news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, cellar said:

So you haven't read it, then. One of the earliest things mentioned as well is that there have been revisions - up - to historical ONS data that have fed into these revised figures. These revisions likely have a lot to do with why this is a more positive report.

They haven't "literally downgraded GDP forecasts." They've downgraded the rate of growth. But as noted at the end of 2.28: "However, the level of real GDP is slightly higher in 2027 than 
in March as the weaker growth forecast only partly offsets the upward revisions to historical 
GDP data (see Chart 2.8)"

Yes the tax burden will be the highest its been - if I were to get into my own personal feelings, I would say that I think that the tax burden should be lowered for poorer people, and CGT should be raised. I've said that many times in this thread, you know that. 

I've yet to read the detail on RHDI, but how can you say that this is not an important - and positive - difference from the March forecast?

It just feels like you want to find any reason to be miserable, maybe to use it as a reason to take a pop at the Tories (even though a lot of this report discusses the multitude of factors at play). So if you want to do that, go for it - but at least read it first, eh? 

Yes they’ve literally downgraded the GDP growth forecasts (as I’ve said multiple times now) and it’s now only forecast to be slightly higher than their original forecast because of this year. Just because in a few years GDP will be ever so slightly better than originally thought, it won’t make up for living standards falling and everything that will mean to families up and down the country. It doesn’t make up for public services being slashed, again. 
 

The revised figures from the OBR make for sobering reading and paint a picture of an economy that’s going nowhere whilst living standards hit the floor. None of that is positive. 
 

[Guest]

Let the good times roll with more austerity. 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

I don't see how you describe the most known about tax, income tax, as being a stealth tax.  Everyone knows if you earn more you pay more.

its stealth taxation when the take increases because the tx free segment isn't increased.

[Neil]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

holy sh*t.

 

unlikely to find coalition partners, apparently.

[steviewevie]

5 hours ago, Neil said:

its stealth taxation when the take increases because the tx free segment isn't increased.

Yeah, pay going up with inflation but tax bands freezing is kind of stealthy.

[cellar]

7 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Yes they’ve literally downgraded the GDP growth forecasts (as I’ve said multiple times now) and it’s now only forecast to be slightly higher than their original forecast because of this year. Just because in a few years GDP will be ever so slightly better than originally thought, it won’t make up for living standards falling and everything that will mean to families up and down the country. It doesn’t make up for public services being slashed, again. 
 

The revised figures from the OBR make for sobering reading and paint a picture of an economy that’s going nowhere whilst living standards hit the floor. None of that is positive. 
 

Yeah, that's fine, and I've tried to explain to you multiple times how GDP still ends up higher in this forecast, but you're stubbornly trying to stick to your own agenda. Would you prefer the March forecast for RHDI, then? Or was it only the marginally better GDP in this forecast that we should focus on?

You're conflating your own emotions with the subject, which makes it difficult to come back and unpick what you're actually saying with regards to the OBR report. But if you really want to try - let's start with this, from your own post.

"The revised figures from the OBR make for sobering reading"

Which specific figures are we talking about here? Please can you make reference to them in the document if possible. And because this isn't meant to be a trap, please keep in mind that a new forecast isn't a revision.

Edited November 23, 2023 by cellar

[steviewevie]

GDP now better than forecast in March, but going forward forecast is worse, and at end of forecast in 2029 we end up 0.5% higher. So yes a bit better, but still not exactly a bed of roses.

Another fun stat...between 2019/20 and 2024/25 we'd have gone through the biggest drop in living standards since the 1950s..not great when you're trying to win an election. 

[steviewevie]

this charismatic chappie summarises what is in report

 

[cellar]

7 hours ago, Ommadawn said:

Of course he hasn't read it. Anything even vaguely pro Tory or anti Labour is ignored.  Of course anything even vaguely pro Labour is taken as gospel. \

Completely obsessed poor thing.

To be fair, I don't think he read it last year either when the OBR had the insane task of trying to produce a report with multiple shifting chancellors. Even for an objective organisation they basically slagged off the Tories in the intro 😂

I don't even necessarily think that this is a pro-Tory report - I'm still not past section 2, so have yet to come to Policy impacts. I imagine there will be plenty to bash the Tories with. But it's just exhausting seeing people cherry picking (or lettings others cherry pick for then and not validating the context of) information to suit an agenda.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, cellar said:

Yeah, that's fine, and I've tried to explain to you multiple times how GDP still ends up higher in this forecast, but you're stubbornly trying to stick to your own agenda. Would you prefer the March forecast for RHDI, then? Or was it only the marginally better GDP in this forecast that we should focus on?

You're conflating your own emotions with the subject, which makes it difficult to come back and unpick what you're actually saying with regards to the OBR report. But if you really want to try - let's start with this, from your own post.

"The revised figures from the OBR make for sobering reading"

Which specific figures are we talking about here? Please can you make reference to them in the document if possible. And because this isn't meant to be a trap, please keep in mind that a new forecast isn't a revision.

