For those who are interested ;) Outside of rises in duty on Alcohol, Tobacco & (possibly) Fuel, what are people's predictions for todays budget announcements?
Printable View
For those who are interested ;) Outside of rises in duty on Alcohol, Tobacco & (possibly) Fuel, what are people's predictions for todays budget announcements?
I still reckon fuel duty will be delayed for the election boost and I am also hearing under £250k stamp duty will be scrapped which is a good thing I think.
Either way, given Im off to the US next week I just hope the budget has something to stimulate the rate - its in freefall at the moment...
CGT will rise or some other way of taxing those rich people.
As mentioned fuel duty rise will be postponed because most voters are moronically thick and fickle.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
I would have liked to see less VED, more fuel duty, alcohol duty based on unit strength.
I'm liking the sound of the 250k stamp duty exemption rise though :)
Couldn't have put it better myself. Labour pandering to Labour voters :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Apart from Dooooooomed ?
It's going to be an election budget. Green investments, increases everywhere but fuel. Of course this makes no difference as the new parliament will not honour it anyway.
I think we'll see a scrapping of stamp duty under 250k..but only for First time buyers (suits me fine,looking to buy in the next 6 months) and it will have a time limit on it.
He'll probably suspend fuel duty for another <x months> due to current high prices at the pumps, and i'd guess that if he can he will try and limit rises on alcohol + tobacco.
looking forward to seeing in a few hours!
It had better be fairly harsh though, as investors will be looking to see the Govt control debt quickly. Otherwise the cost of borrowing will increase, which will feed through to us.
http://www.quizilla.com/user_images/...msbitters3.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Who is that ? Looks like something from Pink Floyd's The Wall ?
Lots of promises which all will be deferred 1-2 years so they have to do nothing. Taxes up.. via stealth, (perhaps bringing tax measures forward). Bank tax extended (as it got more money than expected). CGT up, allowances frozen.
Ideally looking for stamp duty under 250k to be scrapped, since I want to buy a house soon.
Delay on fuel duty is a bonus as my car is real thirsty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
It's Ms. Bitters...Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Right, hate to tell you this wont help you, if anything it will increase the gap between rich land owners and you.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikemi
This is why I get so fed up, people vote for something that will have the exact opposite effect to what they should be asking for.
Ok, so stamp dutey on a £200k place gets axed, but that's true for the other people buying it too.
The total cost of the property you can buy might well look like
TotalAffordable = (CashDeposit + Mortgage) - (StampDuty + ConvancingFees + SurveyFees + MortgageFee)
So, if we set that stampduty to 0, its the same for everyone right?
Now if we assume that house prices are suply and demand based (which they generally are)
HousePrices = Max(Buyers{TotalAffordable})
With me?
House Prices will rise.
So all this does is to help the land owners, like me, and even then I'd rather they didn't because I'm concious of the deficit.
Animus is right (heaven forfend)
If Stamp duty goes on those houses, they'll go up in price immediately.
I wonder what is gonna happen to CARS, and CAR TAX, and COMPANY CAR TAX.
Cos after all.... people who drive are evil
Why do people find it shocking and surprising when they agree with me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak33
have to agree with the £250k stamp duty. Wont help the buyer. You get places priced around £265-270k and at the moment the seller knows they will have to drop to under £250k realistically. If the limit goes those types of house prices, the seller will then be looking at selling at over £250k. Also lets be honest, nowdays not many houses/flats available below 250k anyways (well down south at least)
dunno... it's just like gravity.. it's natural.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
haha thats quality - made me laugh out loud in the office anyhoo...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak33
Im wondering about the whole VAT thing again - I wonder if there may be a way its utlised to avoid the dreaded double dip that could cause havok with the markets if it appears...
Monopolies and Cartels have the economies by the scruff of the neck now - they should have been 'managed' years ago...
it's because your usually trying to stir-up hatred by commenting on the north/south divide ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
I've a feeling we might see VAT increase because for weeks we've been hearing that we've the lowest VAT rate in 'europe' compared to other countries and it's a sneaky way to increase taxes across a broad spectrum and increase their revenue to plug the huge gaping hole that is in the UK funds at the moment.
