I'm not sure how many times Osborne said high tax economy to low tax economy and then set about delivering a budget to raise the general tax burden. Smoke and mirrors indeed.
It's also only half a budget isn't it? He's not announcing where the cuts to our public services are going to be made until the autumn. I think that will be when we see where the real long term Tory agenda is.
Osborne on Today this morning completely floundered when it was put to him why had he pushed back his target for reaching surplus status? Previously he had criticised and called irresponsible both Labour and the Lib Dems for proposing an extended period of deficit reduction yet when he does it...
Saving 80 pounds a year. Probably miniscule in comparison to the cuts the government is making to benefits and child tax credits.
child tax credits, what are they about anyway. should be limited to the first two kids, after that you want more you pay for them. with benefits, the only problem i have is when you can get more on benefits than you could working. that is wrong. anything to limit that is good imo.
Saving 80 pounds a year. Probably miniscule in comparison to the cuts the government is making to benefits and child tax credits.
child tax credits, what are they about anyway. should be limited to the first two kids, after that you want more you pay for them. with benefits, the only problem i have is when you can get more on benefits than you could working. that is wrong. anything to limit that is good imo.
I think you've got it all backwards on the child tax credits. They're for the child, not the parents. By withdrawing it you're basically punishing children for being born in the wrong household.
And before everyone starts by saying parents spend it on other things, everyone knows that children cost more than £14 a week to care for and bring up. So what monetary benefit are the parents getting from this?
moves away from government support to low earners through paying benefits, encouraging large companies (i.e Tesco) towards paying a decent wage to make benefits less necessary .. notice I typed 'moves' and not achievement .. this is an old fashioned Tory principle .. less government involvement in commerce, let the market decide
Less regulation in commerce, but look out for more regulation of the workforce. I know it is utterly crippling, but it could be argued that the actions of the Unions involved in the Tube strike is a factor of market forces.
As a neutral, I thought it was an interesting budget. If Osborne really does manage to remove tax payer subsidy of companies paying low wages while increasing those earners' incomes, he will go down as a great reforming chancellor. This is the kind of policy that Labour should have been promoting but were too nervous to. I've yet to see any figures on how the increases balance off against the reduction/removal of tax credits so reserving judgement.
I'm pleased with the reduction in tax relief for buy to let landlords. I would have liked to see punitive taxes aimed at discouraging the purchase of residential properties by overseas owners who don't even rent them.
I hope that the fact there was no mention of right to buy for housing association tenants means that policy has been kicked into the long grass. Its unfairness and cynicism was one of the main reasons why I didn't vote Tory at the last election.
Disappointed with the 1% limit on public sector salaries. With the economy approaching full employment, it will become increasingly difficult to recruit and retain competent staff. A false economy.
Increases in personal allowances good and over due. The a fan of the threshold increase in inheritance tax - it's high enough as it is. But it (or similar) was in the Tory manifesto so can't really dispute the mandate for it.
No real solutions to the productivity puzzle. Apprentice levy is really just a new business tax.
Lots of stealth taxes that most people haven't picked up on - insurance and vehicle excise especially.
Less regulation in commerce, but look out for more regulation of the workforce. I know it is utterly crippling, but it could be argued that the actions of the Unions involved in the Tube strike is a factor of market forces.
Absolutely. Exploitation of a near-monopoly position.
Got to laugh, it was basically a Labour budget as opposed to a Conservative one, yet it is the Labour supporters who are (naturally) most critical. Would love to know what they were realistically expecting
Not sure how outraged of Tunbridge Wells is feeling this morning knowing that the disabled got off scot free.
I thought most of CL, had come to some sort of agreement, that if Labour and their supporters were to get re-elected in the future, they had to become more realistic and stop all the nasty Tories rot.
I don't believe anyone wants to make the genuinely disabled worse off & it's that sort of talk, that destroys Labour's credibility. No offence meant SHG.
I meant in the sense Seth there are net tax rises than tax cuts, the extent of welfare savings was less than half previously expected, higher borrowing levels than expected, the pace of return to surplus much more shallow than expected, and an address of non dom status and buy-to-let. It was (as a generalisation) far less austere than expectations, or what a coalition pre-budget suggested.
It's where those tax rises are that points to why it's a Tory budget. Removing tax on pension savings for people earning over £150,000, cutting corporation tax and raising inheritence tax to £1,000,000 tax free.
All nice tax cuts for the higher earners in the country. Shame the working class didn't get similar treatment, instead they'll have their income support removed and rent increased.
Cutting Corporation Tax helps Corporations not high earners. Although, it should help businesses to thrive & thus aid employment, as it has done in the last few years.