As I’ve gone through multiple times just because they are now saying that GDP will be .5% higher in a few years time than they did in March doesn’t paint a better picture. GDP is only higher because of 2023 apart from that growth has been revised down so no it’s good reading at all. 
 

I’ve literally gone through and highlighted some of the areas that make sobering reading to which you came back and cherry picked one part of the report to make things seem like everything is decent (GDP slightly higher) because of your own agenda. The only people that are crowing about the economy and yesterday’s statement at the moment are the Tories and their media; everyone else can see through them to see the economy for the real state that it’s in currently. 

[squirrelarmy]

Anyway, that fraction of your wage that you’re saving with the reduced NI contribution will be going on the energy price cap rise. 
 

 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Anyway, that fraction of your wage that you’re saving with the reduced NI contribution will be going on the energy price cap rise. 
 

 

and fact most people will be paying more tax overall.

[steviewevie]

[steviewevie]

[steviewevie]

Hunt has managed to increase and decrease the tax burden. Clever.

[lost]

The personal allowance freezing was announced in the 2021 budget not this one. The worrying thing is its raised much more than expected due to higher pay rises / inflation but (probably labour) will still need to find £20bn of cuts to fund the NI cut or reverse it.

Edited November 23, 2023 by lost

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Anyway, that fraction of your wage that you’re saving with the reduced NI contribution will be going on the energy price cap rise. 
 

 

But don’t worry GDP will be .5% higher in 2029, let the good times roll. 

[steviewevie]

13 minutes ago, lost said:

The personal allowance freezing was announced in the 2021 budget not this one. The worrying thing is its raised much more than expected due to higher pay rises / inflation but (probably labour) will still need to find £20bn of cuts to fund the NI cut or reverse it.

yeah, irresponsible at best. Will make choices harder for Reeves, and public services even shittier.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, irresponsible at best. Will make choices harder for Reeves, and public services even shittier.

and now the trap is set for Rachel Reeves, will she say she will reverse this cut, or will she cut spending, if no to either where will money come from. Playing sh*tty cynical politics with public finances. 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

and now the trap is set for Rachel Reeves, will she say she will reverse this cut, or will she cut spending, if no to either where will money come from. Playing sh*tty cynical politics with public finances. 

... not to mention the likely cut in Income Tax in the Spring.
Playing sh*tty cynical politics with public finances is what all Governments tend to do at the end of their term in office. Maybe Labour will get an 'I'm afraid there's no money left' note like the one they left the Tories.  

[steviewevie]

14 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

... not to mention the likely cut in Income Tax in the Spring.
Playing sh*tty cynical politics with public finances is what all Governments tend to do at the end of their term in office. Maybe Labour will get an 'I'm afraid there's no money left' note like the one they left the Tories.  

That letter wasn't sh*tty politics, it was a joke, a very stupid joke as it turned out. The back drop of all that was the massive spending that was required to bail out banks and help prevent a global depression, and now there was a huge deficit. There was no trap. Some one wrote that letter for a bit of a laugh and the tories milked it forever.

Edited November 23, 2023 by steviewevie

[lost]

Seem to remember the bank bailout was "off the books" so to speak. We were running a 6% deficit in the run up to the recession which then ballooned to 11% more due to the tax revenue the financial system and economy was generating.

It may of been a joke but both parties appeared to go along with the theme of the letter. The choice the public got at the next election was NHS spending ring fenced under the Tories but bigger cuts to local services whilst Alister Darling offered cuts to the NHS and less to local services. The public went with the Tories.

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, lost said:

Seem to remember the bank bailout was "off the books" so to speak. We were running a 6% deficit in the run up to the recession which then ballooned to 11% more due to the tax revenue the financial system and economy was generating.

It may of been a joke but both parties appeared to go along with the theme of the letter. The choice the public got at the next election was NHS spending ring fenced under the Tories but bigger cuts to local services whilst Alister Darling offered cuts to the NHS and less to local services. The public went with the Tories.

and the rest was history...austerity, some more austerity...big load of brexit...a dollop of Boris and a sprinking of Truss.

Edited November 23, 2023 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

 

[cellar]

4 hours ago, Ozanne said:

As I’ve gone through multiple times just because they are now saying that GDP will be .5% higher in a few years time than they did in March doesn’t paint a better picture. GDP is only higher because of 2023 apart from that growth has been revised down so no it’s good reading at all. 
 

I’ve literally gone through and highlighted some of the areas that make sobering reading to which you came back and cherry picked one part of the report to make things seem like everything is decent (GDP slightly higher) because of your own agenda. The only people that are crowing about the economy and yesterday’s statement at the moment are the Tories and their media; everyone else can see through them to see the economy for the real state that it’s in currently. 

You're confusing absolute vs relative, I think. So I'll leave it there, as I've got walls that I could go and bang my head against!