Budget 2024

[metalblue]

The OBR did the work. I am merely the messenger.

And it amuses the fuck out of me to point out you voted to screw the economy while you babble on about the state of the economy. It’s my happy place.

Well the OBR forecasted a long term 15% reduction in trade intensity within the G7 rather than 15% drag on growth. The here and now is the OBRs assessment of the budget - ie an increase in £350bn going in to the system to get less growth than before.

I’d vote for Brexit again tomorrow - my reasoning is well documented. You might say that the government investing in public services is right and accept that will cost us returns on growth and be happy to vote for Labour again on the basis of increased public spending for decreased growth. Funny really that our arguments for harm on growth in return for a protected/better public service are likely so closely aligned yet it amuses you as it’s only morally right when it’s something you agree with - which isn’t really a surprise as we all agree with ourselves!!

 

[hampshireblue]

Well the OBR forecasted a long term 15% reduction in trade intensity within the G7 rather than 15% drag on growth. The here and now is the OBRs assessment of the budget - ie an increase in £350bn going in to the system to get less growth than before.

I’d vote for Brexit again tomorrow - my reasoning is well documented. You might say that the government investing in public services is right and accept that will cost us returns on growth and be happy to vote for Labour again on the basis of increased public spending for decreased growth. Funny really that our arguments for harm on growth in return for a protected/better public service are likely so closely aligned yet it amuses you as it’s only morally right when it’s something you agree with - which isn’t really a surprise as we all agree with ourselves!!

You clearly know something most of us don't about where the benefits are.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You clearly know something most of us don't about where the benefits are.

The destruction of the Conservative Party is the main one.

 

[metalblue]

You clearly know something most of us don't about where the benefits are.

TTIP was my reasoning. I have a pathological dislike of our health service being vulnerable to things like big yank tobacco firms suing them for loss of profits for them acting in the interests of public health.

Just doesn’t sit right with me. Any trading bloc that tries to get that sort of agreement in place isn’t a bloc I want to be part of. Some things are just too important. Depressingly our government was also in favour of the deal but I can’t really stop being part of the UK. Took Trump of all people to kick it in to touch.

 

[inbetween]

TTIP was my reasoning. I have a pathological dislike of our health service being vulnerable to things like big yank tobacco firms suing them for loss of profits for them acting in the interests of public health.

Just doesn’t sit right with me. Any trading bloc that tries to get that sort of agreement in place isn’t a bloc I want to be part of. Some things are just too important. Depressingly our government was also in favour of the deal but I can’t really stop being part of the UK. Took Trump of all people to kick it in to touch.

This is sort of self-defeative though because weren't the Tories and certainly Reform generally in favour of appeasing the Americans and not the opposite? They consistently claimed that a major Brexit benefit was that a US trade deal could be done within years (a lie). If we were so anti-American and worried then why was a US trade deal made into such a big deal post-Brexit?

Whilst in the EU we had collective bargaining power but we gave that up to instead rely upon some sweetheart deal that benefited us which was never going to happen. There is no chance of new progress on this with either of the potential next President as UK trade is so low on their priority list.

Either way we'd have to take chlorinated chicken, American healthcare/pharma and everything else they might demand or else what is the point for them? As usual we thought we stood tall alone but it hasn't turned out that way.

 

[BobKowalski]

I don’t agree with a lot of what Dyson says, and I certainly didn’t agree with him on Brexit, but he is right to call the Budget an ignorant swipe at aspiration. And parts of it are certainly vindictive in nature.

Utter bollocks. Dyson bought over 30k of farmland as a tax dodge. There was some resentment from smaller farmers that people like Dyson were artificially inflating land prices.

Attacking the budget on behalf of wealthy landowners and those sending their kids to private schools makes the conservatives and their right wing cheerleaders sound stupid. I get that sounding stupid is their default mode, but Labour will not lose sleep over these lines of attack.

 

[inbetween]

Utter bollocks. Dyson bought over 30k of farmland as a tax dodge. There was some resentment from smaller farmers that people like Dyson were artificially inflating land prices.

