Budget 2016.....

OBR has revised down potential UK productivity growth.....

Nothing like a good start !!

Imagining the collective groan when Corbyn gets up to respond...

Well, hopefully he'll be allowed to respond w/o the usual juvenile crap that's so typical of our 'leaders' these days.

Hopefully..

record low unemployment and further sustained good wage growth, pretty decent start.....

Tax on sugary drinks = needless to say the most ignorant will label this another 'attack on the poor', because apparently poor people only eat KFC, frozen pizza and coca cola....

TopHat24/7 wrote:Tax on sugary drinks = needless to say the most ignorant will label this another 'attack on the poor', because apparently poor people only eat KFC, frozen pizza and coca cola....

I won't. It is a pathetic tax though.

Strong emphasis on saving, especially for lower earners, very good stance there - encourage greater personal financial responsibility hopefully.

Didn't sting fuel or booze duties which is a pleasant surprise, thought there would be some easy wins there.

Nice to see middle-higher earners get some help for once with the threshold changes.

Beats the Pasty tax.

Tax on sugary drinks (from 2018) and an increase in tax on cigarettes.

Do me a favour, Gideon.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Tax on sugary drinks = needless to say the most ignorant will label this another 'attack on the poor', because apparently poor people only eat KFC, frozen pizza and coca cola....

I won't. It is a pathetic tax though.

Can't say I've ever been in favour. Think it only came back to the table due to the surprisingly substantial effect of the 5p bag charge - common sense says there should be no change to consumer habits from such miniscule changes, but actually it's been significant.

Duty281 wrote:Tax on sugary drinks (from 2018) and an increase in tax on cigarettes.

Do me a favour, Gideon.

Has to make up some of the money he was trying to rob off struggling families with the tax credit debacle.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Tax on sugary drinks = needless to say the most ignorant will label this another 'attack on the poor', because apparently poor people only eat KFC, frozen pizza and coca cola....

I won't. It is a pathetic tax though.

Can't say I've ever been in favour.  Think it only came back to the table due to the surprisingly substantial effect of the 5p bag charge - common sense says there should be no change to consumer habits from such miniscule changes, but actually it's been significant.

Yeah, the bag tax is weird. I certainly wouldn't pay any attention to an extra 10 bags on a £150 spend. Maybe I don't give enough credit to the populace - perhaps they thought that was the point to actually contribute less waste. Nah...

Duty281 wrote:Tax on sugary drinks (from 2018) and an increase in tax on cigarettes.

Do me a favour, Gideon.

One of the only things Corbs gave the thumbs up to.....

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Tax on sugary drinks = needless to say the most ignorant will label this another 'attack on the poor', because apparently poor people only eat KFC, frozen pizza and coca cola....

I won't. It is a pathetic tax though.

Can't say I've ever been in favour.  Think it only came back to the table due to the surprisingly substantial effect of the 5p bag charge - common sense says there should be no change to consumer habits from such miniscule changes, but actually it's been significant.

Yeah, the bag tax is weird. I certainly wouldn't pay any attention to an extra 10 bags on a £150 spend. Maybe I don't give enough credit to the populace - perhaps they thought that was the point to actually contribute less waste. Nah...

yeh, seems totally non-sensical. Though even for me it's probably reduced my usage maybe 20% (i.e. the 1 in 5 times I remember a life bag or stuff things in pockets).

Problem with the sugar tax is it doesn't feel like an extra cost, just a price increase. Will it really get people to buy water more often? Or diet drinks maybe?

TopHat24/7 wrote:...Problem with the sugar tax is it doesn't feel like an extra cost, just a price increase. Will it really get people to buy water more often? Or diet drinks maybe?

Nope.

For anyone willing to remove their head from their jacksie, this really is a good thing:

https://www.gov.uk/government/...data/.../Lifetime_ISA_explained.pdf

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:...Problem with the sugar tax is it doesn't feel like an extra cost, just a price increase. Will it really get people to buy water more often? Or diet drinks maybe?

