back to article Osbo PRINTS first Tory budget in 19 years with his BARE HANDS

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne delivered the first full fat Tory budget statement in 19 years today by shedding billions of pounds from Blighty's welfare system. During his statement to the House of Commons, Osbo praised Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith's "herculean efforts" with the …

  1. Ol'Peculier
    Pint

    No mnetion of...

    ...the most important bullet point in the budget, beer duty...

    1. jonathanb Silver badge

      Re: No mnetion of...

      Unchanged as far as I'm aware. He didn't mention it.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In the spirit of George Orwell, lets rename IDS's role as

    Minister for Competence

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: In the spirit of George Orwell, lets rename IDS's role as

      Stop being a ass. In the George Orwell sense too. As in Animal Farm.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: In the spirit of George Orwell, lets rename IDS's role as

        Having read both of the books in question (and I suspect a lot of people who quote from them or allude to them haven't), I can say I don't recall any 'ass' in Animal Farm. There's a horse who gets shipped off to the glue factory, who I'm sure is supposed to be allegorical of some soviet figure or other, but that's as close as you get.

        As far as I can tell, IDS is a toxic over-privileged mean-spirit moron, who deigns to make judgements on the poorest in society when he has had everything given to him on a silver plate without having done a proper days work in his life*. He knows nothing of real work, and the real struggle to make ends meet that he is making far worse for the poorest in society.

        *Yes, I know he was 'in the army'. I also know his job in the army was essentially that of Captain Darling from Blackadder Goes Forth.

        1. Voland's right hand Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: In the spirit of George Orwell, lets rename IDS's role as

          can say I don't recall any 'ass' in Animal Farm.

          Err... I think you ought to have a reading problem if you read The Animal Farm and do not remember Benjamin the Donkey. Unless you are one of Napoleon followers.

          By correctly assigning the correct label to IDS you are showing that you are capable of putting Benjamin's skin on too so I am assuming that as highly unlikely.

          Signed... Another donkey and one proud of being one (sorry, appropriate icon missing, so using the troll).

          P.S. As far as "stopping being one" - having a full understanding what Napoleon and his followers are doing and how they are changing the commandments is not very good for you.

          1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

            Re: In the spirit of George Orwell, lets rename IDS's role as

            Point taken. Admittedly, it's a long time since I read that particular book. I might be overdue a re-read.

            I just get sick of people harping on about 1984 and not having read it.

            Anyway, as an analogy, I don't think Animal Farm had enough pigs in it to accurately represent our current Tory cabinet, and anyway, it was a metaphor for soviet Russia. In general Orwell seems to have written about far left-wing dystopias, rather than right-wing ones...

        2. Trigonoceps occipitalis

          Re: In the spirit of George Orwell, lets rename IDS's role as

          ADC is considered just about the top job for an Army captain.

        3. LucreLout

          Re: In the spirit of George Orwell, lets rename IDS's role as

          a toxic over-privileged mean-spirit moron, who deigns to make judgements on the poorest in society when he has had everything given to him on a silver plate without having done a proper days work in his life*. He knows nothing of real work, and the real struggle to make ends meet that he is making far worse for the poorest in society

          That could describe any of the millionaires on the opposition bench just as well as it does IDS. Only they didn't go so far as to serve in the forces first. Blair has made more than £100 million since leaving office, and probably paid less tax than you have on it.

          Lets face it, all of our MPs are over privileged morons who have never done a real days work. They're all completely out of touch with ordinary folk. Rosette colour is neither a cause, nor moderating influence of this.

          Bemoaning any particular party is unlikely to resolve that.

          1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

            Re: In the spirit of George Orwell, lets rename IDS's role as

            Blair has made more than £100 million since leaving office, and probably paid less tax than you have on it.

            Don't get me wrong, just because I despise IDS doesn't mean I have any love for the other lot. Whilst IDS is a hypocritical over-entitled leech, Blair is just as parasitic, and a war-mongering lying self-aggrandising arsehole to boot. But then, he was never a socialist, and 'New Labour' was never a socialist party.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: In the spirit of George Orwell, lets rename IDS's role as

        So, you're the one person in the UK who thinks IDS is competent (other than IDS, that is)? Are you David Cameron?

  3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Gimp

    Save a few billion right now

    Limit GCHQ's tape storage budget.

    Cancel all projects that have been on the Major Project Agencies Red light list repeatedly over the last 3 years or so.

  4. wolfetone Silver badge

    Society is three meals away from revolution.

    And Mr.Osborne has put those wheels in motion, the bastard.

    1. El_Fev

      Oh Please...

      Do shut up you pathetic sixth former!

    2. LucreLout
      Thumb Up

      And Mr.Osborne has put those wheels in motion, the bastard.

      The thing the left hate most about this budget, is that while they are leaderless, rudderless, and struggling to find any reason to exist, Osbourne has shot ALL of their foxes.

