Philip Hammond unveils the budget this afternoon.

What are people expecting?



I've just seen this graphic, and thought it was interesting:



and this is where the welfare payments end up:



and this is how it breaks down in terms of departmental spending:

Scotland , Wales , N.Ireland....hold on , where's England?

Jeez - look at the 'defence' bit. That is stupid.

karatekid wrote:Scotland , Wales , N.Ireland....hold on , where's England?

er, all the rest of it?

UpTheBeehole wrote:er, all the rest of it?

I don't think so

And I can't believe they can't reduce the costs of child benefit. Surely they could make it so you have to apply for it or make it more rigorously means tested? There can't be many people who have children that need this benefit. I can't see it being that politically dangerous to reduce this amount. Especially if they said that this cash would go to something like adult/elderly social care? Surely parents get enough 'benefit' through free education?

(Crikey. I'm thinking of applying for a job at the Daily Mail now....)

I reckon they spend money in Scotland on health, education, and so on as well. No, the Scotland - Wales - Northern Ireland are the extra bits of spending they get just as a reward (or compensation?) for being Scottish etc. That's why Scots get free university education and free nursing home fees etc., just because they're Scottish - it's a subsidy.

Hopefully cuts to most benefits, and a increase in health and education.
Scrap free childcare, free school meals etc to none workers.

All college and uni course fees to be paid back in full, at 5-10% ( minimum) of weekly income until paid. All free childcare fees added into the final figure.

Foulthrow wrote:And I can't believe they can't reduce the costs of child benefit. Surely they could make it so you have to apply for it or make it more rigorously means tested? There can't be many people who have children that need this benefit.
(Crikey. I'm thinking of applying for a job at the Daily Mail now....)

You do have to apply for Child Benefit.
It has become means tested.
It would be incredibly politically difficult to reduce it - precisely because nearly everybody with children gets it.
People now factor in Child Benefit to their budgeting.
You're almost certainly not up to Daily Mail standard. They take the best journalists in the country.

dsr wrote:I reckon they spend money in Scotland on health, education, and so on as well. No, the Scotland - Wales - Northern Ireland are the extra bits of spending they get just as a reward (or compensation?) for being Scottish etc. That's why Scots get free university education and free nursing home fees etc., just because they're Scottish - it's a subsidy.

The NHS in Scotland is fully devolved, and based on that i'm not even going to entertain your further, incorrect assumptions. Your reckoning is out, as it always is.

The Scots do get more money per head don't they than anywhere else?

That's because the Heroin is more expensive, they have to charge more....

P.s not all are on the game though.

MACCA wrote: Scrap free childcare, free school meals etc to none workers.

.

That would be insane. By all means encourage non workers to get off their arse. But dont starve and fail to educate their kids. Theyre the first people who should be educated and fed!

Out of interest can the increases be linked to the increase in population size?

More people, more money needed, more debts etc as a result?

UpTheBeehole wrote:The NHS in Scotland is fully devolved, and based on that i'm not even going to entertain your further, incorrect assumptions. Your reckoning is out, as it always is.

That Janet-and-John graph from the Treasury suggests that Sotland's spending is 5% of the total, but Scotland's population is about 8% of the UK. So either there is gross underspend on the Scots (which there certainly isn't), or there is spending on Scotland that isn't shown in the Scottish share of the graph. (Or the graph's scale is so far out as to be meaningless.)

MACCA wrote:Hopefully cuts to most benefits, and a increase in health and education.
Scrap free childcare, free school meals etc to none workers.

All college and uni course fees to be paid back in full, at 5-10% ( minimum) of weekly income until paid. All free childcare fees added into the final figure.

Jesus wept

Strange that 'young people' still complain about housing and rent costs.

The same people who buy £150 trainers on their payday.

The new railcard is a joke, money could be better spent elsewhere.

IAmAClaret wrote:Strange that 'young people' still complain about housing and rent costs.

The same people who buy £150 trainers on their payday.

The new railcard is a joke, money could be better spent elsewhere.

Footwear business must be booming then. Someone tell Ringo.

how to bore people with your political bias -

1. only show them what you want them to see [ie only items which show how good 'your lot' are and what a bunch of twohats 'the others' are].