Nope.

So we think.

Be interesting to see what happens between now and a possible new UKG in 2020, see if it really does make a difference at all.

Let's face it, nothing actually wrong with encouraging people to reduce their sugar intake, particularly kids, which is why Corbs supports it.

TopHat24/7 wrote:For anyone willing to remove their head from their jacksie, this really is a good thing:

https://www.gov.uk/government/...data/.../Lifetime_ISA_explained.pdf

'Page not found', that's not a good thing at all, so disappointed

If it's the lifetime pension ISA, yes it is a good thing, providing you have money to save in the first place.

The irony or encouraging the young to save while pumping up the cost of housing in order to put out hollow GDP numbers. Only those that live with their parents or the very wealthy will be able to afford this.

I suppose that's what towel folding and a 2:1 in history gets you.

Wish I'd taken History Pr4wn......Had my time again I'd have been a History teacher...

Went the psychology route to my eternal regret..

Thank God you're not Chancellor then!

Nothing sort of budget really. Was expecting something serious but I suppose he can't afford a misstep now the Boris is so prominent.

Imagine if Martians landed and saw Trump in the White house and Boris and Corbyn over here running the govt and opposition. .

They wouldn't stay for long...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Imagine if Martians landed and saw Trump in the White house and Boris and Corbyn over here running the govt and opposition. .

They wouldn't stay for long...

They'd remember that they allowed their world to be used as a film site for total recall/mars attacks and shut the f*ck up.

Apparently Corbyn gave a good account of himself. .

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:...Problem with the sugar tax is it doesn't feel like an extra cost, just a price increase. Will it really get people to buy water more often? Or diet drinks maybe?

Nope.

So we think.

Be interesting to see what happens between now and a possible new UKG in 2020, see if it really does make a difference at all.

Let's face it, nothing actually wrong with encouraging people to reduce their sugar intake, particularly kids, which is why Corbs supports it.

Absolutely, but the problem isn't the sugar (really). Need to get people off arses. Also (and I don't know the answer) what's implication of this proposed tax on, say, a can of full-monty Coke? How much does it add to a can? If it's not significant (say, doubling the price of each can), I doubt it'll make a great deal of difference. Time will tell though.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:For anyone willing to remove their head from their jacksie, this really is a good thing:

https://www.gov.uk/government/...data/.../Lifetime_ISA_explained.pdf

'Page not found', that's not a good thing at all, so disappointed

If it's the lifetime pension ISA, yes it is a good thing, providing you have money to save in the first place.

No such thing as a lifetime pension ISA.

But it may well reduce the need/demand for personal pensions as, whilst you're taxed on the way in (i.e. investing post tax savings) you get everything back including your interest AND the 25% bonus free of tax on the way out.

Basically it sits alongside and is interchangeable with the help to buy ISA. Both pay a 25% bonus, only difference is one cystallises when a first time buyer takes their cash out to buy, the other only crystallises once you turn 60.

Whether you can afford to save £10 a month, £100 a month or the full £350 a month, it's a bloody brilliant product.

Pr4wn wrote:The irony or encouraging the young to save while pumping up the cost of housing in order to put out hollow GDP numbers. Only those that live with their parents or the very wealthy will be able to afford this.

I suppose that's what towel folding and a 2:1 in history gets you.

House price growth form part of GDP calcs??

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:...Problem with the sugar tax is it doesn't feel like an extra cost, just a price increase. Will it really get people to buy water more often? Or diet drinks maybe?

Nope.

So we think.

Be interesting to see what happens between now and a possible new UKG in 2020, see if it really does make a difference at all.

Let's face it, nothing actually wrong with encouraging people to reduce their sugar intake, particularly kids, which is why Corbs supports it.

Absolutely, but the problem isn't the sugar (really). Need to get people off arses. Also (and I don't know the answer) what's implication of this proposed tax on, say, a can of full-monty Coke? How much does it add to a can? If it's not significant (say, doubling the price of each can), I doubt it'll make a great deal of difference. Time will tell though.