      Harmans protestations are just reinforcing the view of their former voters that Labour is now the party of welfare rather than workers. Living wage? Done. Taxing BTL? Done. Limiting tax relief for the rich? Done.

      The odds of a Labour civil war just got wratcheted up several notches, and Osbourne has avoiding giving any reason at all for people to want to return to Labour. The worst then, is in front of them, not behind them. And its showing.

      1. wolfetone Silver badge

        @El_Fev Pipe down brave keyboard warrior.

        £12Bn to be cut from Welfare. This includes the disabled, the out of work, the kids in poor families who have dreams of going to university to climb out of their social situation.

        £13Bn will be lost if/when RBS is sold at the price Osborne has put on it. Remember the Royal Mail valuation, again under Osborne.*

        A "Living Wage" which is just 60p slapped on top of a minimum wage, when added to the cuts make most families £1,400 worse off per year.

        You know, I must have miss the story where the nurses, the poor, the people watching Jeremy Kyle caused the recession. If what I have said makes me a lefty, a "sixth former" (again, well done brave keyboard warrior. Have some milk from the tit of sarcasm), and ultimately makes me wrong, I never want to be right.

        If you can sit there and think what's happening is alright, then that makes you even more of a sadistic bastard than the arseholes who cheered for this yesterday.

        </rant>

        *quoted from last week's Private Eye

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Huh? They promised to pour cash into 'Internet of Things'? In God's name, why?! It'd be more to the point if the took a close look at it and came up with some decent legislation requiring adequate security to be in place on IoT items retailed to hapless punters, with eye-watering penalities for companies that don't abide by same.

    Can;t see that happening any time soon, though, sadly :-(

  6. Graham Marsden
    Pirate

    Yes, let's all praise IDS...

    ...the man whose department has instigated benefit sanctions against people who have been declared as "fit for work" and who then, inconveniently, died not long after.

    And, of course, that same department who is now asking terminally ill people when the expect to die before they can claim the benefits they're due.

    Clearly he is just improving the gene pool by eliminating the weakest in society...

    1. chris 17 Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Yes, let's all praise IDS...

      Surely that's the fault / failing of the department and not the Chancellor? No minister of any party would deliberately sanction a domestic program designed to help people knowing full well it would directly lead to people dying!!!

      Deliberately lieing to the nation to go to war to further your mates and your own agenda killing 10's if not hundreds of thousands certainly does rest on the PM (Blair).

    2. LucreLout
      FAIL

      Re: Yes, let's all praise IDS...

      the man whose department has instigated benefit sanctions against people who have been declared as "fit for work" and who then, inconveniently, died not long after.

      If people would refrain from ripping off the state and stealing welfare they don't need and aren't entitled to, then nobody would need to be investigated. You're blaming the wrong people, again.

      1. Graham Marsden
        Boffin

        @LucreLout - Re: Yes, let's all praise IDS...

        Oh dear, LL, *who* is blaming the wrong people...?

        "The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that £1.2bn was lost to benefits fraud in 2013/14, or 0.7 per cent of total benefits spending.

        "That’s the same amount as the year before, it’s a lot less than is lost in other developed countries – according to this study – and it’s less than the £1.5bn NOT paid out to people who are eligible for various benefits but don’t claim them.

        "By contrast, HMRC’s most recent estimate of the annual “tax gap” – the money lost to the state through people not paying as much as they should – was £34bn."

        And, of course, it was those pesky benefits claimaints who crashed the banking system and made us have to pay out £850 billion pounds to sort out that mess!

        1. LucreLout
          Boffin

          Re: @LucreLout - Yes, let's all praise IDS...

          £1.2bn

          Thats just the fraud figure. There's magnitudes more claims get rejected as inelligible that are not flagged as fraud. You know that already though, so why the pointless games?

          And, of course, it was those pesky benefits claimaints who crashed the banking system and made us have to pay out £850 billion pounds to sort out that mess!

          1) The banks didn't cause the deepest recession in our countries history. Gordon Brown did that by lavish overspending during the boom (by £40Bn a year), leaving the treasury empty when the crash came "Sorry. There is no money left" - Byrne, remember?

          2) The government didn't pay anything. They invested £70 billion in Scottish banks to shore up their vote in one of their heartlands. RBS, BoS etc should have been allowed to fail. In any case, it was a retail banking mess, caused by the public borrowing more than they could afford, and a handful of banks not being credit worthy enough to roll over their short term financing.

          1. Graham Marsden

            Re: @LucreLout - Yes, let's all praise IDS...

            Now what was it someone said...?

            > If people would refrain from ripping off the state and not paying taxes that they should and using dubious avoidance schemes, then nobody would need to be investigated.

            FTFY.

            Oh, and I see you've now gone back to your traditional "blame Labour" arguments...

            1. LucreLout

              Re: @LucreLout - Yes, let's all praise IDS...