2. feel free to exaggerate any stats in an effort to push your point [no-one in the world can say for sure that your figures are inaccurate. so you can blag ad-nauseam without fear of contradiction].

3. have fun spouting rubbish about anything that might happen in the future. no-one can predict what will happen so you can feel comfortably smug with your vision of it. brexit has been a proper god-send for this [if you have a few months to spare read through some of the posts on here about this subject; the old sooth-sayers of times past could only dream of something like brexit to get their teeth into].

3. simply ignore anything that the others did which might actually have been a good thing for the nation [you aren't doing this to give kudos to the others].

4. don't forget to have to hand a list of your favourite insults and put-downs [you'll be using this list almost from your first reply to someone who doesn't spout your own political bias]. ' Idiot' is often used to good effect and 'racist' is a good one to let your opponent know that you have taken the moral high ground and that they probably aren't well-enough equipped, mentally, to take it from you.

have fun out there, kids. be as nasty as you want and always remember, you can't actually achieve anything nor change anything no matter how much drivel you pedal.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:That would be insane. By all means encourage non workers to get off their arse. But dont starve and fail to educate their kids. Theyre the first people who should be educated and fed!

But by providing the the latter, the first bit doesn't work.

Possibly go the way of benefits paid in food tokens then rather than cash, or 25% cash 75% in vouchers.

As I'm sure 99.9% of us are street wise enough to know that the more help/cash etc they get provided with, the more spare cash they have for fags, booze or drugs.
( which IMO should be last on your priority list if you have dependents)

MACCA wrote:But by providing the the latter, the first bit doesn't work.

Possibly go the way of benefits paid in food tokens then rather than cash, or 25% cash 75% in vouchers.

As I'm sure 99.9% of us are street wise enough to know that the more help/cash etc they get provided with, the more spare cash they have for fags, booze or drugs.
( which IMO should be last on your priority list if you have dependents)

How would you cope if you were laid off and had to claim benefits?

What vouchers would you need? How much for?

UpTheBeehole wrote:Jesus wept

He probably did whilst getting nailed to the cross.

Everything we do, he has done before us.

He made the ultimate sacrifice for you and I.

Just imagine what might happen if Macca used both of his brain cells.

UpTheBeehole wrote:How would you cope if you were laid off and had to claim benefits?

What vouchers would you need? How much for?

I've been laid off twice in my career, once when my wife was weeks off giving birth.
Do you know what I did?

I went and got a job, any job, the first job that was available.
It was minimum wage plus night shift allowance, so I could still look for work and spend some time with my new born
( I didn't qualify for paternity pay )

Do you know what I did the 2nd time?
Yes you guessed it got a job, any job, the first one available.

I then cut back on all my luxuries so I could keep up with my bills, got a 2nd job as I needed a lot more than the wages I were on, then looked for work in my field.

I accept it's hard when work dries up.
However I don't accept X person at 28 having never worked a days work in their life. ( I could have reeled of half a dozen stereotypes, but we are all streetwise enough to guess these people's life styles )

I don’t think anyone likes the people who have never worked and don’t want to.

The problem is there are lots of people who need benefits, and that’s people who are out of work as well as in Work. They are the ones who are constantly penalised when they should be being helped.

Bacchus wrote:Just imagine what might happen if Macca used both of his brain cells.

Just imagine,...

My sick grandmother may not have to wait 6 weeks to see a specialist that could potentially save her life.

The once a year I'm sick I may get to see my GP rather than treating myself.

Police could help protect me and my family.

But nah, let's keep cutting these essential things so X can get his methadone, so X can keep her 20 day a habbit and so X can keep X house heated and fridge stocked whist they watch day time TV.

Bordeauxclaret wrote:I don’t think anyone likes the people who have never worked and don’t want to.

The problem is there are lots of people who need benefits, and that’s people who are out of work as well as in Work. They are the ones who are constantly penalised when they should be being helped.

I fully concur.

But I'm not sure if you are as aware as me, or as driven, but if you are, you will realise there are dozens of jobs out there, and I'd put my mortgage on me finding work within 48 hours should I need to.

Sadly lots of people don't want too, and why not?
Because they get enough given for them not to need to work.

MACCA wrote:Just imagine,...

My sick grandmother may not have to wait 6 weeks to see a specialist that could potentially save her life.

The once a year I'm sick I may get to see my GP rather than treating myself.