Attacking the budget on behalf of wealthy landowners and those sending their kids to private schools makes the conservatives and their right wing cheerleaders sound stupid. I get that sounding stupid is their default mode, but Labour will not lose sleep over these lines of attack.

You still have to ask though if I inherit a £2m farm but want to work it then how do I pay the £400k IHT bill?

The reality is most farmers would sell up or certainly their families would upon inheritance and then who would buy the farm? More than likely it would be a major corporation or billionaire and so even more wealth and land passes to the 1%.

If I was a farmer today then I'd probably ring up Barratt Homes and get the inevitable over with.

 

[metalblue]

This is sort of self-defeative though because weren't the Tories and certainly Reform generally in favour of appeasing the Americans and not the opposite? They consistently claimed that a major Brexit benefit was that a US trade deal could be done within years (a lie). If we were so anti-American and worried then why was a US trade deal made into such a big deal post-Brexit?

Whilst in the EU we had collective bargaining power but we gave that up to instead rely upon some sweetheart deal that benefited us which was never going to happen. There is no chance of new progress on this with either of the potential next President as UK trade is so low on their priority list.

Either way we'd have to take chlorinated chicken, American healthcare/pharma and everything else they might demand or else what is the point for them? As usual we thought we stood tall alone but it hasn't turned out that way.

One problem at a time….

 

[BobKowalski]

Well the OBR forecasted a long term 15% reduction in trade intensity within the G7 rather than 15% drag on growth. The here and now is the OBRs assessment of the budget - ie an increase in £350bn going in to the system to get less growth than before.

I’d vote for Brexit again tomorrow - my reasoning is well documented. You might say that the government investing in public services is right and accept that will cost us returns on growth and be happy to vote for Labour again on the basis of increased public spending for decreased growth. Funny really that our arguments for harm on growth in return for a protected/better public service are likely so closely aligned yet it amuses you as it’s only morally right when it’s something you agree with - which isn’t really a surprise as we all agree with ourselves!!

One man’s ‘reduction’ is another’s ‘drag on growth’

As for the budget, it’s a simple calculation. The country needs investment in its public services and infrastructure. Failure to invest is also a drag on growth. That investment has to be in the form of increased taxes and borrowing. The focus of the taxes has been business and employer orientated and closing tax loopholes for wealthy landowners. Labour has to start somewhere and this budget is a reasonable first step.

The OBR forecast on reduced growth in the short term is also a simple calculation. Benefits from public investment is not immediate whereas tax raises feed into the system immediately. But we are in this situation because of our decade long failure to invest and voting for economic self harm. There is a price to be paid for short-sighted stupidity and I’m happy for the likes of Dyson to start paying it.

 

[metalblue]

Utter bollocks. Dyson bought over 30k of farmland as a tax dodge. There was some resentment from smaller farmers that people like Dyson were artificially inflating land prices.

Attacking the budget on behalf of wealthy landowners and those sending their kids to private schools makes the conservatives and their right wing cheerleaders sound stupid. I get that sounding stupid is their default mode, but Labour will not lose sleep over these lines of attack.

Not sure it’s obviously a tax dodge. He’s invested a chunk of money in sustainable farming. Now he claims he has more than a passing interest in farming but only he knows. You certainly don’t.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The notion that Dyson does anything that isn’t in Dyson’s best interest is fanciful. He doesn’t give a shit about anything else but himself.

 

[metalblue]

One man’s ‘reduction’ is another’s ‘drag on growth’

As for the budget, it’s a simple calculation. The country needs investment in its public services and infrastructure. Failure to invest is also a drag on growth. That investment has to be in the form of increased taxes and borrowing. The focus of the taxes has been business and employer orientated and closing tax loopholes for wealthy landowners. Labour has to start somewhere and this budget is a reasonable first step.

The OBR forecast on reduced growth in the short term is also a simple calculation. Benefits from public investment is not immediate whereas tax raises feed into the system immediately. But we are in this situation because of our decade long failure to invest and voting for economic self harm. There is a price to be paid for short-sighted stupidity and I’m happy for the likes of Dyson to start paying it.

So you’re happy to sacrifice growth for what you see the bigger picture. I get the logic and time will tell if it’s the right thing.