              Oh, and I see you've now gone back to your traditional "blame Labour" arguments...

              So... which banker was it that held a gun to Gordons head and forced him to add 1 million non-jobs to the public sector? Which banker was it held a gun to Gordons head and froced him to borow and squander an average £40Bn he didn't have during every year of the boom? Do you see a pattern yet?

              There is nobody else to blame but labour for the state in which they left the economy. They inheritted a golden, once in a lifetime opportunity, and left us this mess. All they had to do was stick to the spending plans drawn up for them and it would all have been very very different.

              If, by the budget in '99 you hadn't noticed the wheels coming off and why, then that economics a-level you're so proud of isn't doing you any good at all.

              1. Graham Marsden

                Re: @LucreLout - Yes, let's all praise IDS...

                Dear me, LL, why are you so hung up about my A Levels?

                In any case, perhaps you can tell me how much money Gideon has borrowed since the Tories came to power? How much *further* in debt has he put us?

                At least I have learned the difference between a deficit and a debt...

                1. LucreLout

                  Re: @LucreLout - Yes, let's all praise IDS...

                  why are you so hung up about my A Levels?

                  Maybe its just the way you played it as though it was an ace card in what even you must see by now was a weak hand, as opposed to something akin to the toy in a cereal packet?

                  In any case, perhaps you can tell me how much money Gideon has borrowed since the Tories came to power?

                  Far too far. He should simply have divided the deficit by the public sector wage bill and cut salaries by the requisite percentage on day one, thus avoiding the increase in debt. Once a root and branch reform and restructuring was completed, we could look at how many state staff remain, and what we need to pay to attract people to those roles in those areas. Salaries would then rise or fall to that level and stay there.

                  At least I have learned the difference between a deficit and a debt...

                  Somehow I find myself doubting that....

    3. Yugguy

      Re: Yes, let's all praise IDS...

      Hmmm.

      Let's see what the article actually says:

      "Frank Field writes to work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, over CLAIMS of ‘intrusive and painful questioning’ by assessors."

      I'm not saying it isn't happening but it's just a claim.,

      And besides, civil servants are civil servants, they act the same regardless of who's in government.

  7. Graham Marsden
    FAIL

    "We should cut the deficit at the same pace as we did in the last parliament"

    Err, this is the same George Osborne who intended to have *eliminated* the deficit by 2015?

  8. BobRocket

    £650 meellion

    I can't see why it costs such a huge amount of money to give away free TV licences to over 75's.

    What they are probably saying is that 4.5m households aren't paying and are using the excuse of having an old person in residence.

    How many of those households would actually pay if the over 75 exemption were abolished ?

    It sounds a bit like the losses attributable to piracy in the media industry. (ie. bo**ocks)

  9. Elmer Phud

    Hercules?

    More like that bloke who is always pushing a rock uphill -- only everytime he starts again IDS calls it a resounding succcess.

    1. Afernie

      Re: Hercules?

      That would be Sysiphus, I believe.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If you're an IT Contractor

    You've just got reamed by the changes in dividend tax.

    Thank you George...

    Bastard

    1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
      Pirate

      Re: If you're an IT Contractor

      That one surprised me. I was under the impression that a lot of the "Consultancy-as-hidden-bung" recirculation of money happened through small service companies set up on exactly the same model as IT contractors use. Unusual for the Exchequer to tax its friends like that.

      GJC

    2. h4rm0ny

      Re: If you're an IT Contractor

      Can you explain, please? I missed this one.

      1. Nick Miles

        Re: If you're an IT Contractor

        If you are an IT contractor running a LTD company and taking the low salary / more in dividends route, this budget has introuduced a new 7.5% tax that you'll have to pay on any dividends you take in a year after the first £5,000. This makes 1 man band ltds about £2,000 a year worse off.

        1. Yugguy

          Re: If you're an IT Contractor

          Will this not just bring you more in line with us PAYE chumps?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: If you're an IT Contractor

            "Will this not just bring you more in line with us PAYE chumps?"

            That's probably the Treasury's intention. I don't expect the Guardian will be getting too exercised about us, and at least I still have a boss that I love.

  11. BobRocket

    Raise more Tax

    Of course George could have raised more than £1Beellion each year in direct taxes if they simply legitimised cannabis sales in the UK.

    1. Arachnoid

      Re: Raise more Tax

      He would then have needed to invest the same amount in the Emergency Health service who would treat accidents casued by such an act of tom foolery.

      1. Afernie

        Re: Raise more Tax

        I admire your faith in the ability of those who have partaken to engage in "tomfoolery", to the extent that you seem unlikely to have done so yourself. FYI: "Reefer Madness" is not a documentary.

        1. BobRocket

          Re: Raise more Tax

          I think that spiderman was referring to the legitimising of cannabis as 'the act of tomfoolery', he seems to think that the accident rate (from unspecified causes) will rise to such an extent that we would have to spend all the direct taxes raised from legitimisation on A&E.