Police could help protect me and my family.

But nah, let's keep cutting these essential things so X can get his methadone, so X can keep her 20 day a habbit and so X can keep X house heated and fridge stocked whist they watch day time TV.

Have you seen how small a portion of the welfare spend goes to these layabouts you're talking about?

Have a look at the lovely picture I provided. Just have a look for it, and point out to me where it is, and how big or small it is compared to all the other rectangles.

UpTheBeehole wrote:Have you seen how small a portion of the welfare spend goes to these layabouts you're talking about?

Have a look at the lovely picture I provided. Just have a look for it, and point out to me where it is, and how big or small it is compared to all the other rectangles.

Oooooookkkkkaaaayyyyyy then

I think you either quoted the wrong person, or have got confused.

I see no rectangles just cuboids and the odd triangle

MACCA wrote:Just imagine,...

My sick grandmother may not have to wait 6 weeks to see a specialist that could potentially save her life.

The once a year I'm sick I may get to see my GP rather than treating myself.

Police could help protect me and my family.

But nah, let's keep cutting these essential things so X can get his methadone, so X can keep her 20 day a habbit and so X can keep X house heated and fridge stocked whist they watch day time TV.

I think you might need to look at how and where benefits are spent (by which I mean look at actual numbers not just tabloid headlines) and try to figure out how much genuine slack there is in that budget. Remarkably, just slashing benefits isn't a silver bullet that will generate funding for all the services you mention. It creates other costs elsewhere (healthcare, policing, for instance) not to mention the social cost of increased poverty and the long term effects of that.

I know, I know, it's mindblowing that running a national budget it more nuanced than you make it out to be.

Bacchus wrote:I think you might need to look at how and where benefits are spent (by which I mean look at actual numbers not just tabloid headlines) and try to figure out how much genuine slack there is in that budget. Remarkably, just slashing benefits isn't a silver bullet that will generate funding for all the services you mention. It creates other costs elsewhere (healthcare, policing, for instance) not to mention the social cost of increased poverty and the long term effects of that.

I know, I know, it's mindblowing that running a national budget it more nuanced than you make it out to be.

So let's put tax up relatively, depending on earnings, so that everyone can have the same lifestyle.
We all earn the same, it's up to us what we spend it on.

Each person is equal, so let's treat them like it. All our problems will be solved then.

The longer you make it easy street, the more problems you create, and in the end the more you lose.

Foulthrow wrote:Jeez - look at the 'defence' bit. That is stupid.

Totally agree. No where near big enough.

MACCA wrote:Oooooookkkkkaaaayyyyyy then

I think you either quoted the wrong person, or have got confused.

I see no rectangles just cuboids and the odd triangle

No, I'm definitely talking to the correct person.

The rectangles for Income Support and Universal Credit are tiny. Your proposals would save f*ck all, and just create pain to a load of innocent people on the breadline.

Not sure where you're seeing any triangles btw, maybe you missed the day at school where they taught about shapes.

box_of_frogs wrote:Totally agree. No where near big enough.

why? Who's threatening the UK at the moment?

The defence budget needs to be reduced massively.

A load of money for absolutely nothing.

UpTheBeehole wrote:Who's threatening the UK at the moment?

The British Government.

The new growth forecasts mean the economy is now expected to grow at below its long-term trend growth until well into the next decade.

This chart shows the damage, which is caused by Britain’s weak productivity.

Growth:

2017: 1.5%, down from 2% in March’s budget
2018: 1.4%, down from 1.6%
2019: 1.3%, down from 1.7%
2020: 1.3%, down from 1.9%
2021: 1.6%, down from 2.0%

Sky's Ed Conway:

This is the first time in modern history that the official UK GDP growth forecasts are below 2% every single year over the forecast horizon

Torsten Bell:

Productivity downgrade is massive - growth down by 0.4% in most years as a result

UpTheBeehole wrote:No, I'm definitely talking to the correct person.

The rectangles for Income Support and Universal Credit are tiny. Your proposals would save f*ck all, and just create pain to a load of innocent people on the breadline.

Not sure where you're seeing any triangles btw, maybe you missed the day at school where they taught about shapes.

There's no picture... take it you missed the era where basic technology was taught...