Disagree. Massively. Public health advice over the last 40-50 years has been an absolute disaster and declining activity rates has only had a modest impact.

Fat intake has plummetted (go back to when people had fry ups regularly, always cooked in butter/lard etc) whilst heart disease, obesity, diabetes and more have all gone through the roof. Along corresponding increase has been sugar intake.

Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

Yup. They're even saying you should have a big fry up in the morning and go back to the King to Pauper diet. Every time I go to kashmir i lose about 25 kg's simply because all the food is organic/natural. About 5 or 6 of that is water weight but just by getting sugar out of your diet you start dropping weight by the kilo.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

Wasn't this known as far back as the 70's but covered up by the food companies putting pressure on the White House who then did the same to the WHO?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:...Problem with the sugar tax is it doesn't feel like an extra cost, just a price increase. Will it really get people to buy water more often? Or diet drinks maybe?

Nope.

So we think.

Be interesting to see what happens between now and a possible new UKG in 2020, see if it really does make a difference at all.

Let's face it, nothing actually wrong with encouraging people to reduce their sugar intake, particularly kids, which is why Corbs supports it.

Absolutely, but the problem isn't the sugar (really). Need to get people off arses. Also (and I don't know the answer) what's implication of this proposed tax on, say, a can of full-monty Coke? How much does it add to a can? If it's not significant (say, doubling the price of each can), I doubt it'll make a great deal of difference. Time will tell though.

Disagree. Massively.  Public health advice over the last 40-50 years has been an absolute disaster and declining activity rates has only had a modest impact.

Fat intake has plummetted (go back to when people had fry ups regularly, always cooked in butter/lard etc) whilst heart disease, obesity, diabetes and more have all gone through the roof. Along corresponding increase has been sugar intake.

Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

With respect, I disagree. Declining activity rates has a huge impact. While I agree that sugar intake can be reduced (and should be in many cases), it's overly simplistic to assume it's sugar that's the biggest impact. It's (more or less) simple: calories in > calories out = weight gain and, if it continues, Type 2 diabetes. It's simply too much in and not enough out. It's ease of access to to calorie-dense foods. It's the relatively low cost (these days) of high calorie foods such as meats. It's the astounding inability of people to cook and the unbelievable ignorance about nutrition, not aided I have to say, by an ignorant media and by fads like 'super fruits' and all that snake oil crap. Etc etc. Sugar intake is one part of all of this so I accept that cutting it is useful, but this tax is (probably) going to have little to no effect. It might have an effect if the tax raised goes exclusively into (and is usefully used by) schools for just increasing exercise at school. I won't hold my breath...

ShahenshahG wrote:Yup. They're even saying you should have a big fry up in the morning and go back to the King to Pauper diet. Every time I go to kashmir i lose about 25 kg's simply because all the food is organic/natural. About 5 or 6 of that is water weight but just by getting sugar out of your diet you start dropping weight by the kilo.

Shah. With respect that's cobblers. You lose weight because you put less calories in and/or you're burning more off. Organic/natural has chuff all to do with it.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

Wasn't this known as far back as the 70's but covered up by the food companies putting pressure on the White House who then did the same to the WHO?

Doubt it. Sugar is calories, same as protein and fat. In actual fact, per gram, it's less calorie-dense than either lean protein or fat.
One thing with carbohydrate, low fat things (for example, yoghurts) are often bulked with carbohydrates instead of the fat. So they're not as low calorie as you might expect.

Incidentally, re. Toppys broken 'lifetime ISA' link above, the actual link to the PDF that explains it is:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508117/Lifetime_ISA_explained.pdf

Re. sugar tax. Saw somewhere yesterday it'll cause a max. ~6p increase on a can of regular Coke. Wow. Can just see all those skinny people now. Given Starbucks' (other coffee chains are available) superfat-maxsugar-pigout coffees and fruit juices etc etc are exempt from this, I'm not sure it was worth the breath of Gideon to even bother with it.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:The irony or encouraging the young to save while pumping up the cost of housing in order to put out hollow GDP numbers. Only those that live with their parents or the very wealthy will be able to afford this.