VAT increase is anything but sneaky. However, he's ruled it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee @ SCAN
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/
Peston has innteresting insights on the government's probable plans. I have to say investment in manufacturing seems like a very good idea, however it does leave many industries that make non-physical stuff, like software, out in the cold.
Don't we already have some investment in software though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Are you referring to R&D tax credits ?
Don't know the details - know it's not much, but something that was aired in the past, especially relating to game software developers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
I foresee a "responsible" budget. There will be a few small sweeteners for voters, but they'll be more symbolic than worth anything much.
A VAT rise is an absolute no-no. Not now. After the election it's a whole new ball game, but weeks before one? No chance.
The rise in fuel duty could well be suspended. The logic will be that the fuel duty revenue went up when VAT came back in because the increase when they dropped VAT wasn't removed, and combined with some "better than expected" recent figures, they now have the ability to delay implementing that.
All told, it will be a "raise no waves" budget. He won't dare have the usual electorally biased give-away, because he knows full well that the likely reaction from the markets would be pandemonium, and that a further significant downward jump in sterling will be rammed down their throats by the Tories and LibDems between now and the election.
Someone (Robert Peston on Newsnight, I think) said he'll be aiming for a budget that will be forgotten by Friday or Saturday, and I agree.
He's got a balance to walk, between trying to get the maximum electoral benefit from a budget, while being conscious that the electorate aren't quite stupid enough not to see straight through a give-away budget, given the national debt and the deficit. He dare not look like it's a give-away for electoral reasons, but he dare not make it too strict either, in case it scares the voters. At the same time, it has to be strict enough to avoid scaring the markets.
His attitude to the budget will be that of someone walking through a minefield - no sudden moves, nothing too dramatic and being very, very careful where you put your feet.
I foresee even more of a yawnfest than normal.
I also see an "emergency" redrafting after the election. The Tories certainly will, and have said they will within 50 days. Labour have said that the are having the departmental spending review in the autumn, and by then at the latest, we'll see what the real steps will be, if Labour win.
In other words, the budget will be largely theatre, and theatre aimed at a couple of very different audiences at that.
Oh, and it'll be pitched as a steady hand, not cutting support too early. Note, it won't say they're not cutting support, but not cutting it too early. When they will cut it will be deliberately vague, but it'll be safely after the election.
Other than the odd headline-grabbing sweetener (like deferring or phasing the fuel duty rise, or something on tax credits), it'll be about "investment", to encourage "growth". This is because to come anywhere close to hitting their "half the deficit in four years" target, they have to achieve growth figures that almost nobody thinks are possible, so he has to be seen to be targeting spending at the economy .... without giving the unions a brown trouser moment by spelling out the public sector cuts that are coming.
This, pretty much. It doesn't matter what's in today's budget (is it really budget day? I didn't realise until I saw this thread...), because it only has to last 3 months. If Labour stay in I imagine we'll see some sweeping changes in personnel as they try to appear a changed party, and if the Conversatives get in they'll want to tear down Labour's legacy ASAP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
What happens if we get a hung parliament, is well beyond the ken of mortal men... ;)
Another factor, and it's a bit of psychology.
It is a barely concealed secret that Brown tried to dump Darling and install Ed Balls as Chancellor, but couldn't make it stick. Rumour has it that Ed Balls was already packed, ready to move/ ;)
It is also believed that Brown wants more of an electoral give-away, and Darling wants something focussed on the economy. Normally, we might expect Brown to win that argument.
But look at Darling's position.
If Labour win the election, Brown will survive. The argument is that if he does, he will have the mandate, and the power within the party, to boot Darling out and install Ed Balls.
If Labour don't win, Osborne will be Chancellor and Darling is out anyway.
So ... the psychology is that there's no real pressure on Darling not to do it his way, and pretty much ignore Brown .... the way Brown as Chancellor pretty much ignored Blair.