          Extrapolating the Colorado tax take alone, the UK would generate well in excess of £1B per year in duties + VAT alone. (the UK has a much higher density of regular tokers so that number is very conservative)

          There are around 235 towns in England with a population > 100000, each of these could support 4 head shops with 3 FTE jobs (12 FTE jobs per town) which means > 2800 jobs, each paying income tax and NI.

          Growers, processors and wholesalers add more.

          There are > 80,000 convictions for posession each year at an average cost of > £9500 (although they do generate on average (£95 fine, £45 costs and £36 victim support - £176 each) £1.4M)

          Netted out this costs the taxpayer > £750M

          It is not known how much those convictions cost the taxpayer in the long run in the form of lost income/opportunity.

          From a purely fiscal point of view the current situation is detrimental to all law abiding tax paying citizens in these times of austerity.

          Perhaps Tim can shed light on the Economics

      2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: Raise more Tax

        He would then have needed to invest the same amount in the Emergency Health service who would treat accidents caused by such an act of tom foolery.

        You make a couple of rather grand assumptions there, and I don't think they hold much water:

        1) That there are currently no cannabis users in the UK.

        2) That cannabis use frequently leads to hospital admissions.

        3) That if cannabis use were legalised, non-users would suddenly start using it, or that users would suddenly up their intake.

        The truth of the matter is that 1 in 3 UK adults has at some point taken illicit drugs (these are most likely to have been cannabis, simply due to its availability, and fact that you can smoke it and don't have to snort or inject it). It is estimated that 5% of the UK population regularly uses cannabis - that's 3 million people, give-or-take. Hospital admissions related to cannabis use are not great in number, and are rarely expensive emergency admissions; the most likely admission is to a mental health unit due to acute psychosis, as some people react badly to cannabinoids.

        From a personal point of view, I know a number of people who either have, or still do regularly smoke cannabis. I've never personally heard of a single hospital admission related to cannabis use. I do know people who have had mental health episodes which are caused by stress. On the whole, these have not been amongst people who use cannabis.

        Just as a final point, I'd better mention that I obviously don't advocate the use of any illegal drugs. Although I believe that there should be more of an element of personal choice about what we can put in our own bodies, we also have to take responsibility of our actions when we do so, and the health costs that may result. This also applies to drugs which are currently legal (such as alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine), some of which could well be much more harmful than cannabis, both to individuals, and to society as a whole.

    2. LucreLout

      Re: Raise more Tax

      Of course George could have raised more than £1Beellion each year in direct taxes if they simply legitimised cannabis sales in the UK.

      Yes, quite. There are a number of practical considerations to resolve, such as detecting recent consumption at the road side, or actually restricting the product to age appropriate use, but it seems a missed opportunity.

      When it comes to sin taxes, why not build the Vegas of Europe in Kent? 24 hour licenced premises, borthels, gambling, and weed. Just plonk it on the Eurostar route, away from large towns, and stuff in some motorways and rail lines from the M25 / London. We could coin it in from all over the place. Lets face it, these are all activities which already exist, just unlicenced and unregulated, so I'm not sure there's a genuinely moral component to the inevitable objections it would raise.

  12. G Dee

    A Christian Budget

    "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given ... but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away" (Matthew 13:12).

    As someone, somewhere once said:

    "The Tories - putting the n into cuts".

  13. colinb

    Herculean?

    Hercules was supposed to clean the Augean stables of manure. IDS seems to be doing the opposite and piling it in.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's like the sixth form common room

    most of you remind me of the mock socialist fools who waltzed around school in Che Guevara shirts and surplus East German Army jackets while forgetting they were at public school

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's like the sixth form common room

      Don't be hard on them, they are most probably still living with mum and dad and haven't yet worked out that the tax they pay on what they earn goes to support all the scroungers of the world that flock to the UK just for the handouts.

      When they finally grow up and realise that all the welfare payments come out of their pockets and not from some magic money tree they will change their tune.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's like the sixth form common room

        "that they earn goes to support all the scroungers of the world that flock to the UK just for the handouts."

        I think you are missing out the ones bred here.

      2. h4rm0ny

        Re: It's like the sixth form common room

        >>"they are most probably still living with mum and dad"

        That would be because house prices today are beyond most people's reach and consequently any available properties are snapped up by well-off people who buy them to let out. Frequently borrowing to fund their buy-to-let which further exacerbates the problem. Thus you get buying a house unattainable for most under the age of thirty-five and if rent it takes up half or more of what you actually earn each month.

        So there are lots of people "still living with mum and dad" through little choice, even when they work.

        1. LucreLout

          Re: It's like the sixth form common room

          That would be because house prices today are beyond most people's reach

          No they're not. Not at all, in fact.