I suppose that's what towel folding and a 2:1 in history gets you.

House price growth form part of GDP calcs??

Obviously not, but think of the indirect consequences. Right to buy and low interest rates mean people borrow a lot more and the increase in the value of the asset means that existing house owners can borrow on the back of that increase, creating more spending money to put into the economy.


Trouble is that it's a completely unsustainable growth model, as evidenced in the USA.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

Wasn't this known as far back as the 70's but covered up by the food companies putting pressure on the White House who then did the same to the WHO?

Not one for conspiracy theories, and doubt that one, but I think it's been exposed recently how bad the advice was and that it was based on pretty pony research (in the UK at least). Bit like the anti-MMR bullsh!t.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:...Problem with the sugar tax is it doesn't feel like an extra cost, just a price increase. Will it really get people to buy water more often? Or diet drinks maybe?

Nope.

So we think.

Be interesting to see what happens between now and a possible new UKG in 2020, see if it really does make a difference at all.

Let's face it, nothing actually wrong with encouraging people to reduce their sugar intake, particularly kids, which is why Corbs supports it.

Absolutely, but the problem isn't the sugar (really). Need to get people off arses. Also (and I don't know the answer) what's implication of this proposed tax on, say, a can of full-monty Coke? How much does it add to a can? If it's not significant (say, doubling the price of each can), I doubt it'll make a great deal of difference. Time will tell though.

Disagree. Massively.  Public health advice over the last 40-50 years has been an absolute disaster and declining activity rates has only had a modest impact.

Fat intake has plummetted (go back to when people had fry ups regularly, always cooked in butter/lard etc) whilst heart disease, obesity, diabetes and more have all gone through the roof. Along corresponding increase has been sugar intake.

Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

With respect, I disagree. Declining activity rates has a huge impact. While I agree that sugar intake can be reduced (and should be in many cases), it's overly simplistic to assume it's sugar that's the biggest impact. It's (more or less) simple: calories in > calories out = weight gain and, if it continues, Type 2 diabetes. It's simply too much in and not enough out. It's ease of access to to calorie-dense foods. It's the relatively low cost (these days) of high calorie foods such as meats. It's the astounding inability of people to cook and the unbelievable ignorance about nutrition, not aided I have to say, by an ignorant media and by fads like 'super fruits' and all that snake oil crap. Etc etc. Sugar intake is one part of all of this so I accept that cutting it is useful, but this tax is (probably) going to have little to no effect. It might have an effect if the tax raised goes exclusively into (and is usefully used by) schools for just increasing exercise at school. I won't hold my breath...

With respect, I've lost 9st/55kg in weight based on this. Weight loss is 80-90% diet and you'll never lose a stack of weight 'just' be increasing your activity levels if you're still packing in the sugar (any carb). Atkins is not sustainable and I'd never recommend it, but look at the impact it had on weight for people that followed it. To do the same with a steady diet you'd have to be doing 2-3 hours of heavy exercise 5+ times a week, which again isn't actually that 'healthy' or sustainable due to the strain it puts on the body.

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:The irony or encouraging the young to save while pumping up the cost of housing in order to put out hollow GDP numbers. Only those that live with their parents or the very wealthy will be able to afford this.

I suppose that's what towel folding and a 2:1 in history gets you.

House price growth form part of GDP calcs??

Obviously not, but think of the indirect consequences. Right to buy and low interest rates mean people borrow a lot more and the increase in the value of the asset means that existing house owners can borrow on the back of that increase, creating more spending money to put into the economy.


Trouble is that it's a completely unsustainable growth model, as evidenced in the USA.

