Bolitics The New Condem Government

[mockingbird_franklin]

IDS starting to get some of the criticism he deserves, shame it isn't being shouted as loudly as the lies and propaganda he has spouted.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/18/mps-criticise-dwp-spin-statistics-benefit-claimants

[mockingbird_franklin]

nice piece of about the real cost of austerity on the young. ( Or as the likes of IDS, cameron, gormless gorge and grant "many alias' shapps like to refer to them, "feckless workshy scroungers")

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/17/young-people-cuts-benefits-unemployment-housing

[thetrees]

Bank of England finally comes clean about how banking really works. destroys the lie that is usually peddled

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity

  

IDS starting to get some of the criticism he deserves, shame it isn't being shouted as loudly as the lies and propaganda he has spouted.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/18/mps-criticise-dwp-spin-statistics-benefit-claimants

  

nice piece of about the real cost of austerity on the young. ( Or as the likes of IDS, cameron, gormless gorge and grant "many alias' shapps like to refer to them, "feckless workshy scroungers")

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/17/young-people-cuts-benefits-unemployment-housing

Have you thought of starting a blog, because this thread is beginning to feel like one?

I don't read the press because they always tend to write from their editorial viewpoint.

I actually think that VT has some better left and centre right thinking commentators than any newspaper can come up with.

[peterms]

Chris Dillow on the nanny subsidy.

It's fitting that Nick Clegg should have announced an increase in the state subsidy for childcare, because the policy is a sanctimonious front for something that is inegalitarian and economically illiterate.

Let's start from the fact that this subsidy must be paid for by other tax-payers. It's therefore not just a subsidy to parents, but a tax on singletons.

This is inegalitarian not just because it means that a single person on the minimum wage is subsidizing the lifestyle choice of couples on six-figure incomes. It's inegalitarian in two other ways.

First, the costs of a family don't rise proportionately with household numbers. The cliche "two can live as cheaply as one" isn't literally true, but it is partly so. This is captured by the notion of equivalence scales, which adjust household incomes for family size. Such scales tell us that a household with two adults and a young child needs an income of 1.8 times that of a singleton. But this in turn means that if two people in a couple have similar incomes - and given assortative mating many do - then the couple is better off than the singleton. Subsidizing childcare is thus regressive in many cases.

Secondly, there's reasonable evidence that marriage improves people's mental and physical well-being. This means a tax on singletons to help couples is welfare-regressive; it gives to those who have.

Why, then, do it? Simple. Couples with children have political power; politicians defer to Mumsnet, and yet many people sneer at "spinsters with cats". All we're seeing here is another example of politicians trying to give money to the powerful. Clegg's claim that this is about a "fairer society" is mere blather.

The policy is also economically illterate because it ignores two important economic ideas: fungibility and incidence.

A childcare subsidy is fungible; if parents are spending less on childcare, they've more money for something else. A lot of child benefit is spent on alcohol. The same might well be true of the childcare subsidy.

There's one sense, though, in which this isn't entirely true. Not all of the subsidy will benefit parents. This is where the concept of incidence comes in. Let's say the policy works as some hope it will, and encourages mothers (or dads) to look for work. Two things will then happen: the extra labour supply will bid down wages; and insofar as parents find work there'll be extra demand for childcare, which will tend to bid up prices of it.

Insofar as this is the case, the childcare subsidy doesn't just benefit parents, but employers and nurseries.

There is, though, another sense in which the policy is economically illiterate. The opportunity cost of subsidizing childcare is that money could be spent on genuinely giving children the best possible start in life, by more investment in early years education, especially for kids from poor homes. Clegg has foregone this opportunity, and would rather give yummy mummies another bottle of Chardonnay.

[Awol]

The whole two and a half party national politics is a see-saw of getting us nowhere and nowhere again.

 

The cynics here might almost believe that was the intention, i.e. "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in".

[snowychap]

Is increasing the annual ISA limit to £15k really 'great news for savers' (Nadhim Zahawi) when the interest rates are so paltry?

I suppose it's better than a poke in the eye but not much.

[bickster]

Is increasing the annual ISA limit to £15k really 'great news for savers' (Nadhim Zahawi) when the interest rates are so paltry?

I suppose it's better than a poke in the eye but not much.

Aren't they as good as admitting that interest rates have to go up soon and the more you stash away now, there more you'll benefit a year or so down the line.

If thats the rabbit out of the hat they were hinting at though its more of a dead budgie out of the hat imo

[Awol]

Is increasing the annual ISA limit to £15k really 'great news for savers' (Nadhim Zahawi) when the interest rates are so paltry?

I suppose it's better than a poke in the eye but not much.

Isn't the main benefit of an ISA that it is tax free?  So tripling the amount that can be placed in one (EDIT: a cash ISA I mean) per annum to £15K is surely a good thing, yes?  As for interest rates they are bound to be back up at 2.5-3% in the not too distant future.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Awol

[snowychap]

Isn't the main benefit of an ISA that it is tax free?  So tripling the amount that can be placed in one (EDIT: a cash ISA I mean) per annum to £15K is surely a good thing, yes?  As for interest rates they are bound to be back up at 2.5-3% in the not too distant future.

Like I said it is better than a poke in the eye but not much.

To have it praised as 'great news for savers' is a bit much, really.

My point was more to highlight the paucity of returns for savers (even in contrast to, perhaps, the beginning of last year) and that increasing the limit will not do a great deal with the rates on accounts being so low.

Regarding Bicks's point, I understand the cumulative nature of the benefits regarding ISAs so I take your point (though will base rate changes have more effect on savings rates than the winding up of Funding for Lending and other cheap money?).

I think I'm more interested in: why the incentive to move away from Stocks and Shares ISAs to all cash ISAs?

[omariqy]

The pension reforms are pretty revolutionary.  Great news in terms of flexibillity and choice.  The issue is making sure the money lasts if you take it out all in one go. 

[mjmooney]

OK, I'm going to say it: not a bad budget overall. 

 

The work of course, of Rupert Harrison, the bloke who works the George Osborne puppet. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Osborne always look like a sixth-former on work exprience.

Edited March 19, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[snowychap]

I think I'm more interested in: why the incentive to move away from Stocks and Shares ISAs to all cash ISAs?

 

Some concern on that (and some of the pension changes) from the Social Market Foundation:

The package for savers is the most aggressive, with the increase in size of tax free ISAs, a cut in the tax on other savings and new bonds for pensioners. These are more than paid for, within a fiscally neutral Budget overall, by reducing the tax rate on withdrawing money from a defined contribution pension.

But the logic here is unclear. Pensions are often used to fund investment, indeed the Government has been working hard to get pension funds to invest more in infrastructure. Giving people incentives to take money out of pensions may not be wise. And the system of ISAs that is being replaced included separate Stocks and Shares ISAs which ensured that savers were investing in business growth rather than leaving their money with the banks.

The risk of the changes is that pensioners’ savings go into financing government via the new pensioner bonds that have been announced – or, via banks, into mortgages – rather than into productive investment in the economy.

 

 

[mjmooney]

 

I think I'm more interested in: why the incentive to move away from Stocks and Shares ISAs to all cash ISAs?

 

Some concern on that (and some of the pension changes) from the Social Market Foundation:

The package for savers is the most aggressive, with the increase in size of tax free ISAs, a cut in the tax on other savings and new bonds for pensioners. These are more than paid for, within a fiscally neutral Budget overall, by reducing the tax rate on withdrawing money from a defined contribution pension.

But the logic here is unclear. Pensions are often used to fund investment, indeed the Government has been working hard to get pension funds to invest more in infrastructure. Giving people incentives to take money out of pensions may not be wise. And the system of ISAs that is being replaced included separate Stocks and Shares ISAs which ensured that savers were investing in business growth rather than leaving their money with the banks.

The risk of the changes is that pensioners’ savings go into financing government via the new pensioner bonds that have been announced – or, via banks, into mortgages – rather than into productive investment in the economy.

 

 

Probably true. But from my (retired, with some savings) point of view it suits me. I have a cash ISA, but I won't go anywhere NEAR stocks and shares - partly from revulsion at the whole idea of it, partly from my instinctive risk aversion. 

 

Of course, the whole thing is targeting votes. It won't get mine, because I am under no illusions that it will be followed by more brutal destruction of the public sector and the welfare state. 

[villaajax]

OK, I'm going to say it: not a bad budget overall. 

 

The work of course, of Rupert Harrison, the bloke who works the George Osborne puppet. 

 

Not a good one either just more of the same.

 

Gideon claims that the 'recovery' is faster that forecast. It's actually a lot slower than they forecast back in 2010 going on what Labour were doing.

Boasting about the deficit being down by a third yet in 2010 he said that halving the deficit within 4 years would not be sufficient.

And borrowing will be £24 billion less than forecast? He's still borrowed £190 billion more than first predicted in 2010.

 

He still hasn't ruled out lowering the tax rate for his millionaire friends, including himself and cabinet, again while most people on average are £1,600 per year worse off.

Well done George.

[Demitri_C]

wow a very lame comeback from miliband in the house today, he has beena very weak leader in my view letting labour voters down

[Awol]

wow a very lame comeback from miliband in the house today, he has beena very weak leader in my view letting labour voters down

True, but the problem is simple: Labour doesn't have an economic policy and all of their predictions have been shown to be nonsense.

 

If i'm wrong then I'd be grateful for a steer to that policy and maybe Villaajax, Drat, Mockingbird Franklin or any other hard core Labour supporters could help?

[villa4europe]

wow a very lame comeback from miliband in the house today, he has beena very weak leader in my view letting labour voters down

 

from what i saw on the news he seemed like same old bollitics, spends 90% of his time pointing fingers and picking holes in the other lots ideas and then 10% of wishy washy ideas of what he'd do differently to make it better, of which 5% will actually be done if they came in to power...

 

i thought he was full of piss and wind personally

[villaajax]

wow a very lame comeback from miliband in the house today, he has beena very weak leader in my view letting labour voters down

True, but the problem is simple: Labour doesn't have an economic policy and all of their predictions have been shown to be nonsense.

 

If i'm wrong then I'd be grateful for a steer to that policy and maybe Villaajax, Drat, Mockingbird Franklin or any other hard core Labour supporters could help?

 

There is the plan to remove the millionaire's tax cut.

A jobs guarantee for young people.

10p tax rate for people on low / middle incomes.

A 'living wage'.

Mansion tax for properties over £2 million.

Build much needed homes.

Scrap the bedroom tax.

Tax the banker's bonuses.

And there are plans, though I can't say I know what they are, to bring down energy bills (which have gone up an average of £300 per household since the Tories crept in)

 

Those are off the top of my head.

 

And I'm not sure which predictions you are referring to which have 'shown' to be 'nonsense' maybe you'd like to say?

[villaajax]

 

"Yes, those are things that oiks enjoy"

 

A little condescending.