 

[metalblue]

The notion that Dyson does anything that isn’t in Dyson’s best interest is fanciful. He doesn’t give a shit about anything else but himself.

Maybe he has two passions money and farming. I do get where the cynicism comes from.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Maybe he has two passions money and farming. I do get where the cynicism comes from.

We will never know if he would have invested in farming had this budget taken place before his first farm purchase, but my suspicion is that he wouldn’t.

He may have developed a “passion” for farming following his purchases, but my overriding suspicion is that his only passion is increasing his own bank account.

 

[BobKowalski]

You still have to ask though if I inherit a £2m farm but want to work it then how do I pay the £400k IHT bill?

The reality is most farmers would sell up or certainly their families would upon inheritance and then who would buy the farm? More than likely it would be a major corporation or billionaire and so even more wealth and land passes to the 1%.

If I was a farmer today then I'd probably ring up Barratt Homes and get the inevitable over with.

Well, congrats on inheriting £2m of farmland and presumably a viable commercial business to go with it.

For starters isn’t it 20% above £1m? If so we just reduced it to £200k. Then you look at the books of what will be several hundred acres of farmland, turnover, profit, loss, employee numbers etc - because this is a business not farmer fucking Giles toodling around on his fucking tractor and you borrow against the farm if it’s a profitable and viable concern.

Average UK farm size is 40 acres, so unlikely to trouble the £1m threshold. If owned by a married couple then good estate planning may get you a combined £2m threshold (not an expert here!).

Bottom line. Let me inherit £2m of land and a viable business and I’ll figure out the rest :)

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

There's a headline in the ToryGraph this morning that purports Reeves to have said 'We can't allow farmers to die without paying tax.' I don't suppose those are her actual words but I suspect the sentiment is there. I also suspect that she, like a lot of MPs hasn't the slightest idea what farming, or business, for that matter, is about.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

There's a headline in the ToryGraph this morning that purports Reeves to have said 'We can't allow farmers to die without paying tax.' I don't suppose those are her actual words but I suspect the sentiment is there. I also suspect that she, like a lot of MPs hasn't the slightest idea what farming, or business, for that matter, is about.

It happens when there are tax rises in any sector.

This time it’s the Tories suddenly caring about farmers.

When there has been chronic underfunding of all services for 14 years and no surplus of money available to restore some of these services, taxes will inevitably need to rise.

We could always return to the single market and CAP, which would benefit farmers.

 

[BobKowalski]

So you’re happy to sacrifice growth for what you see the bigger picture. I get the logic and time will tell if it’s the right thing.

Happy? No. Do we have a viable alternative? No.

The country needs public investment. Ironically, with Brexit it needs even more public investment as increased trade barriers not only reduce growth but incur costs.

Given your enthusiasm for reduced trade growth and trade barriers you should be delighted taxes were raised to help pay for it.

 

[BobKowalski]

There's a headline in the ToryGraph this morning that purports Reeves to have said 'We can't allow farmers to die without paying tax.' I don't suppose those are her actual words but I suspect the sentiment is there. I also suspect that she, like a lot of MPs hasn't the slightest idea what farming, or business, for that matter, is about.

More bollocks. Most farms and farmers will not reach the £1m threshold. And why the fuck is the Chancellor required to know anything about farming? She’s employed to run the finances of the country not work shifts in the milking parlour. And yes there will have been a lot of supporting documents on the effects of any tax rises or changes on particular industries for her to consider. She doesn’t wake up one morning and suddenly decide to pick on farmers or whoever.

Mind you, it’s instructive how everyone leaps to the defence of those that are least in need of it. You might as well label this thread ‘Will no one think of the ‘poor’ rich folk’

 

[metalblue]

Happy? No. Do we have a viable alternative? No.

The country needs public investment. Ironically, with Brexit it needs even more public investment as increased trade barriers not only reduce growth but incur costs.

Given your enthusiasm for reduced trade growth and trade barriers you should be delighted taxes were raised to help pay for it.

Who said I was enthusiastic for reduced growth and trade barriers? Don’t go making stuff up now flower.