          The minimum wage is about to become £6.70 per hour. Coming out at £27,872, will leave very nearly £26k after taxes are applied. Multiply the gross by 3 for mortgage purposes and you get about £83k maximum safe borrowing limit. That alone woul allow the purchase of a whole raft of protery types and locations throughout the land, except for central London.

          Frequently borrowing to fund their buy-to-let which further exacerbates the problem

          Which is now taxed at a significantly higher rate than any and all previous goivernments desired to. How do you not see that as a good thing?

          Thus you get buying a house unattainable for most under the age of thirty-five

          Only, it isn't. I've already shown you how any minimum wage couple can afford to buy a home almost anywhere in the UK. Can they buy the house their parents finished up in? Possibly not, but they could usually buy the house their parents started out in. Unrealistic expectations i what is at play here. Having rented nice fully specced homes in nicer areas, they simply don't want to start out at the bottom of the ladder liek the rest of us had to.

          1. Yugguy

            Re: It's like the sixth form common room

            "Can they buy the house their parents finished up in? Possibly not, but they could usually buy the house their parents started out in. Unrealistic expectations i what is at play here"

            That's the problem across the board. My first car after I passed my test in 1987 cost 200 quid and it was old - not a brand new 200 quid a month lease car.

          2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

            Re: It's like the sixth form common room

            "The minimum wage is about to become £6.70 per hour. Coming out at £27,872,"

            Yer wot? Only if you work 80 hours a week. £6.70/hr is £12k for a 35-hour week. Simple rule of thumb: double the pounds per hour to get the grands per year.

            1. LucreLout

              Re: It's like the sixth form common room

              Yer wot? Only if you work 80 hours a week.

              40 hours each, per person in the couple. Single people have almost never been able to buy on their own. Even still, 4 times the minimum wage, which is a fair single person multiple is still £55,750, add on just a 10% deposit and you hit 60k. More than enough for a one bed starter flat anywhere in the lands (outside of London).

              These young single people only need to reset their expectations to something realistic and they're off and running. Hell, thanks to Osbourne, they're going to get a guaranteed 5k payrise over the next few years, or 10k for the couple. Not only can they buy now, and bank 5 years HPI, they'll get paid to move up to the second wrung of the ladder in short order.

              1. amanfromarse

                Re: It's like the sixth form common room

                Good luck getting a mortgage with 4 x income multiple and 10% deposit. Even if you find one, the interest rate would be astronomical. The average age for first-time buyers is now 35, according to Money Supermarket. Your original figures were rounded up by about 8k above actual, so forgive me if I take your latest projections with a pinch of salt.

                Which age groups are going to get a 5k pay rise then? Your base of 40 hour weeks is not universally attainable, hence the number of people claiming tax credits.

                It's pretty tough for a lot of kids at the moment and this budget hasn't helped them at all.

                1. LucreLout

                  Re: It's like the sixth form common room

                  Good luck getting a mortgage with 4 x income multiple and 10% deposit. Even if you find one, the interest rate would be astronomical

                  Nationwide only have 21 such mortgages available. At less than 4% once the cheap first years end.

                  Your original figures were rounded up by about 8k above actual, so forgive me if I take your latest projections with a pinch of salt.

                  ?? You'll have to explain that because they were rounded down.

                  Which age groups are going to get a 5k pay rise then?

                  Everyone on minimum wage who is or will be over 25 by 2020. so less than 5 years after they buy if they buy today.

                  Your base of 40 hour weeks is not universally attainable, hence the number of people claiming tax credits.

                  Yes it is. People don't claim tax credits because they can only find 16 hours work, or 30 in a couple. They do it because that is the threshold after which benefits withdrawl starts to make their tax rate move. There's no end of minmum wage jobs with 40+ hour weeks up and down the land.

                  To keep things simple I ignored welfare and assumed they'd not be claiming. Any welfare payments on top of the income would only make things easier. Most people, however, don't claim welfare.

                  It's pretty tough for a lot of kids at the moment and this budget hasn't helped them at all.

                  Sure it has. Its taken some heat out of BTL, its left them with more money in their pockets due to tax cuts, and were that not enough, its given the least well off among them a guaranteed pay rise. The only people this budget hasn't helped is those using welfare as a hammock, and the rich tax dodging non-doms.

          3. h4rm0ny

            Re: It's like the sixth form common room

            >>"The minimum wage is about to become £6.70 per hour. Coming out at £27,872, will leave very nearly £26k after taxes are applied. Multiply the gross by 3 for mortgage purposes and you get about £83k maximum safe borrowing limit.

            If I'm reading you correctly you're basing your ideas on two people both working forty-hours a week every week of the year (2x40x52x £6.70 = £27,872). That unrealistic calculation alone should tell us what we need to know about your argument. It shows a very stunted understanding of both the current state of the jobs market and, indeed, how humans can tolerably live.