UpTheBeehole wrote:why? Who's threatening the UK at the moment?

The defence budget needs to be reduced massively.

A load of money for absolutely nothing.

Here's a historical example. Massive reduction in defence spending when the country was skint (sound familiar?) in the 1920s and 30s. Result, a resurgent country - Germany - without a robust opposition, nearly brought this country to its knees. It took years to rebuild the forces to the point where they successfully carry out their task of safeguarding the nation.

You can keep cutting the forces, as all governments have done over the last 20 years, and at some point in the future when the country really, really, really needs them, then you'll find they can't do the job properly. Do you want to take that risk by slashing the forces?

box_of_frogs wrote:Here's a historical example. Massive reduction in defence spending when the country was skint (sound familiar?) in the 1920s and 30s. Result, a resurgent country - Germany - without a robust opposition, nearly brought this country to its knees. It took years to rebuild the forces to the point where they successfully carry out their task of safeguarding the nation.

You can keep cutting the forces, as all governments have done over the last 20 years, and at some point in the future when the country really, really, really needs them, then you'll find they can't do the job properly. Do you want to take that risk by slashing the forces?

So you think even in the near future that an army will invade the UK, and we will require tanks and planes and £3bn aircraft carriers?

Do you think we will build up such an enemy that they will nuke us?



The answer to both of the above is clearly no, like f*ck that will happen.

It's just wasted money. Billions upon billions of wasted money.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I can think of several countries which have the a) technology and b) a bit of a loose cannon in charge, that could result in nukes getting lobbed about like big buckets of sunshine. But hey, don't let a dangerous world get in the way of propping up the welfare state.

Average earnings forecasts downgraded year-on-year for the next 5 years.



Slow hand clap

MACCA wrote:I fully concur.

But I'm not sure if you are as aware as me, or as driven, but if you are, you will realise there are dozens of jobs out there, and I'd put my mortgage on me finding work within 48 hours should I need to.

Sadly lots of people don't want too, and why not?
Because they get enough given for them not to need to work.

Absolutely. Got no time for people who don’t want to work.
Thankfully they are only a tiny percentage.

The genuine people who need benefits shouldn’t be penalised for those types of people.
Being as aware and driven as you are I’m sure you understand that.

Imagine my shock when logging on to find Hammond getting slaughtered for the reduction in growth forecast, when there have been positive (overdue admittedly) changes to the way universal credit is to be administered, an increase in both the living wage and the personal allowance, abolition of stamp duty for 1st time buyers, extra funding for the NHS and Education and the list goes on. You're nothing if not predictable.

Bordeauxclaret wrote:Absolutely. Got no time for people who don’t want to work.
Thankfully they are only a tiny percentage.

The genuine people who need benefits shouldn’t be penalised for those types of people.
Being as aware and driven as you are I’m sure you understand that.

Oh I do, however the people I see or deal with on a daily basis are exactly those types. And whilst the system is like it is and the punishments are, well not punishments things like this will happen daily up and down the country.


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... o9&ampcf=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.burnl ... 914947/amp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.lep.co.uk/news/mum-in-48-00 ... -1-7787176" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


These are over payment , so what were they "entitled" to?
Millions and millions are being sucked out of the pot, and then it's a slap on the wrist and a don't do it again. We would all like a none repayable tax free 50k to spend for a year or 2.

Very pleased they left fuel duty alone. There was talk of 5p on a litre of diesel.

God knows what the cost of fuel would be now, if Labour's, poor-punishing, fuel duty escalator, hadn't been rightly scrapped. I reckon an economy damaging and inflation causing 170 a litre.

Do any of the Lefties have one of their poxy little graphs to show what itd be by now!?

Don't all rush at once

.

I don’t think anyone likes the people who have never worked and don’t want to.

The problem is there are lots of people who need benefits, and that’s people who are out of work as well as in Work. They are the ones who are constantly penalised when they should be being helped.

This.

I know it sounds like lefty libtard rubbish, but we are benefit from this.

MACCA wrote:There's no picture... take it you missed the era where basic technology was taught...

Post 1 has some pictorial graphics - coming to this thread late it does genuinely look to me as if your computer isn't rendering them properly.

MACCA wrote:There's no picture... take it you missed the era where basic technology was taught...

Maybe you missed the day when they taught you to buy a computer which works