALL their bills paid, but they do get housing benefit and council tax benefits. That's the biggest proportion of fixed living cost.

I am also not suggesting that life is easy on benefits. I've been on the dole, I know it is hard.

But I maintain that it is possible to be better off in real terms on benefits than on a very low income but at work.

 

And I maintain that people who moan about their wages/tax etc should sell their computers, mobile phones extra tv's in every room, Sky/Virgin tv packages etc etc etc as these are not lifes necessities.

These items are just seen nowadays as " standard items of life ", they're not..... Those items would be food, clothing, water and fuel.

 

Pete, I agree about the living wage, but how would you incorporate the items I've listed above into it as they don't help you live, they are luxuries of life pure and simple.

 

I moan about my wages quite often and all the time about tax.
But I buy what I can afford, see where you are coming from though @Anthony Rogers.

I sometimes wonder at what point anyone would consider themselves to be rich.
Personally, I dont think most people ever would, you only see others as rich, as to yourself, you live to what you can afford, and that is mostly down to personal preference.

 

I think you've put it brilliantly Pete, except for the last bit " you live to what you can afford " and that is the problem with many people today, it's a " I see it I want it " society and then blame everyone else ( but mostly Government and employers paying low wages ) for the problems created when you can't afford your bills etc.