So basically you're just pulling arguments out your backside so you can kick off and vent at a government/person you just don't like regardless of sound reason or logic or reason.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:The irony or encouraging the young to save while pumping up the cost of housing in order to put out hollow GDP numbers. Only those that live with their parents or the very wealthy will be able to afford this.

I suppose that's what towel folding and a 2:1 in history gets you.

House price growth form part of GDP calcs??

Obviously not, but think of the indirect consequences. Right to buy and low interest rates mean people borrow a lot more and the increase in the value of the asset means that existing house owners can borrow on the back of that increase, creating more spending money to put into the economy.


Trouble is that it's a completely unsustainable growth model, as evidenced in the USA.

So basically you're just pulling arguments out your backside so you can kick off and vent at a government/person you just don't like regardless of sound reason or logic or reason.

Not at all, mate. The argument itself is solid. He's doing his very best to inject cash into the economy but it's completely unsustainable. Productivity in UK is at a low point, too. Sure, the unemployment rate is low but that's just a headline figure. More than a million people are on ZHCs and that leads to low productivity.

Ironic that you just rubbish my argument but offer nothing as a counter. If you'd like me to go into more depth and spell out the argument for you, just ask.

No, you've dug a hole with your reactive position and are now justifying it with tenuous analysis.

Stick to enjoying your cosseted tax-haven status.

Moving away this summer mate, I hate it here, but I appreciate the personal insult, it's undermining your position even further.

No hole dug. Like I've said, I'm happy to explain this argument further, just ask. Though it looks like I'll have to put it in layman's terms.

Those in glass houses......

navyblueshorts wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Yup. They're even saying you should have a big fry up in the morning and go back to the King to Pauper diet. Every time I go to kashmir i lose about 25 kg's simply because all the food is organic/natural. About 5 or 6 of that is water weight but just by getting sugar out of your diet you start dropping weight by the kilo.

Shah. With respect that's cobblers. You lose weight because you put less calories in and/or you're burning more off. Organic/natural has chuff all to do with it.

And in return I'd reiterate the point. I eat more there as the food is far better and pushy relatives insist on feeding you at thier houses/restaurants I travel more by vehicle because y and large most of the places are unsuited to walking for someone who is used to flat surfaces and the rickshaw scooters are fun to travel in. The part of kashmir I live in when I'm over there is still broadly rural. All the beef/sheep/goat and poultry is butchered there and then and sold within hours (or traded with other shopkeepers for equivalent priced goods). The only difference between here and there in my diet is the lack of bread as it's quite sweet and I can't stomach it . Other than that my diet is heavily meat dairy and fruit.

Another point from yesterday, overlooked on this thread, is the business rate assistance to small businesses and the slight closing of 'big business' tax loopholes.

Both surely a good thing.

NBS wrote:Shah. With respect that's cobblers. You lose weight because you put less calories in and/or you're burning more off. Organic/natural has chuff all to do with it.

Surely if additional calorific content is added into non organic foods, then this will affect weight gain, so the amount or exercise needed to burn off the extra will increase, and the time available to do said exercise will not necessarily, therefore, organic food may well contribute to weight loss.

Pr4wn wrote:Moving away this summer mate, I hate it here, but I appreciate the personal insult, it's undermining your position even further.

No hole dug. Like I've said, I'm happy to explain this argument further, just ask. Though it looks like I'll have to put it in layman's terms.

Again, you offer nothing to further the debate whatsoever.

Osborne is a shill who has missed every single target he's set himself while selling off the state silverware and slashing benefits for the most vulnerable in British society.

Pr4wn wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Moving away this summer mate, I hate it here, but I appreciate the personal insult, it's undermining your position even further.

No hole dug. Like I've said, I'm happy to explain this argument further, just ask. Though it looks like I'll have to put it in layman's terms.

Again, you offer nothing to further the debate whatsoever.

Osborne is a shill who has missed every single target he's set himself while selling off the state silverware and slashing benefits for the most vulnerable in British society.

Are you talking to yourself now...??