Raising IHT, does not only help high earners. An increasing percentage of homeowners in the South East were falling into the IHT trap, even if they had zero income.
I meant in the sense Seth there are net tax rises than tax cuts, the extent of welfare savings was less than half previously expected, higher borrowing levels than expected, the pace of return to surplus much more shallow than expected, and an address of non dom status and buy-to-let. It was (as a generalisation) far less austere than expectations, or what a coalition pre-budget suggested.
It's where those tax rises are that points to why it's a Tory budget. Removing tax on pension savings for people earning over £150,000, cutting corporation tax and raising inheritence tax to £1,000,000 tax free.
All nice tax cuts for the higher earners in the country. Shame the working class didn't get similar treatment, instead they'll have their income support removed and rent increased.
So increasing the minimum wage above where Labour wanted it is not doing looking after the working classes? I think you mean the Tories are not helping the non working classes
Saving 80 pounds a year. Probably miniscule in comparison to the cuts the government is making to benefits and child tax credits.
child tax credits, what are they about anyway. should be limited to the first two kids, after that you want more you pay for them. with benefits, the only problem i have is when you can get more on benefits than you could working. that is wrong. anything to limit that is good imo.
I think you've got it all backwards on the child tax credits. They're for the child, not the parents. By withdrawing it you're basically punishing children for being born in the wrong household.
And before everyone starts by saying parents spend it on other things, everyone knows that children cost more than £14 a week to care for and bring up. So what monetary benefit are the parents getting from this?
Saving 80 pounds a year. Probably miniscule in comparison to the cuts the government is making to benefits and child tax credits.
child tax credits, what are they about anyway. should be limited to the first two kids, after that you want more you pay for them. with benefits, the only problem i have is when you can get more on benefits than you could working. that is wrong. anything to limit that is good imo.
I think you've got it all backwards on the child tax credits. They're for the child, not the parents. By withdrawing it you're basically punishing children for being born in the wrong household.
And before everyone starts by saying parents spend it on other things, everyone knows that children cost more than £14 a week to care for and bring up. So what monetary benefit are the parents getting from this?
I'm not sure how many times Osborne said high tax economy to low tax economy and then set about delivering a budget to raise the general tax burden. Smoke and mirrors indeed.
From April 2016 the income threshold to claim Working Tax Credit will go down from £6,420 to £3,850 at the same time as the minimum wage rises to £7.20.
To claim you must work at least 16 hours per week.
16 hours at £7.20 pays £5990.40 per year.
That's £2140 over the threshold to qualify for tax credits at all.
No one will ever qualify for this benefit after April 2016!
Saving 80 pounds a year. Probably miniscule in comparison to the cuts the government is making to benefits and child tax credits.
child tax credits, what are they about anyway. should be limited to the first two kids, after that you want more you pay for them. with benefits, the only problem i have is when you can get more on benefits than you could working. that is wrong. anything to limit that is good imo.
I think you've got it all backwards on the child tax credits. They're for the child, not the parents. By withdrawing it you're basically punishing children for being born in the wrong household.
And before everyone starts by saying parents spend it on other things, everyone knows that children cost more than £14 a week to care for and bring up. So what monetary benefit are the parents getting from this?
Saving 80 pounds a year. Probably miniscule in comparison to the cuts the government is making to benefits and child tax credits.
child tax credits, what are they about anyway. should be limited to the first two kids, after that you want more you pay for them. with benefits, the only problem i have is when you can get more on benefits than you could working. that is wrong. anything to limit that is good imo.
I think you've got it all backwards on the child tax credits. They're for the child, not the parents. By withdrawing it you're basically punishing children for being born in the wrong household.
And before everyone starts by saying parents spend it on other things, everyone knows that children cost more than £14 a week to care for and bring up. So what monetary benefit are the parents getting from this?
Many parents, obviously spend, child benefit as well as child tax credit money on their children.
The parents obviously get the monetary benefit.
I've never seen any children in the sweet or toy shop spending their benefits.
Yes, perhaps some parents, save the money for their children's future, in which case it is not essential, it is a very nice to have.
The UK, with a population, increasing by 250,000 per annum and a lack of housing, should not be rewarding families to have more children.
If they want to have more children, that's absolutely fine, but don't give them a bigger financial incentive.
The parents spend the money on the child. There's no monetary benefit for them personally other than the fact they can provide food and clothes for their kids.
You don't see children spending their benefit because they're wearing and eating it. Or going to school with it. £14 a week is not expensive and makes sure that every child in this country is out of poverty no matter what their parents' (or parent's) financial situation is.
It's not a reward! It's a safety net so that every child can be provided with an acceptable standard of living.
