The Next Conservative Budget

[Gargamel]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11718594...

The more I hear about this budget the better I like it.

Obviously, it is always going to be difficult for individuals who are affect by job cuts, but with the pricate sector hiring regularly lets hope employment is easy to find. But 100,000 civil "servants" less is good news in my opinion.

Market rents for housing, cuts to subsidy and a return to some sensible business and entreprise friendly policies

I know the usual suspects will squeak like it is the end of the world, but really getting us back to a current account surplus is of paramount importance to this country.

[davepoth]

Market rate rents for council houses occupied by higher rate taxpayers is a good one - I can't wait to hear Labour argue against it.

I do wonder a little whether we can get away with "salami slicing" another 100,000 jobs without losing capability from the civil service.

[Welshbeef]

davepoth said:

Market rate rents for council houses occupied by higher rate taxpayers is a good one - I can't wait to hear Labour argue against it.

I do wonder a little whether we can get away with "salami slicing" another 100,000 jobs without losing capability from the civil service.

To be fair so far there have been huge public sector headcount reductions. However output has continued to be the same/no decrease... Makes you wonder how much slack they had.

I recall years ago when I contracted for a year in a public sector the number who started 10:30 then had 2 hour lunches then were well gone before 4pm. Oh and somehow flexitime they ended up getting days off extra PCM. I questioned this as to why it happens was it ability of the individual to complete their job in core hours or other things. Turned out lots of it was because they logged 15mins early today 15 mins less lunch etc however those first 15 mins seems nearly always to be "toilet time" or chewing the fat.

Idle over promoted and a general low productivity culture is what I experienced. It was odd as I'd complete my output as I normally would the give me some more/you sure this is a full time role...

[98elise]

davepoth said:

Market rate rents for council houses occupied by higher rate taxpayers is a good one - I can't wait to hear Labour argue against it.

I do wonder a little whether we can get away with "salami slicing" another 100,000 jobs without losing capability from the civil service.

It does seem odd that a high rate taxpayer can currently enjoy the benefits of cheap social housing.

[///ajd]

Welshbeef said:

To be fair so far there have been huge public sector headcount reductions. However output has continued to be the same/no decrease... Makes you wonder how much slack they had.

I recall years ago when I contracted for a year in a public sector the number who started 10:30 then had 2 hour lunches then were well gone before 4pm. Oh and somehow flexitime they ended up getting days off extra PCM. I questioned this as to why it happens was it ability of the individual to complete their job in core hours or other things. Turned out lots of it was because they logged 15mins early today 15 mins less lunch etc however those first 15 mins seems nearly always to be "toilet time" or chewing the fat.

Idle over promoted and a general low productivity culture is what I experienced. It was odd as I'd complete my output as I normally would the give me some more/you sure this is a full time role...

I recognise some of that, but also have noticed that as civil servant jobs go, they are just replaced by outsourced manpower - at higher cost - to do the same job - that has not gone away. So govt costs go up. The real kick is that often the 'new' manpower starting on Monday is the civil servant who 'retired' on Friday.

Civil service headcount reductions for the sake of it are not always good VFM for the taxpayer, though your comments on inefficiency do apply in some (but not all) cases.

[Welshbeef]

I'd feel very confident that if I took my team in on say one localism area we'd be able to reduce costs by easily 40% and up output markedly

Pace stakeholder engagement doing the right thing.

It's not rocket science and the dead wood or excuses need to be cut out.

[rover 623gsi]

davepoth said:

Market rate rents for council houses occupied by higher rate taxpayers is a good one - I can't wait to hear Labour argue against it.

it isn't higher rate taxpayers - it is people earning more than £40k in London and £30k outisde London.

A great way to incentivise lower paid people to earn more...

[Pan Pan Pan]

Welshbeef said:

davepoth said:

Market rate rents for council houses occupied by higher rate taxpayers is a good one - I can't wait to hear Labour argue against it.

I do wonder a little whether we can get away with "salami slicing" another 100,000 jobs without losing capability from the civil service.

To be fair so far there have been huge public sector headcount reductions. However output has continued to be the same/no decrease... Makes you wonder how much slack they had.

I recall years ago when I contracted for a year in a public sector the number who started 10:30 then had 2 hour lunches then were well gone before 4pm. Oh and somehow flexitime they ended up getting days off extra PCM. I questioned this as to why it happens was it ability of the individual to complete their job in core hours or other things. Turned out lots of it was because they logged 15mins early today 15 mins less lunch etc however those first 15 mins seems nearly always to be "toilet time" or chewing the fat.

Idle over promoted and a general low productivity culture is what I experienced. It was odd as I'd complete my output as I normally would the give me some more/you sure this is a full time role...

Blimey! that sounds just like Greece, and is where we might have been headed, had Minigland won the last election.

