the budget

crackerjack

Well-known member
Go, Red Al!

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, today told the rich they faced a top tax rate of 50% as he sought to plug a record budget deficit and admitted the country would suffer this year as a result of the biggest contraction in its economy since the second world war.

so what does it all mean?
 

BareBones

wheezy
lol.

anyway. i admit i don't really "get" the budget. It always perplexes me - my understanding of the workings of economics in general is pretty poor, and i find it impossible to comprehend such large amounts of money, not to mention trying to imagine exactly what the money is spent on. The only things i can normally see that directly apply to me is stuff like tax on fags.

stuff like this i find terribly confusing:
• £260m new money for training and subsidies.

training for what? what subsidies? (realising that the guardian's 'budget at a glance' isn't probably the best place to glean the most details)
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
lol.

anyway. i admit i don't really "get" the budget. It always perplexes me - my understanding of the workings of economics in general is pretty poor, and i find it impossible to comprehend such large amounts of money, not to mention trying to imagine exactly what the money is spent on. The only things i can normally see that directly apply to me is stuff like tax on fags.

stuff like this i find terribly confusing:
• £260m new money for training and subsidies.

training for what? what subsidies? (realising that the guardian's 'budget at a glance' isn't probably the best place to glean the most details)

I haven't delved much deeper than the TV ticker tape, but I believe the govt is guaranteeing free training (in what I don't know) for anyone under 25 who can't find a job.

The Times is warning of a brain drain cos of the 50% top rate.It all seems quite nostalgic. If only Harold Wilson was here to reassure us all with his pipe.
 

BareBones

wheezy
yeah, that was one of the bits that popped out at me - "From January 2010 everyone aged under 25 who has been unemployed for a year to get an offer of a job or a training place." Not sure how that will work but sounds lovely.
 

swears

preppy-kei
If they'd had the balls to bring in a 50% top tax rate ten years ago, we might not be in quite as much shit now.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Who knows exactly what amount of shit we would be in, but rest assured we would be in it.

Why? I don't disagree with you necessarily but neither do I think it's axiomatic that higher taxes for a very small percentage of top earners = world of financial shit - what' s your reasoning?
 

jtg

???
If they'd had the balls to bring in a 50% top tax rate ten years ago, we might not be in quite as much shit now.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that the number of high-earners leaving the country as a result of this will actually lose the Treasury £800m a year. Even if the unrealistic £7bn is raised, it's very small potatoes, nowhere near enough to service the interest on the debt this government has accumulated. This is just class warfare. Will it help poor people? Not at all; it might even cost us money. But will it punish rich and successful people? Excellent! As for it preventing the current recession, I take it you mean that the government wouldn't have borrowed as much money? I don't think so -- trying to stop a Labour government from borrowing is like trying to stop the sun setting.
 

vimothy

yurp
Why? I don't disagree with you necessarily but neither do I think it's axiomatic that higher taxes for a very small percentage of top earners = world of financial shit - what' s your reasoning?

That isn't what I was saying. My point was that regardless of individual tax rates, every state is suffering from the fall-out of the financial crisis.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Sorry if this is a very stupid question, but who or what is Darling borrowing this money from - World Bank? IMF? Other countries? Privately-owned banks?
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
That isn't what I was saying. My point was that regardless of individual tax rates, every state is suffering from the fall-out of the financial crisis.

Yeah, clearly even the most optimistic forecasts for the new tax yield couldn't cover the deficit, even if they were extrapolated back for 12 years.

Still, as gesture politics go, this is :D
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that the number of high-earners leaving the country as a result of this will actually lose the Treasury £800m a year. Even if the unrealistic £7bn is raised, it's very small potatoes, nowhere near enough to service the interest on the debt this government has accumulated. This is just class warfare. Will it help poor people? Not at all; it might even cost us money. But will it punish rich and successful people? Excellent! As for it preventing the current recession, I take it you mean that the government wouldn't have borrowed as much money? I don't think so -- trying to stop a Labour government from borrowing is like trying to stop the sun setting.

How the hell is it class warfare when the percentage of people earning this amount is so small? That's absolute rubbish. £7bn isn't enough to service the debt, true, but it's not an insignificant amount of money either. As for this estimate - why that figure? How was it worked out so quickly? Can you provide me with any assurance that this isn't just a random figure plucked out of someone's arse?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The government borrows money by issuing bonds, known as "gilts".

And who buys these - private investors? Special firms? Banks?

(Sorry, this is probably your equivalent of someone asking me "So what are these 'atoms' all about, then?" - there's a reason I generally stay out of these economics threads...)
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
That isn't what I was saying. My point was that regardless of individual tax rates, every state is suffering from the fall-out of the financial crisis.

I getcha. I find backwards extrapolation like this kind of weird anyway, near impossible. New Labour defined themselves pretty much by an attempt to get close to the to the City of London (cf. Brown's "prawn cocktail offensive") and with a clear difference in attitude towards the wealthy (Peter Madelson's (realaxed" quote) so it's hard to imagine them acting differently without New Labour being an utterly different institution.

Was interesting to see all the headlines yesterday though. It struck me more as newspaper editors/owners worried that they were going to get hit in the pocket than reflecting the views of their readers.
 
Top