            Furthermore, it takes no account whatsoever of living costs - firstly ignoring what repayments will be like and secondly the necessity to save for a deposit in the first place. Two people living off £26,000p/a and saving for a deposit? I'd enjoy seeing you try to live off £13k a year.

            >>"That alone woul allow the purchase of a whole raft of protery types and locations throughout the land, except for central London."

            Well you can get a small terraced house in Hartlepool for around £80,000, I'll grant you. So yes, if everyone is willing to move away from friends and family to whatever depressed area of the UK happens to have the lowest house prices, you might get on the ladder with something small. But we're still not at the point where someone on minimum wage can actually get here, as you're claiming. This is still above their level.

            >>"Which is now taxed at a significantly higher rate than any and all previous goivernments desired to. How do you not see that as a good thing?"

            Sure, it's a good thing, and I would not expect the government to ignore a pathway to get money out of anyone be they middle-class landlords or otherwise. But I don't see how it remotely addresses the fact that people wishing to buy face massive competition from wealthier people buying those same properties so that the former are forced to rent, instead.

            >>"Only, it isn't. I've already shown you how any minimum wage couple can afford to buy a home almost anywhere in the UK"

            You really haven't. You've completely assumed cost of living is low enough that your hypothetical couple who have managed to find consistent full time employment and work fifty-two weeks of the year can somehow save enough.

            >>"Unrealistic expectations i what is at play here. Having rented nice fully specced homes in nicer areas, they simply don't want to start out at the bottom of the ladder liek the rest of us had to."

            A couple don't live in a five-person house share, shacking up in a single bedroom because they're too snooty to settle for a modest house. You really have no idea and IF you started out at the bottom like the rest of us, you should have a better feel for how hard it is to get out in the modern day. But I suspect you did not.

            1. LucreLout

              Re: It's like the sixth form common room

              If I'm reading you correctly you're basing your ideas on two people both working forty-hours a week every week of the year (2x40x52x £6.70 = £27,872).

              Yes, it's called a full time job. Lots of us have them. You know that you are entitled to paid leave though, right?

              It shows a very stunted understanding of both the current state of the jobs market and, indeed, how humans can tolerably live.

              No, it seems you didn't know minmum wage jobs come with paid leave. Presumably that's because you're too cossetted to ever have had one.

              More than 1 million Polish people have moved to the UK and found work in a language that is not their own. Tell me again how they're managing that if even minimum wage jobs cannot be had?

              I'd enjoy seeing you try to live off £13k a year.

              Been there, done that. My first five jobs were below what was eventually instituted as minimum wage. My first and second professional jobs were on rather less than that, even allowing for inflation.

              Well you can get a small terraced house in Hartlepool for around £80,000, I'll grant you.

              You can buy a starter home in almost any town in the land bar london for that. I commute from Luton every day, and there's flats to be had not far from where I live for £60k.

              if everyone is willing to move away from friends and family to whatever depressed area of the UK happens to have ... Work, in my case. I moved away from family and friends to find work. So you'll understand if my cup does not runneth over for those demanding to be gifted a house on their door step without making any sacrifices.

              But we're still not at the point where someone on minimum wage can actually get here, as you're claiming

              Sure we are. See, I've used these things called facts, and numbers, to illustrate exactly how home ownership is achievable on minimum wage. If you want to continue pretending that isn't so, well, nobody else can help you with that.

              hypothetical couple who have managed to find consistent full time employment and work fifty-two weeks of the year

              Why do you struggle so with the concept of a full time job? Does nobody in your family and cirle of friends work? I can assure you that full time jobs are wholly normal for the vast majority of the working age population.

              somehow save enough

              We're talking about a 5 or 6 grand deposit here. A couple can save that in less than 6 years by foregoing just one pack of fags per week each. Or, god forbid, they could work an hour a weeks overtime. How important is buying a house to them if they aren't willing to do one hour per weeks overtime to save for a deposit?

              A couple don't live in a five-person house share, shacking up in a single bedroom because they're too snooty to settle for a modest house.

              I know. They do it to save for a deposit. My wife moved into my house share when we got together, so please don't make this sound as horrific as you are, because I've actually been there.

              IF you started out at the bottom like the rest of us, you should have a better feel for how hard it is to get out in the modern day. But I suspect you did not.

              Minimum wage was a significant payrise for my parents, who by the way owned their own home. I've done everything from bar work, or sound & lighting, through to factory work making fibreglass, insulation, and other building products. I still have the scars, literally. So you'll understand why I might be annoyed at your attempts to deny me my heritage, and that this discussion is now over. Fucking trustfund kids.... you've no idea. No idea at all.

              1. Corinne

                Re: It's like the sixth form common room

                I wasn't going to get sucked into this but...

