The Budget

[Whistlin' Dixie]

Is that like an informal "Dragons Den"-esque idea?

Essentially, yes.

But there'll be no Govt help/bailout if the business you've invested in goes tits-up*, I'll wager.

*Unless, of course, a few MP's have their fingers in the same pie

 

[daylightrobber]

Wasn't the recession caused in large part because huge swathes of the population borrowed too much/saved too little? We have had rock bottom interest rates for the last few years now so you could surely be forgiven for thinking that under current circumstances, saving money is a complete waste of time.

In short, no. It was all about the lending, not the borrowing.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Look Bruce, we pay taxes that went into bank bailouts to help the nation's small businesses & infrastructure projects, no?

So why is it that banks aren't lending the money you & me gave them to do so, instead of paying themselves obscene bunces; while ripping off businesses & then encouraging sites like that to do their jobs for them, so they can rake it in double time?

Nah lad.

'Starving masses' is it? How very Marie Antoinette...And we all know what happened to her & her attitude.

From what I understand, the state bailed out the banks because they were bankrupt and they figured it was the lesser of two evils to do that than regular folk lose their savings. When your balance sheet is wonky I'm not sure it's sensible to lend to businesses that you wouldn't ordinarily lend to. Given that we should expect our money back I'd say it's sensible to safe.

Is that like an informal "Dragons Den"-esque idea?

Yeah a little bit. You've got your Kickstarter type ventures where it's more of a gift to a project you believe in, and then your Seedr type stuff which is an investment in the more normal sense. It's not one or two people investing though (typically) but lots of people backing a business. You can also lend to other people if you want too, or to civic projects (new playgrounds and all that) or to support kids through uni or pay legal fees or a whole host of things.

 

[daylightrobber]

Probably worth mentioning, the disabled will be bearing 30% of this budgets cuts.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

From what I understand, the state bailed out the banks because they were bankrupt and they figured it was the lesser of two evils to do that than regular folk lose their savings.

Partially right. That's half the story.

When your balance sheet is wonky I'm not sure it's sensible to lend to businesses that you wouldn't ordinarily lend to.

The Govt. introduced QE to give the banks money to loan and invest. Instead, Lloyds & RBS ripped off, and shut down thousands of small businesses by imposing all sorts of conditions that were totally unnecessary. They used the QE money to pay their CEO's and casino bankers £millions in bonuses for their abject, atrocious failures, instead of loaning money out - thereby defeating the whole purpose of QE.

Given that we should expect our money back I'd say it's sensible to safe.

lol Nice thought. Not happening though.

 

[bring the ghost on]

I'm a critic of Osbourne and today is no exception, but I have no idea why the savings incentive is coming under such criticism in this thread. Yes, it is gimmicky and put together to deflect criticism regarding the lack of growth, but it will also help a lot of people who struggle to get on the property ladder or who have bad pension schemes.

On the other hand, the fact that Osbourne is committing to cutting corporation tax to 17%, whilst continuing to make savage cuts which will effect lower earners, shows the true colours of the tories.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

but it will also help a lot of people who struggle to get on the property ladder

Hmmm.....

How about they change the eligibility criteria and provision terms for 'affordable' housing?

Might work just as well imo.

 

[dandydan]

Wasn't the recession caused in large part because huge swathes of the population borrowed too much/saved too little? We have had rock bottom interest rates for the last few years now so you could surely be forgiven for thinking that under current circumstances, saving money is a complete waste of time.

The Clinton administration decided credit scoring was racist and discriminatory so forced banks to change their lending criteria. This led to cletus and jamal being able to secure credit cards, mortgages etc etc even though they were on a low wage, throw in the likes of PPI and other rip offs the banks were raking it in on the subprime lending market.

As often happens the idea caught on over here Northern Rock for example would give Spuggy Mchorsepuncher a 150% mortgage despite him working for minimum wage.
All well and good but the reason Cletus Jamal and wor Spuggy need the rules bending is because they aren't very good with money and given the choice between watching the toon and paying bills the toon won every time, him and many others left banks with billions of toxic debt that was never going to be repaid.

 

[bring the ghost on]

How about they change the eligibility criteria and provision terms for 'affordable' housing?

Affordable housing schemes exist, but I can't profess to know the eligibility criteria and provision terms well enough to know how much the government would need to change them to have as attractive a proposal as the 25% saving incentive, I'm happy to listen to suggestions though?

I just think it is an odd thing to criticise in a budget full of ideological attacks.

 

[daylightrobber]

I'm a critic of Osbourne and today is no exception, but I have no idea why the savings incentive is coming under such criticism in this thread. Yes, it is gimmicky and put together to deflect criticism regarding the lack of growth, but it will also help a lot of people who struggle to get on the property ladder or who have bad pension schemes.

On the other hand, the fact that Osbourne is committing to cutting corporation tax to 17%, whilst continuing to make savage cuts which will effect lower earners, shows the true colours of the tories.

Because it is sold to us as a policy which will help the ordinary bloke on the street, when in reality saving £4k a year is well beyond very many of those who could do with a leg up most. As you rightly point out, low earners getting hit more means there will be even fewer people at tge 'bottom' end who can save with such a scheme. I appreciate that there are some who strive to save, and for them the idea is great. But there others for whom £4k a year means nothing. It seems as if is ok to get handouts from the government if you're rich, but if you're poor you're labelled a scrounger. As you said, and as I said earlier, it's deflection but it's also divisive.

Agreed on corporation tax cuts.

 

[bring the ghost on]

It seems as if is ok to get handouts from the government if you're rich, but if you're poor you're labelled a scrounger.

This is a good point. Again, I don't think that is a problem with this idea per se, but more the surrounding myths perpetuated by this government and the media, and also the lack of interest in promoting a proper living wage.

Agree with most of your sentiments, but it is worth pointing out that the scheme is not set up so that you have to put £4k per year in there. If someone on a low/modest income puts £50 p/m in there (granted, still not achievable for a lot of people), then they could benefit from a £1,200 top-up over 4 years.

 

[bring the ghost on]

 

[daylightrobber]

This is a good point. Again, I don't think that is a problem with this idea per se, but more the surrounding myths perpetuated by this government and the media, and also the lack of interest in promoting a proper living wage.

Agree with most of your sentiments, but it is worth pointing out that the scheme is not set up so that you have to put £4k per year in there. If someone on a low/modest income puts £50 p/m in there (granted, still not achievable for a lot of people), then they could benefit from a £1,200 top-up over 4 years.

Glad you're pointing out that the richer you are, the more the government will give you. That's exactly why it's wrong.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Glad you're pointing out that the richer you are, the more the government will give you.

Well, the more you put in the, the more you get out of it, correct, but I'm not sure it is a scheme for the "rich". A higher rate tax payer would probably be better off paying more into their pension; the pension tax relief would work out better than the lifetime ISA. I hasten to re-iterate that I am a critic of Osbourne and this budget, but I'm really struggling to jump on the bandwagon of naysayers for this scheme, it just makes sense to give a savings incentive.

 

[daylightrobber]

I see that cuts in business rates are being sold to us by the media as a positive, totally ignoring the fact that following the removal of core funding, business rates are now used to fund local authorities.