Tax cuts abound

[Zero Liability]

@Tractor True but it raises the issue of Labour being partially culpable and also how they propose to do any better or any different this time, given their preference for yet more spending. And the Tories had the misfortune of inheriting a banking crisis, whatever you may think of the bailouts, which isn't very much in my case. Also, I wonder whether they propose to align the NI and PAYE thresholds, as you'd still wind up paying some NI on MW even with a higher PAYE threshold. I suspect UKIP will if they intend those on MW to pay nothing in taxes.

[vetran]

Not entirely true. A lot of Osborne's borrowing is to service committed debts incurred by Brown and Balls.

which they need to make very clear to the electorate again and again. Something like we are still paying off Labours spending spree on the credit cards!

[shaunbhoy]

Dave's just announced raising the allowance to £12,500 and the upper rate threshold to £50,000.

[Platypus]

The Tories will lose the next election. What with privatising the NHS, cutting benefits for hard-working families and now lowering taxes for the rich, they are doomed and so will we all be

[jamesbrown]

This is marketed as a tax cut, of course, and relative to the downwards creep, in real-terms, of the HRT over many years, it is a "cut" of sorts. However, if inflation runs at 3% over the 5 years of the next parliament, this implies an HRT of ~42k*1.03^5=~49k, so 50k amounts to slightly better than a real-terms freeze in the HRT. Hardly spectacular, but it beats the alternative. Personally, I favor increasing the LRT more aggressively as that benefits more people.

[d000hg]

The Tories will lose the next election. What with privatising the NHS, cutting benefits for hard-working families and now lowering taxes for the rich, they are doomed and so will we all be

Probably right. ANY attempt to help those earning more than £25k will get torn apart, even though the upper tax threshold is now really not very high at all. It needs to happen, but like the MPs' salaries thing where they hadn't been adjusted for years, it's a political landmine.

[ZARDOZ]

Not entirely true. A lot of Osborne's borrowing is to service committed debts incurred by Brown and Balls.

What's not entirely true? Even if you take out anything from QE it's still up circa 2 billion, don't fall for the political spin.
A slow down in the rate at which we are spending more is not the same as spending less.

[Bunk]

What's not entirely true? Even if you take out anything from QE it's still up circa 2 billion, don't fall for the political spin.
A slow down in the rate at which we are spending more is not the same as spending less.

The problem is that you can't just undo all the commitments that the previous government made instantly.

So it goes something like:

Spending is increasing a lot every year (running an increasing deficit)
Spending is increasing a little every year (running a slightly slower increasing deficit)
Spending is staying the same every year (still running a deficit, total debt still increasing)
Spending is decreasing every year (running a decreasing deficit)
Spending less than we're making each year (running a surplus, total borrowing starts decreasing for the first time)
Keep spending less than we're making each year (eventually we're not in debt anymore)

You can't go directly from the first step to the last.

[TheFaQQer]

The problem is that you can't just undo all the commitments that the previous government made instantly.

So it goes something like:

Spending is increasing a lot every year (running an increasing deficit)
Spending is increasing a little every year (running a slightly slower increasing deficit)
Spending is staying the same every year (still running a deficit, total debt still increasing)
Spending is decreasing every year (running a decreasing deficit)
Spending less than we're making each year (running a surplus, total borrowing starts decreasing for the first time)
Keep spending less than we're making each year (eventually we're not in debt anymore)

You can't go directly from the first step to the last.

So after four years of cuts and austerity, we are somewhere in the first three steps. So how much more do we need to cut to get to the fourth, and how long will that take?

[ZARDOZ]

The problem is that you can't just undo all the commitments that the previous government made instantly.

So it goes something like:

Spending is increasing a lot every year (running an increasing deficit)
Spending is increasing a little every year (running a slightly slower increasing deficit)
Spending is staying the same every year (still running a deficit, total debt still increasing)
Spending is decreasing every year (running a decreasing deficit)
Spending less than we're making each year (running a surplus, total borrowing starts decreasing for the first time)
Keep spending less than we're making each year (eventually we're not in debt anymore)

You can't go directly from the first step to the last.

The commitment to borrowing is pretty much the same between Labour and Conservative. Over half of the 1.2 trillion has been added in the last 4 yrs and the targets are being missed. In political speak, everything is splendid we're doing great!