He's started... everyone quiet ;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8584505.stm
Nah, Jim. I can call that one too.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
We will get all the main parties talking about "working together", and "national unity", and cooperation .... while they sharpen their knives and hunt for suitable backs. They will pretend to be working for the economy, while at the same time, trying to work out what political advantage they can leverage behind the scenes. The LibDems in particular are, I would bet, absolutely salivating at the prospect, while at the same time trying to appear above it all and declaring that they aren't "kingmakers".
And if that does happen, as I confidently expect it will knowing what most politicians are like, the Heaven help the economy and the country.
he just mentioned Gaming sector.....
I think they are trying not to make the mistake they made before of saying "Go forth and prepare for government", before an election which failed to get the hung parliament they expected. I believe UKIP will be standing, that is not listened in the opinion polls I expect that will make seats harder to win for the conservatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
"Its like the captain of the titanic, been made the captain of the lifeboats."
I laughed.
I did say "mortal men"... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Oh I wish I had the powers to fling thunderbolts. If I did, Brown would need an earthed stainless steel umbrella to poke his nose out of the door. Sadly, mortal (and thunderboltless) is I.
Hey, did I just invent a new word? :D
:lol:Quote:
announced a crackdown on tax evasion through new agreements with the governments of Dominica, Grenada and Belize
Cameron's speech was a very good bit of electioneering. Very well written and very well presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
My favourite was "this Prime Minister won't win any medals for bravery, but at least most of his cabinet will be mentioned in Dispatches".
However, regardless of pre-scripted jokes, and there were a couple of good if predictable ones, it was the meat of it that really matters. On that, and despite Cameron's obvious ability for a slick presentation, I had to agree with most of what he said - despite Darling trying to present a gloss, it's a budget for very hard times and as the party in power for 13 years, they simply cannot avoid the blame for the hard times.
It's like this. Some of our current mess is down to the international crisis, but a LOT was there before that. It's the result of years of domestic tax and spending policy, and is firmly down to Brown. So Darling can try to put a gloss on it, but that Titanic quote is actually remarkably apt.
And Nick Robinson drive it home in his comments on BBC2 after the budget. Darling said they're going to be "doing more" on this and that, but the figures in a budget show a cut of £100m in this area and £400m in that area.
So .... how can you be "doing more" and cutting budgets at the same time? There are ,as far as I can see, only two possible answers. One is "you're not". In which case the "doing more" is electioneering hype given the lie by the budget figures. The other is that you will deliver more front-line improvements by efficiency savings and take some of those savings as cuts while ploughing the rest back into increasing services. And if that is the case, then it can only be the case because the way services have been provided in recent years has been disastrously inefficient.
And if these service provisions have been the result of such woefully inefficient spending that they can cut billions off of budgets and still provide worthwhile service increases, then who was the incompetent muppet responsible for that grossly inefficient spending in the first place?
Oh yeah.
Over the years, we;'ve heard Brown boast and boast and boast about how they've spent "billions" on this, billions on that, and billions on the other. If he was running a competition for spending the most, he'd be a runaway winner, But he forgot that the object of the exercise wasn't to spend, but to provide services, and to do so at sensible cost. You do not measure service provision by how much you spend but by how much service improves, and whether you spend wisely, and get value for money.
So now Labour are in the awkward position of having to cut spending to get the deficit down, while pretending that somehow it's about improving service and increasing provision.
Oh, and a lot of emphasis was put on the deficit. It's worth remembering that the deficit is merely how much national debt is increasing by. Even if they cut the deficit to zero, and it's going to be four years before even Labours plans will merely halve it, the actual debt is still going up every year, and that debt has to be paid for.
There are figures that show that if you ranked government departmental spending (such as Health, Education, Defence etc) merely paying the interest on the existing debt would rank about fourth, and is heading for third. A very large part of our national output every year is going on merely paying off the debt that brown has racked up, and that's without including financing his off-balance sheet stuff like PFI. And if interest rates go up, that drain on resources will rocket. As it is, we're already paying about 1% more on rates than other triple-A countries like Germany, and that may well get worse if the markets don't like plans to reduce the deficit.