There's no 'bigger reward', every child gets the same rate. That's fair.
Would I have a cap over a certain income level? Maybe. But I wouldn't take it away from children because they're 3rd born rather than 1st.
Saving 80 pounds a year. Probably miniscule in comparison to the cuts the government is making to benefits and child tax credits.
So you're complaining that he's made you better off ?
I'm not in it for personal gain. I don't have children but I can still be annoyed that working class families are much worse off thanks to these changes.
Disappointed with the 1% limit on public sector salaries. With the economy approaching full employment, it will become increasingly difficult to recruit and retain competent staff. A false economy.
Already taking effect for the London Ambulance Service. People leaving and trying to get an ambulance to someone who needs it is getting more difficult.
Will mean the differential between private and public sectors will be the greatest since records began.
Too late for me to get too uptight. I'm six years from retirement and tied in because of pension etc but how the NHS hopes to attract graduate entrants into Its professions I have no idea.
Will mean the differential between private and public sectors will be the greatest since records began.
Too late for me to get too uptight. I'm six years from retirement and tied in because of pension etc but how the NHS hopes to attract graduate entrants into Its professions I have no idea.
Saving 80 pounds a year. Probably miniscule in comparison to the cuts the government is making to benefits and child tax credits.
So you're complaining that he's made you better off ?
I'm not in it for personal gain. I don't have children but I can still be annoyed that working class families are much worse off thanks to these changes.
"Working class families" covers an enormous range. No doubt some will be worse off & some better off.
Non working class families will likely be worse off and that is obviously deliberate.
It's trying to encourage people into work instead of relying on benefits, by increasing the minimum wage and reducing benefits.
Personally, I see that as a good thing. I appreciate that others do not.
Will mean the differential between private and public sectors will be the greatest since records began.
Too late for me to get too uptight. I'm six years from retirement and tied in because of pension etc but how the NHS hopes to attract graduate entrants into Its professions I have no idea.
That might help.
You forgot to add "Gold Plated" to that.
Actually after 30 years my gold plated pension will allow me to retire on £14.500 per year.
Saving 80 pounds a year. Probably miniscule in comparison to the cuts the government is making to benefits and child tax credits.
child tax credits, what are they about anyway. should be limited to the first two kids, after that you want more you pay for them. with benefits, the only problem i have is when you can get more on benefits than you could working. that is wrong. anything to limit that is good imo.
I think you've got it all backwards on the child tax credits. They're for the child, not the parents. By withdrawing it you're basically punishing children for being born in the wrong household.
And before everyone starts by saying parents spend it on other things, everyone knows that children cost more than £14 a week to care for and bring up. So what monetary benefit are the parents getting from this?
Saving 80 pounds a year. Probably miniscule in comparison to the cuts the government is making to benefits and child tax credits.
child tax credits, what are they about anyway. should be limited to the first two kids, after that you want more you pay for them. with benefits, the only problem i have is when you can get more on benefits than you could working. that is wrong. anything to limit that is good imo.
I think you've got it all backwards on the child tax credits. They're for the child, not the parents. By withdrawing it you're basically punishing children for being born in the wrong household.
And before everyone starts by saying parents spend it on other things, everyone knows that children cost more than £14 a week to care for and bring up. So what monetary benefit are the parents getting from this?
Many parents, obviously spend, child benefit as well as child tax credit money on their children.
The parents obviously get the monetary benefit.
I've never seen any children in the sweet or toy shop spending their benefits.
Yes, perhaps some parents, save the money for their children's future, in which case it is not essential, it is a very nice to have.
The UK, with a population, increasing by 250,000 per annum and a lack of housing, should not be rewarding families to have more children.
If they want to have more children, that's absolutely fine, but don't give them a bigger financial incentive.
The parents spend the money on the child. There's no monetary benefit for them personally other than the fact they can provide food and clothes for their kids.
You don't see children spending their benefit because they're wearing and eating it. Or going to school with it. £14 a week is not expensive and makes sure that every child in this country is out of poverty no matter what their parents' (or parent's) financial situation is.
It's not a reward! It's a safety net so that every child can be provided with an acceptable standard of living.
There's no 'bigger reward', every child gets the same rate. That's fair.
Would I have a cap over a certain income level? Maybe. But I wouldn't take it away from children because they're 3rd born rather than 1st.
Financially responsible parents, will have to decide, in future, whether or not they can provide for further children.
If they do not have the financial means, to support further children, they should not have them.
In exactly the same way, that they shouldn't spend money on anything else, that they cannot afford.
They will have to take responsibility, instead of expecting the taxpayer to take responsibility.