                My sister, a well educated and experienced person, has been struggling for a long time to find a permanent, full time job. She's managed a few temping roles, and some part time work, but has lost out to people who have been in the exact industry sector of the job, or have experience of specialist (or often not so specialist) fields. She, like I have in the past, has been turned down as "over qualified". Plus not everyone is part of a couple. So your assumption that anyone who wants can work a 40 hour week, then double that income up , is completely unrealistic.

                An hour a week overtime adding up to £5k a year? If both do that, at minimum wage you're looking at well under £1k a year.

                Not everyone can move at will either. Assuming there ARE 2 people in the equation, if you move to get one of them a job then the other one is a bit stuck until they can find something. And what if they have children, to take out of school etc? Please don't try the old "they shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them" thing, maybe they could until one (or both) partners were made redundant - there's a lot of it about.

                Cost of living is an interesting one. If you do manage to scrape together the deposit and buy, you need to also find lighting, heating, council tax, buildings and contents insurance, phone, internet access etc. Then you have travel, either by car or public transport - where I live, a return ticket for an under 3 mile journey is well over £5 by bus, so would be well over £100 a month just for that. Your scenario of commuting from a cheaper area really does show a lack of thought - I live JUST outside the M25 and commuting to London would be £4-5k a year for me - once I'd got to the station either by bus or paid £6 a day parking.

                Add in unessential things like food, drinks, clothing (it does eventually wear out you know), toilet roll, shower gel & shampoo etc, cleaning products, any medications (no free prescriptions if you work, no matter how low paid).

                Do come back with a detailed list of the costs of all these things, and show us just how much is left to pay that mortgage off (if they can get one at all)

                1. LucreLout
                  Thumb Down

                  Re: It's like the sixth form common room

                  My sister, a well educated and experienced person, has been struggling for a long time to find a permanent, full time job. ... in her chosen field within her geographic area. Its no good looking to be a quantatative analyst in north Wales. Are you going to suggest that there is no work whatsoever in her area? Presumably then no eastern Europeans have managed to move there and find work? sorry, but I just don't believe that.

                  Plus not everyone is part of a couple.

                  Indeed, and as such they will always lose out economically to those who are. How could it be different?

                  An hour a week overtime adding up to £5k a year? If both do that, at minimum wage you're looking at well under £1k a year.

                  You've not read what I wrote. I said that the £5k deposit could be had for one hours overtime per week for five years. The five years between now and the living wage hitting a massive £9 per hour.

                  Not everyone can move at will either. Assuming there ARE 2 people in the equation, if you move to get one of them a job then the other one is a bit stuck until they can find something.

                  And yet couples manage this all the time. The furthest I've moved as part of a couple if 40 miles. Nobody changed jobs. Even the cheapest of cars can hold 70mph, so creates a reasonable range to work of at least 40 miles in any direction. That's a lot of jobs and a lot of property underlying that range.

                  Cost of living is an interesting one. If you do manage to scrape together the deposit and buy, you need to also find lighting, heating, council tax, buildings and contents insurance, phone, internet access etc.

                  And these are free in rental properties? No, they're not, and as such are a total straw man. No, wait, buildings insurance, I'll give you that one.

                  Then you have travel, either by car or public transport - where I live, a return ticket for an under 3 mile journey is well over £5 by bus, so would be well over £100 a month just for that.

                  Again, this is not free just because you rent your house. Whether you own or rent is irrelevant tot hese costs. You might as well link it to the weather!

                  Your scenario of commuting from a cheaper area really does show a lack of thought - I live JUST outside the M25 and commuting to London would be £4-5k a year for me - once I'd got to the station either by bus or paid £6 a day parking.

                  Yes, it's not cheap is it. Given I have to pay a little more than that, being further outside the M25, why is it you think I should then pay for you to own/rent/live closer to work? Sorry, but you need to be realsitic about what you can afford and what compromises you'll have to make: it's why I don't live in Mayfair and walk to work.

                  Add in unessential things like food, drinks, clothing (it does eventually wear out you know), toilet roll, shower gel & shampoo etc, cleaning products, any medications (no free prescriptions if you work, no matter how low paid).

                  You've gone off on a tangent again. Which of these costs is paid by your landlord? None of them. I'm genuinely impressed with your post: It's taken quite a lot to persuade me that Graham Marsdens economics a-level was worth the paper it's written on, but even his entertaining ideas about economics appear well thought out next to yours.

          4. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

            Re: It's like the sixth form common room

            The minimum wage is about to become £6.70 per hour. Coming out at £27,872, will leave very nearly £26k after taxes are applied. Multiply the gross by 3 for mortgage purposes and you get about £83k maximum safe borrowing limit. That alone woul allow the purchase of a whole raft of protery types and locations throughout the land, except for central London.