[Jasandjules]

Oh look it was all the fault of the Lib Dems.. Not the Vote Blue get Green t**ts.

[Gargamel]

rover 623gsi said:

it isn't higher rate taxpayers - it is people earning more than £40k in London and £30k outside London.

A great way to incentivise lower paid people to earn more...

Thin end of the wedge though in my view. But logically, why should someone on say £18,000 pay tax, that is used to subsidise the housing of someone earning double ? Sure, there is some disincentive, but there are distortions at every level of income (like a 62% marginal rate of tax for going from £101,000 Paye to £110,000


We already know that most people earning below £30,000 are taking out more from taxation across all services than they are putting in. We need to re address that balance over the next five years.

Less state interventions, employers paying better wages, lower taxation, less Government, less free stuff.

It is unrealistic to expect the Government to reverse 20 odd years of welfare state growth in a single budget, but the direction of travel is encouraging.

[simoid]

I can foresee the opposition complaining about a further benefit cut for middle of the road (or slightly better off) families. Hopefully the extra housing costs can be offset by further increase in taxation band limits.

Tbh I'd be interested to a debate on a shaving the national insurance rate as that would help all - even those on part time minimum wage jobs who'd be most likely to spend a bit of extra income I'd imagine.

[KingNothing]

Will have to look into the council house subsidy thing, currently back at my parents council house temporarily after a break up and trying to accrue money for a house deposit, but get paid over their £30k limit, ooops. Don't know if they count my income though, as technically it's my parents on the "rentbook", and they combined earn a lot less than me, and I don't believe they claim housing benefit either. But I should be moved out by 2017/18 anyways.

Basically just marked my card in this forum, about being paid over the limit and living in a council house, but... come at me bro

[PurpleMoonlight]

I'm struggling to see any fairness in the IHT increase proposal.

Why should people in more expensive housing get an additional tax break?

Why should people who don't own a home be excluded from the additional tax break?

[Welshbeef]

PurpleMoonlight said:

I'm struggling to see any fairness in the IHT increase proposal.

Why should people in more expensive housing get an additional tax break?

Why should people who don't own a home be excluded from the additional tax break?

Why punish people who have worked hard and saved and made da rides throughout their lives v say someone who has lived a lavish lifestyle but has nothing to pass on.

[ellroy]

As has been said: How about its "fair" that people keep more of the money they and their family made? Rather than having it stolen off them by a profligate state?

[Willy Nilly]

ellroy said:

As has been said: How about its "fair" that people keep more of the money they and their family made? Rather than having it stolen off them by a profligate state?

The people that receive an inheritance receive a payment tax free that they haven't worked for and often don't deserve. There are plenty of people that are in the industry I work in only by virtue of the fact their dad was and passed it on to them, not on merit. This also virtually excludes new blood coming into the industry because a load of little sts people that haven't worked for their wealth, never mind have taken any risks for it, have ended up with it and there is no room for anyone else.

[motco]

davepoth said:

Market rate rents for council houses occupied by higher rate taxpayers is a good one - I can't wait to hear Labour argue against it.

I do wonder a little whether we can get away with "salami slicing" another 100,000 jobs without losing capability from the civil service.

Given that New Labour 'created' c.900,000 public sector jobs during their period in office, I suspect we can lose 100,000 without noticing the loss.

[brickwall]

motco said:

davepoth said:

Market rate rents for council houses occupied by higher rate taxpayers is a good one - I can't wait to hear Labour argue against it.

I do wonder a little whether we can get away with "salami slicing" another 100,000 jobs without losing capability from the civil service.

Given that New Labour 'created' c.900,000 public sector jobs during their period in office, I suspect we can lose 100,000 without noticing the loss.

It's all about which people/jobs you lose.

Do it right, and there's a huge amount of fat to trim.
Do it wrong, and you lose some very good people who actually keep the thing (comparatively) on the road.

In the top ends of the Civil Service (i.e. the policy people in Whitehall) they'd do much better to take an elite private sector approach (we'll treat you well, pay you very well, but we expect a lot for it. If you don't deliver, bye.)

[PurpleMoonlight]

ellroy said:

As has been said: How about its "fair" that people keep more of the money they and their family made? Rather than having it stolen off them by a profligate state?

I don't disagree with that, but why apply it to only some people not all people?

Why not just increase the nil rate band to £500,000 which applies to all people?

[PurpleMoonlight]

Welshbeef said:

Why punish people who have worked hard and saved and made da rides throughout their lives v say someone who has lived a lavish lifestyle but has nothing to pass on.

It doesn't affect people who leave nothing so no change there, but it does affect people who do. Why are people who chose to purchase a home, in the south more than likely, pay less IHT than those who didn't or live oop north?

Reeks of all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others ...