As I said, have as many children as you like, as long as you can provide for them.
Will mean the differential between private and public sectors will be the greatest since records began.
Too late for me to get too uptight. I'm six years from retirement and tied in because of pension etc but how the NHS hopes to attract graduate entrants into Its professions I have no idea.
That might help.
You forgot to add "Gold Plated" to that.
Actually after 30 years my gold plated pension will allow me to retire on £14.500 per year.
Will mean the differential between private and public sectors will be the greatest since records began.
Too late for me to get too uptight. I'm six years from retirement and tied in because of pension etc but how the NHS hopes to attract graduate entrants into Its professions I have no idea.
That might help.
You forgot to add "Gold Plated" to that.
Actually after 30 years my gold plated pension will allow me to retire on £14.500 per year.
Comments
Osborne on Today this morning completely floundered when it was put to him why had he pushed back his target for reaching surplus status? Previously he had criticised and called irresponsible both Labour and the Lib Dems for proposing an extended period of deficit reduction yet when he does it...
Politics eh!
And before everyone starts by saying parents spend it on other things, everyone knows that children cost more than £14 a week to care for and bring up. So what monetary benefit are the parents getting from this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11360819/Average-cost-of-raising-a-child-in-UK-230000.html
I know it is utterly crippling, but it could be argued that the actions of the Unions involved in the Tube strike is a factor of market forces.
As a neutral, I thought it was an interesting budget. If Osborne really does manage to remove tax payer subsidy of companies paying low wages while increasing those earners' incomes, he will go down as a great reforming chancellor. This is the kind of policy that Labour should have been promoting but were too nervous to. I've yet to see any figures on how the increases balance off against the reduction/removal of tax credits so reserving judgement.
I'm pleased with the reduction in tax relief for buy to let landlords. I would have liked to see punitive taxes aimed at discouraging the purchase of residential properties by overseas owners who don't even rent them.
I hope that the fact there was no mention of right to buy for housing association tenants means that policy has been kicked into the long grass. Its unfairness and cynicism was one of the main reasons why I didn't vote Tory at the last election.
Disappointed with the 1% limit on public sector salaries. With the economy approaching full employment, it will become increasingly difficult to recruit and retain competent staff. A false economy.
Increases in personal allowances good and over due. The a fan of the threshold increase in inheritance tax - it's high enough as it is. But it (or similar) was in the Tory manifesto so can't really dispute the mandate for it.
No real solutions to the productivity puzzle. Apprentice levy is really just a new business tax.
Lots of stealth taxes that most people haven't picked up on - insurance and vehicle excise especially.
I don't believe anyone wants to make the genuinely disabled worse off & it's that sort of talk, that destroys Labour's credibility. No offence meant SHG.
Raising IHT, does not only help high earners. An increasing percentage of homeowners in the South East were falling into the IHT trap, even if they had zero income.
The parents obviously get the monetary benefit.
I've never seen any children in the sweet or toy shop spending their benefits.
Yes, perhaps some parents, save the money for their children's future, in which case it is not essential, it is a very nice to have.
The UK, with a population, increasing by 250,000 per annum and a lack of housing, should not be rewarding families to have more children.
If they want to have more children, that's absolutely fine, but don't give them a bigger financial incentive.
To claim you must work at least 16 hours per week.
16 hours at £7.20 pays £5990.40 per year.
That's £2140 over the threshold to qualify for tax credits at all.
No one will ever qualify for this benefit after April 2016!
You don't see children spending their benefit because they're wearing and eating it. Or going to school with it. £14 a week is not expensive and makes sure that every child in this country is out of poverty no matter what their parents' (or parent's) financial situation is.
It's not a reward! It's a safety net so that every child can be provided with an acceptable standard of living.
There's no 'bigger reward', every child gets the same rate. That's fair.
Would I have a cap over a certain income level? Maybe. But I wouldn't take it away from children because they're 3rd born rather than 1st.
Too late for me to get too uptight. I'm six years from retirement and tied in because of pension etc but how the NHS hopes to attract graduate entrants into Its professions I have no idea.
Non working class families will likely be worse off and that is obviously deliberate.
It's trying to encourage people into work instead of relying on benefits, by increasing the minimum wage and reducing benefits.
Personally, I see that as a good thing. I appreciate that others do not.
Actually after 30 years my gold plated pension will allow me to retire on £14.500 per year.
If they do not have the financial means, to support further children, they should not have them.
In exactly the same way, that they shouldn't spend money on anything else, that they cannot afford.
They will have to take responsibility, instead of expecting the taxpayer to take responsibility.
As I said, have as many children as you like, as long as you can provide for them.