            Ahahahahahahahaha. That might buy you something in a town in the middle of nowhere where there aren't any jobs. Round where I live (which is not in London, FWIW), a 1-bed flat is going to cost you £150k+. If you're on minimum wage, and you didn't pay rent,or pay any bills, council tax, or NI, I'm pretty sure you still wouldn't have enough after a year for even a 10% deposit on that. Of course, you'd probably have starved to death trying to save enough that it wouldn't matter anyway.

  15. BobRocket

    Working Poor

    According to R4, this budget favours the well off and the working middle (there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this).

    The problem I can see is that the working poor spend all of their money, if they have less income then they will cut back on spending (they don't have access to credit to make up the shortfall).

    What will George do when the deflationary pressures get too much given that interest rates are already at ZIRP.

    It is only at the edge cases where economics gets interesting, surely Tim has an opinion.

    (if you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much room)

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just repeal IR35

    And we'll all be happy.

  17. Yugguy

    The opposition:

    Opposition parties in "Government is rubbish" statement shocker.

  18. h4rm0ny
    Paris Hilton

    Minimum wage for >= 25 year olds.

    I don't understand this one. Presumably it pushes employers to hire under 25's as much as possible for unskilled / low-skilled jobs? This is ostensibly a positive for 25 year olds but as far as I can see what it actually does is put increased pressure on them by making it even harder to escape the unemployment trap. Have I misread this?

  19. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. LucreLout

      Re: Cutting Tax Benefits.

      their employees will have to commute from the suburbs.

      Nothing wrong with that. I'm in my 40s in a well paid career and I have tro commute from the suburbs because we can't afford to live in central London. Why then should I wish to, or indeed, be made to pay for others to do so? That's wholly illogical.

      1. Fihart

        Re: Cutting Tax Benefits.

        @LucreLout

        As you say, you are well paid enough to make the commute worthwhile.

        I agree with you that you should not have to pay more tax to subsidise low wage employers -- but then you may have to pay more for food and the other goods sold by those firms when they are finally forced to raise wages or close branches in London.

        1. LucreLout

          Re: Cutting Tax Benefits.

          @Fihart

          The central theme of the budget was to push employers to paying wages, leave more money in peoples pay packets, and reducing the welfare subsidy to those claimants (both individual and corporate).

          Its simply not reasonable to ask those of us who pay for the welfare state to spend 3 hours a day commuting so that people who don't work, work part time, or otherwise claim housing benefits can live in central london instead of taking the train as we must.

          If that means Tesco et al can't sell me a sandwich for £1.80 then so be it. I'll either have to pay more for lunch, Tesco will have to make less profit, I could bring lunch from home or skip a meal... who knows. Whatever the outcome will be better than the historic misuse of the tax system.

  20. Fihart

    Cutting Tax Benefits

    This is very serious for the working mums on low wages who keep our infrastructure going.

    Someone I know working for Sainsbury's can only afford to live in London with state help with rent and kids. The budget is saying that either (a) Sainsbury (etc) must raise wages and prices if they want to operate in London or (b) their employees will have to commute from the suburbs.

    I don't see (a) happening because of competition nor (b) because commuting for several hours a day (and the cost of fares) to work for peanuts is unviable, especially where mums have to fit work around their kids' school hours.

    1. LucreLout

      Re: Cutting Tax Benefits

      Someone I know working for Sainsbury's can only afford to live in London with state help with rent and kids.

      So the state should help everyone who wants to live in central london do so? Great. I'll happily rent a house in London for the £150 a week the state charged the millionaire Bob Crow. When do I move?

      The budget is saying that either (a) Sainsbury (etc) must raise wages and prices if they want to operate in London or (b) their employees will have to commute from the suburbs.

      Yes. It is. I can't see a single reasonable objection to either point, but then, as I said above, I have to commute from the suburbs due to property prices in London. Its not wonderful, spending 3+ hours a day going to/from work, but it doesn't in fact hurt.

      I don't see (a) happening because of competition

      The Living Wage ensures it must. Unless she's already on more than £9 per hour, in which case I'm not sure that the tax payer *should* be providing further funding.

      (b) because commuting for several hours a day (and the cost of fares) to work for peanuts is unviable

      The time taken is a big downside, but literally millions of people have to live with it every day. Those of us paying the tax to fund your friend to avoid that time + money cost are also having to pay the fares ourselves.

      Ultimately, asking people who can't afford to live in london to spend 16+ hours a week commuting to fund other people to live in london working fewer hours than we spend on transport, just isn't reasonable. I'm sorry, but it's not. You don't buy your neighbour a car and then take the bus yourself.

      I'd like to walk or take the tube to work in 30 mins. I'd like more time with my kids. I'd like to not have to pay more than £5k a year just to stand on an over crowded train to get to work (after walking to the station because parking is another couple of k). Should the state be funding that? No. And it can't afford to anyway.

  21. Super Fast Jellyfish
    Windows

    66

    What I want to know is how do benefit scroungers magically turn into lovely pensioners at the age of 66?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon