Tuesday 7 March 2017

No Election budget

It is budget day tomorrow and as with all budgets since 2008, there are only likely to be thin pickings to be had.


Governments make a big deal of £500 million of spending on schools or whatever is their fancy for the year. Then they re-announce big already budgeted infrastructure spend and also re-announce normal spending commitments made over years as if they are new.


All not very exciting. Worse is that invariably the tax take goes up and up forever. That NHS keeps needing spending and the low wage subsidy economy is a very expensive thing to run.


So it seems taxes can never go down and all budgets are declared 'AUSTERITY' budgets by the left as spending can only ever be increased.


Personally, I find this depressing. The NHS is very important but clearly a machine that sucks in so much money needs looking at. The huge government spend on pensions sticks out even more to me though. These commitments need to be vastly reduced if future generations are to survive or even draw their pensions.


But as every Chancellor knows, problems more than 3 years out are someone else's problems....

9 comments:

Anon1057 said...

It is an election budget though, innit.

Election coming up at some point. Hague playing the outrider. May denies. May gets defeated in the Lords. Etc.

Boring tweaky tight budgets are the new normal as you pointed out t'other day.

Anonymous said...

Maybe I should sell some shares, before they raise the dividend tax again. It's a great tax to raise, doesn't hit the poor cos they ain't got no shares, few politicians will face the fire by opposing it.

Does anyone know. by the way, if the dividend tax applies to holders of UK shares living in tax havens - like Mrs Philip Green?

Stato said...

The big spending numbers are health and pensions. We're you to cull the majority of the over 70's you'll get a big improvement in our finances.

For example on present trends there will be 3mn extra pensioners by 2030 with only a modest growth (300,000) in those working to pay the pensions.

Stark choices for the future as those 3mn have votes and will want those lazy young to pay more and more towards keeping the pensioners in the style to which the Daily Mail have convinced them they should be accustomed.

Electro-Kevin said...

Dare I say it but may we have Dignitas here ?

I don't want to go through what my Dad is and it's a huge cost on the NHS.

Also - I know plenty of old people who don't want to be here. Their loved ones have departed and all they have is ill health, fear and crap TV.

I don't want to be like that either.

CityUnslicker said...

Ek - that is profound, but true. Ever lengthening old age is a hard one. An issue is though that quite a few people are very elderly and very sprightly - I dunno, David Attenbrough. Others in my office are old and worn by the time they are nearing 60!

Blue Eyes said...

Topical point EK and Stato. In theory the state pension age should rise to keep pace with changing population proportions. But of course that only works if people can continue to provide for themselves. Some people maintain rude health into their 80s and onwards. Others do not. Maybe some device to encourage people to voluntarily delay taking their state pension and other benefits until they actually need them is needed. Such as a low tax rate for people who refrain and keep working, or something.

Two of my parents' friends who I am close to are experiencing different forms of old age. One is in fine fettle apart from having recently been given just a few months to live as she is riddled with cancers. Another is in physically reasonable shape but has had Alzheimer's for years and occasionally escapes from carers and disappears, to be found wandering the streets with no idea who she is.

I know which I would prefer.

dearieme said...

"NHS keeps needing spending ... The huge government spend on pensions sticks out even more to me though."

Yet in the US I keep reading that it's the other way round; the expenditure on "Social Security" [i.e. pensions] is much less of a worry than the spending on Medicaid and Medicare.

Have you any idea why that contrast exists?

dearieme said...

Mrs P Green is a foreigner living in Foreign. She presumably pays no UK tax at all. Why should she?

markc said...

BE: Maybe some device to encourage people to voluntarily delay taking their state pension and other benefits until they actually need them is needed. Such as a low tax rate for people who refrain and keep working, or something.

State pension can be deferred already in return for increased payments later, but only Methuselah or an idiot would do it on the terms offered. Sooner or later a government will be needed which simply removes the right to State pension from anyone with other unearned income in excess of (say) £40000. Or stops "employer" (read "taxpayer") contributions to public sector pensions once the transfer value of accrued benefits at retirement date exceeds (say) £500,000; want more? Save! And while they're at it, tell all those coppers and firemen who want to retire in good health at 50 - 55 that scheme pension payments start at 65.

Not holding my breath, though.

Yep, I know that introducing rules and exclusions widens the opportunity for fraud, but hey, if it contains endlessly inflating costs it's worth considering at least.