Yesterday's budget hasn't been mentioned on perspectives yet. Since this forum is, often quite rightly, a shooting gallery for coalition actions, can I assume then that there's not much for the usual suspects to pick at?

 

I think it was generally quite positive.

Yesterday's budget hasn't been mentioned on perspectives yet. Since this forum is, often quite rightly, a shooting gallery for coalition actions, can I assume then that there's not much for the usual suspects to pick at?

 

I think it was generally quite positive.

 

I was pleasantly surprised at what Gideon was able to do yesterday and as long as the economy grows I think quite significant tax cuts should be in place before the next election.

 

An excellent budget for business, a modest boost to car drivers, the closure of a number of tax avoidance loopholes, modest tinkering of tax allowances, I think all in all while nothing spectacular it was not a damaging budget either.

When he became PM Cameron claimed that this would be the greenest government ever. Frankly, that shouldn't be difficult but reducing fuel duty and freezing the air passenger duty is hardly consistent with this claim.

 

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the possible merger of income tax and National Insurance. The rate should be a good deal lower than 32% (20% income tax plus 12% NI) as a lot of income is currently not subject to NI or is subject to a low rate (2% from 6 April). I don't like the suggestion that pensioners could still pay tax based on the current income tax rate though. Clearly it must be implemented in a way which doesn't leave pensioners on the lowest incomes worse off. However the age allowance (approx £9000) already means that someone whose only income is the state pension does not pay income tax. It may be that the age allowance will need to be increased to avoid penalising pensioners on low incomes. OTOH, I don't see why the likes of Fred Goodwin with his huge pension shouldn't be expected to pay more.

 

 

When he became PM Cameron claimed that this would be the greenest government ever. Frankly, that shouldn't be difficult but reducing fuel duty and freezing the air passenger duty is hardly consistent with this claim.

 

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the possible merger of income tax and National Insurance. The rate should be a good deal lower than 32% (20% income tax plus 12% NI) as a lot of income is currently not subject to NI or is subject to a low rate (2% from 6 April). I don't like the suggestion that pensioners could still pay tax based on the current income tax rate though. Clearly it must be implemented in a way which doesn't leave pensioners on the lowest incomes worse off. However the age allowance (approx £9000) already means that someone whose only income is the state pension does not pay income tax. It may be that the age allowance will need to be increased to avoid penalising pensioners on low incomes. OTOH, I don't see why the likes of Fred Goodwin with his huge pension shouldn't be expected to pay more.

 

Fuel costs have been extremely damaging it was right to cut them, should have been 10p not 1p

 

Increased fuel costs are very damaging for businesses and for consumers with companies having to increase their prices because of the increased fuel costs (distribution/haulage costs of goods, sending sales reps around the country for example), it also leads to increased bus and taxi prices the former affecting particularly those on low incomes.

 

It should have been cut by more.

 

As for air passenger duty all it will do is fill up existing planes more so those planes will have taken off anyway so no overall difference. Instead of a 1/3 full plane to Malaga it might be 2/3 full now because of the freezing of duty but there will be no extra planes in the air.

Do you really think freezing passenger duty will double passenger numbers? Good grief, you have no concept of elasticity of demand.

Do you really think freezing passenger duty will double passenger numbers? Good grief, you have no concept of elasticity of demand.

 

Not on its own no of course not but combined with the increase in tax allowances which will make many people better off by £300 a year combined with tens of thousands being taken out of income tax altogether at the lower end of the scale I think that more people will take overseas holidays this summer and the freezing of air passenger duty will undoubtedly be helpful in that happening.

Not on its own no of course not but combined with the increase in tax allowances which will make many people better off by £300 a year combined with tens of thousands being taken out of income tax altogether at the lower end of the scale I think that more people will take overseas holidays this summer and the freezing of air passenger duty will undoubtedly be helpful in that happening.

Incorrect. The increase in the personal allowance is £600, 20% (the basic rate) of that is £120, not £300 as most of the Tory press were reporting (they were double counting by adding on the £200 that he's already added in the June budget last year to produce £320). And that's before you've taken into account that inflation is up and looks to remain so, and people will be inclined to save given confidence is rock bottom. I don't see why you're going to necessarily have a doubling in holiday passengers as a result.

Incorrect. The increase in the personal allowance is £600, 20% (the basic rate) of that is £120, not £300 as most of the Tory press were reporting (they were double counting by adding on the £200 that he's already added in the June budget last year to produce £320). And that's before you've taken into account that inflation is up and looks to remain so, and people will be inclined to save given confidence is rock bottom. I don't see why you're going to necessarily have a doubling in holiday passengers as a result.

 

I was exaggerating somewhat to emphasise my point to Suedehead2 that this measure won't be environmentally damaging as it won't lead to an increase in the number of planes in the sky but I do think that holiday companies are in for quite a good year, when people have had a tough year which undoubtedly a lot of people have they like to treat themselves at some point to get away from it all and cheer themselves up, double the number of passengers was somewhat exaggerating matters but it will help the travel industry.

 

I would rather people stayed at home and spent holiday money in England and helped the local economy, there are some gorgeous places to go in Devon, Dorset, Cornwall, Peak District, Lake District, Norfolk for example, quite why anyone would want to go to the Costa Del Sol god only knows.

Edited March 24, 201114 yr by Valley Pub

Planning on moving back from Australia now New Labour are out and doing your bit then if things are on the up?

Planning on moving back from Australia now New Labour are out and doing your bit then if things are on the up?

 

Born in England and England will forever have a special place in my heart ;)

So, are you planning to move back or not as a result of this apparently wonderful Budget?

So, are you planning to move back or not as a result of this apparently wonderful Budget?

 

I never said it was wonderful I said it was the best anyone could hope for given the economic situation.