All told, from what I can make of it so far (and I'm still reading the budget report), this report was exactly the "largely do nothing" budget I was expecting, dressed up in electioneering clothes designed to provide tonight's news soundbites.
At this point does it really matter what this budget says? it might as well be Unicorns for everyone. Either because Darling won't be here to enact it or that the electorate just can't stomach what needs to be done to fix the situation.
Some other considerations is that it's for new buyers only so not available for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Credit is still tight, so I don't think we'll see a huge jump in demand, but hopefully should stimulate the housing market a bit more, like when the stamp duty limit was raised.
For people buying soon I still think this will save people some cash.
...unless you were looking at something over 1M :p
(Not atypical or ridiculously high end in central London)
Solution: don't live in Central London ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TooNice
I know, easy for me to say, but we could actually save so much money if people would get their heads round the fact that actually, in the modern, digital world, most business doesn't need doing from London, and you can pay your staff significantly less while allowing them a significantly better quality of life, by moving your offices to, say... ooh, how about Manchester ;) Or Birmingham, or Liverpool, or Leeds, or... the list goes on. The obsession with having to be in the capital city is probably costing both private companies *and* the civil services more than anything (look at Skipton House, the NHS headquarters, if you want proof - as far as I can tell about 90% of those staff could be moved out of London with no loss of productivity...)
They are moving civil service stuff out of London - that's where a lot of the savings are coming from.
I didn't expect much from this given the election is just round the corner. It was an hour or so long, could have probably done the whole thing in 5 minutes if he hadn't constantly compared to previous years.
Stamp duty won't do anything.
Banks are not lending and businesses are also cautious about borrowing too.
NI going up doesn't help.
@scaryjim: To be fair, I only came to London from all the way up North in the last two years to wrap up my studying (University themselves don't really move much). Plus, some jobs are really centralised in London, so until busineses move I've no choice but to follow :laugh:
But I am so surprised how expensive even 'student' accommodation can be. I was given a quote of £1100-1300 for all-inc studios in places I would most like to be (and you have to be a student to stay in those places) :O_o1:
Perhaps this is part of the plan, but this is going to make property investment on the upper end less attractive. Rental yield is really low for luxurious apartments, and this is just going to make it worse. Okay, with a base rate of 0.5% just about any thing is better than leaving cash in a bank, but I rather suspect that there are places elsewhere in the world where you'll get better returns, without that much more risk.
Good, they should of done it sooner.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
There are a few issues with the notion that this is where savings are coming from, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrichello
First, you can't do it in a hurry. It's going to take years. You can't just expect thousands of staff to uproot their families and move. Many, maybe most, simply won't do it. Secondly, you may well save money in the future, but if costs a faffing fortune to do it.So in the immediate future, far from reducing costs it increases them. Partly, this is for acquiring new premises and the set-up costs. Partly it's for recruiting new staff in the new location. Partly it's because those new staff have a learning curve to master before they even reach the efficiency of the existing staff. Partly it's because there's going to be an overlap period where you're running both operations. And partly it's because the redundancy payouts for the staff you don't move costs you a fortune.
Any notion that moving operations to far-flung locations is going to help pay down the deficit or contribute to cuts over a short term, like three or four years is, in my view, absolutely fatuous. No, it's a con. It's a move to maker it seem like they are doing something to achieve the "efficiency savings" that we all know is going to come down to job cuts, once the election is safely over and they can do what needs to be done without having to worry about electoral backlash for five more years or so.
Oh, and if it's going to save such a lot of money and is such a good idea, well, Labour have been in power for 13 years, so what's taken them so flaming long to get around to it? Or have they just been content to waste billions of taxpayer's pounds by sitting on their fat, complacent political backsides, contemplating their navels and working out how to raise more of our money to spend than getting value for what they already spend?