The budget

The budget
What does it mean to you
It's all a bit :ywn: to me.
Or am I missing something :flag:

 

I like cider :( I'm also a bit bemused as last week there was a big headline saying the government were going to 'save the pubs'. By putting up the price of alcohol?

 

Its going to hurt me too. But there is nothing we can do. We are going to have to pay for the wild party. And if they don't take it off you one way they will take it off you another.

I have a nasty feeling that the recession hasn't even started yet. There is a limit as to how much of the financial mess you can sweep under the carpet, and I don't think our carpet is big enough.

 

there was an online calculator on yahoo yesterday to figure out how much of an effect the new budget will have on you over the course of a year - it says I will be £386 worse off with it. Well, hopefully a new government will come into play and if I'm going to be £386 worse off, or more, I at least hope it will be used to help reduce the deficit and get the country back on it's feet. I don't particularly like the idea that my tax dollars are going to MP's expense accounts......

 

The Government has Bailed out the Banks with the taxpayers money and they must get some of that money back into the coffers!!!. so you have bailed out the banks and still you will be paying more taxation, if you smoke or have a drink or drive a car??? when will the public see the advantage of bailing out the banks ?? as a saver the interest on my account is negligible so i am not in benifit, my money has diminished in value over the past 2 years.my money has made someone richer, not me!!! :( music .:( .

 

stamp duty gone below 250,000 paid for by increase to 5 precent on million pound houses...thats my kind of policy.

 

Yes, but where can you buy a half decent house for under a quarter of a million...at least in the South?

 

I am afraid that the biggest problem is not just the politicians, but also the public. On the TV it was said that about 60% of the public didn't see that there was any problem and didn't see any need to cut public spending (and their own spending presumably).

Unfortunately this was the attitude taken by Gordon Brown that got us into this mess.

 

Ah, but there is public spending and then waste in public spending....

Why is it when there are cuts being made, it's the 'little people' who are the first to go, while the top management jobs remain safe? I know the argument that as a manager, you should be able to do the jobs held by your staff/subordinates, but in my experience this seldom happens. The staff that are left are just expected to do more work, in the same hours but for the same pay.

I've seen the above happen in the hotel industry. After 9/11 London hotels which depended on American tourists, especially in summer had to make drastic staff cuts to survive. I was working in housekeeping at the time - the Room Attendants (pc speak for chambermaids) who remained were asked to clean extra rooms, in the same time and at the same rate of pay. The managers remained sitting in their offices doing exactly the same job.

I get the feeling the NHS (biggest public spending) is probably the same). It's been said before, but perhaps a cull of the bureaucrats would be more profitable?

 

Thanks for your comments everybody.
Looks like some people think they will be a bit worse off
Nobody thinks they will be better off
And most people think it will do nothing to solve any problem.
I think Darling just had a budget to show that he is still Chancellor.