 

I am in sunny old England right now, my entire family live here, I was born here. Surely you would not begrudge a man seeing his family :unsure:

I begrudge nobody a thing!

I was exaggerating somewhat to emphasise my point to Suedehead2 that this measure won't be environmentally damaging as it won't lead to an increase in the number of planes in the sky but I do think that holiday companies are in for quite a good year, when people have had a tough year which undoubtedly a lot of people have they like to treat themselves at some point to get away from it all and cheer themselves up, double the number of passengers was somewhat exaggerating matters but it will help the travel industry.

 

I would rather people stayed at home and spent holiday money in England and helped the local economy, there are some gorgeous places to go in Devon, Dorset, Cornwall, Peak District, Lake District, Norfolk for example, quite why anyone would want to go to the Costa Del Sol god only knows.

An increase in passengers will lead to an increase in emissions. Each extra passenger means more fuel is used. Therefore, it will be environmentally damaging.

An increase in passengers will lead to an increase in emissions. Each extra passenger means more fuel is used. Therefore, it will be environmentally damaging.

 

More and more 'green' planes are being developed like the gorgeous AirbusA380 and soon the Boeing 787 "Dreamliner", both planes are very environmentally friendly so while emissions will take time to go down it will happen in the end as A380's are gradually taking over from 747's and 787's will take over from Airbus A320's/340's and Boeing 757/767's, won't happen overnight but the airline industry is making the effort.

Fuel costs have been extremely damaging it was right to cut them, should have been 10p not 1p

 

Increased fuel costs are very damaging for businesses and for consumers with companies having to increase their prices because of the increased fuel costs (distribution/haulage costs of goods, sending sales reps around the country for example), it also leads to increased bus and taxi prices the former affecting particularly those on low incomes.

 

It should have been cut by more.

As for air passenger duty all it will do is fill up existing planes more so those planes will have taken off anyway so no overall difference. Instead of a 1/3 full plane to Malaga it might be 2/3 full now because of the freezing of duty but there will be no extra planes in the air.

At last! I find something to agree with you on!

 

1p is a f***ing pathetic reduction, it's barely a dent into what they added in VAT when it went up to 20%.

 

I personally think it's ridiculous that you pay tax on tax when it comes to Fuel. At £1.30/l it's the poorest that get hit the hardest as they can't afford to buy the latest most fuel efficient cars, and people in Rural areas where the bus service is just $h!te and it's a necessity to have a car to get kids to school, get to work, go shopping etc are really hammered by the f***ing insane price of fuel.

 

 

Now I very very very very very rarely fail to take offence to something that Alex Salmond comes out with because the man is utterly repulsive in everyway, BUT, he put it rather well a few weeks ago. Scotland is an oil rich nation [All that stuff under the North Sea belongs to Scotland, not England] the fact that the average price of petrol in Scotland is one of the highest in the entire world is outrageous. Scotland should be given control of it's Oil.

 

 

I partially agree on the last part, yes there will be no more planes taking off, hence no extra effect to the environment, and more people on the plane would reduce that effect but like Tyron says there's no way such a minor effect on the price will cause demand to suddenly double. If anything I can see demand falling with the rising cost of fuel.

An increase in passengers will lead to an increase in emissions. Each extra passenger means more fuel is used. Therefore, it will be environmentally damaging.

Yes, more fuel is burned to transport extra weight, but on something that weights as much as a Airbus A380 3an extra person is basically negligible.

 

Not to mention the fact that the amount of fuel required can't be plotted on a straight line. It already requires massive amounts to take off and land so we aren't talking about massive quantities here, nothing large enough to over come a net reduction in environmental damage per person.

 

If you have a 747 with 100 people on it, the damage to the environment/person can be calculated by X = Fuel/100.

 

Double that to 200, and the formula become X = Fuel/200.

 

So lets say for an example the 747 needs 1tonne of fuel to do it's journey empty and every 100 passengers adds 0.5 tonnes of fuel

 

That gives us X = 1500/100 = 150kgs/passenger

 

or X = 2000/200 = 100kgs/passenger.

 

The net damage done to the environment is actually less the more people you have on board making a full 747 more efficient than a half full one.

More and more 'green' planes are being developed like the gorgeous AirbusA380 and soon the Boeing 787 "Dreamliner", both planes are very environmentally friendly so while emissions will take time to go down it will happen in the end as A380's are gradually taking over from 747's and 787's will take over from Airbus A320's/340's and Boeing 757/767's, won't happen overnight but the airline industry is making the effort.

There is no such thing as a "green" plane.

Yes, more fuel is burned to transport extra weight, but on something that weights as much as a Airbus A380 3an extra person is basically negligible.

 

Not to mention the fact that the amount of fuel required can't be plotted on a straight line. It already requires massive amounts to take off and land so we aren't talking about massive quantities here, nothing large enough to over come a net reduction in environmental damage per person.

 

If you have a 747 with 100 people on it, the damage to the environment/person can be calculated by X = Fuel/100.

 

Double that to 200, and the formula become X = Fuel/200.

 

So lets say for an example the 747 needs 1tonne of fuel to do it's journey empty and every 100 passengers adds 0.5 tonnes of fuel

 

That gives us X = 1500/100 = 150kgs/passenger

 

or X = 2000/200 = 100kgs/passenger.

 

The net damage done to the environment is actually less the more people you have on board making a full 747 more efficient than a half full one.

That doesn't alter the fact that total emissions are higher with more passengers on board.

There is no such thing as a "green" plane.

 

The A380 carbon emissions are 17% lower than that of a 747, it is also the only commercial plane in the world capable of running on alternative fuels, there will never be such thing as a totally 'green plane' but the A380 is a significant advance in that direction.