Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Budget 2016

A budget for the working man or tax cuts for the wealthy & big business paid for by the poor and disabled?
«134

Comments

  • The tax on sugary drinks is a good move, as it will raise an estimated half a billion pounds for Primary School education.

    I'm sure most will find some fault in it though.
  • Initial response;

    Liked the freeze on beer & fuel duty and thought the sugar tax logical. Liked the increase in the tax free allowance

    Not sure about the new ISA's.

    Didn't like to cuts to disabled people's allowances and corporation & capital gains tax
  • I thought the tax on beach balls was a bit unfair though

    As long as we stick to black and white. The tax on coloured beach balls is extortionate!


    Without fully digesting it yet, the looks a relatively decent budget.
  • So, by 2019 Osborne will cut public spending by another £3.5 Billion, hitting the most needy the hardest. During that same time period Osborne will give the EU around £37 Billion and don't forget the £36 Billion that will be given out in foreign aid in the same period.





  • Sponsored links:


  • 12 comments.

    Nobody really cares.
  • LuckyReds said:

    A bit of a mixed bag as far as I'm concerned, this is going to be a bit of a long post - but it's nearly 5 am and I've resigned myself to yet another sleepless night!

    Taxation

    A welcome freeze on taxation of alcohol is good, although of all the things you can potentially tax it's probably one of the most acceptable. I think cigarettes are horrifically taxed as it is, but then again - I can understand the motive as it is a public health concern (although, so is drink) and that tax should hopefully go towards treating the associated health risks. I always found it interesting that in Sweden I was generally paying the best part of £7.50 for a pint but about £2.50 for cigarettes.

    I think the tax on sugary drinks is another welcome move, for the same reasons as the tobacco tax - the health benefits of avoiding Coke and Irn Bru are arguably more important than the hit their stock took today. If the taxes collected on these drinks can provide more funds for fighting childhood obesity then it makes just as much sense as taxing tobacco. I want to see how it's implemented though, as if it's not done correctly it could be a huge own goal if it results in a tax on fruit juice..!

    Sugar tax doesn't come in straight away, all they are doing is giving the producers time to reduce their sugar content, it'll raise next it nothing in tax.

    Income & Savings

    Increasing the threshold for higher rate tax from £42,385 to £45,000 seems like a token gesture, at best. If my maths is right then that's an saving of £1,046 for those earning above £45k. Combined with the £900 increase in personal allowance - that would amount to £1,946 you would've thought - meaning a noticable £162+ at the end of the month but apparently it doesn't. According to this BBC calculator I'm better off by £11 a month.. which sounds more realistic, but does leave me confused about my ability to do basic maths.

    The BBC calculator is from April this year, the 40% band doesn't change until 2017.

    Personally, I think the value of the lifetime ISA is excellent - with up to £1,000 per annum being paid back in to it via the Government. I welcome that, and think it's a very good incentive to start saving. Savings is something I've been looking in to a bit recently and can see a lot of value in this scheme, there was a pretty horrifying statistic in the week about how few adults have savings in the UK.

    Check the rules, you can't get it unless buying a house or until you re 60. Might as well pay it into a pension.

    Education

    If it's been positive so far, that's where it changes: - the education parts seem absolutely atrocious. I really don't see any value in forcing the transition to academy status, and I think it actually highlights a huge waste of money. My missus was explaining earlier how not only does she worry about teacher's salaries as a result of this, but she's also frustrated that it means the millions that the government have spent on developing new curriculum will essentially be wasted - as academies are under no obligation to follow the standard curriculum.

    Don't get me started on the ridiculous ideas about increasing school hours too, living with a teacher I'm not sure how she'd be expected to function - there's a good couple of hours after she gets home that is already spent on planning and marking. Nor is it particularly healthy to be forcing extended hours on to children - our education system is failing but a lot of this needs to be looked at from the complete and utter lack of parental responsibility that seems so common.

    Furthermore, I suggest that making such decisions via the Chancellor and the budget is rather telling, above all education is seemingly viewed as a cost and nothing more; despite all the drivel otherwise. I'd have suggested money would've been better spent increasing teacher salaries and funding projects for SEN pupils.

    Disability

    When DLA transitioned over to PIP there was uproar - and understandably so - however this looks even worse. Changes to eligibility resulting to cuts of payments from £82 to £55 a week, or a loss of £68 per month.

    Combined with the current furore over ESA recently being slashed by £30 a week, so £120 a month, you're potentially looking at those hardest hit losing £188 per month.

    We're not talking about benefits scroungers here - we're talking about people who have medical conditions that have been verified by doctors, interrogated by the likes of Atos and are likely to be passed off to some scumbag agency pretending to run a back-to-work scheme. I could speak at lengths about this system and how the private companies involved are robbing a living for themselves, but I wont. Suffice to say, that someone can spend their entire working life contributing to the system - maybe even in the public sector themselves - and get treated like this afterwards is truly infuriating.

    Politically speaking, Education and Disability were the two areas that have pushed me over the edge of not only supporting the Conservatives - but being a paid up member. Politically now I find I don't identify with any party, and I feel much better for it..! ;)

  • Great if you are under 40 and have money to save. has ignored women born in the 1950s who worked/saved all their lives only to be told they were going to be robbed of £30,000 by having their pension age pushed from 60 to 66 (in the case of my missus).
    So don't pay anything into a pension as you won't receive it when it was promised, even though it's your money.
  • stevec said:

    Great if you are under 40 and have money to save. has ignored women born in the 1950s who worked/saved all their lives only to be told they were going to be robbed of £30,000 by having their pension age pushed from 60 to 66 (in the case of my missus).
    So don't pay anything into a pension as you won't receive it when it was promised, even though it's your money.

    I understand the issues behind this post but it really is terrible advice.

    You know that private pension pots can be accessed any time after the age of 55?

    It's a valid question to ask whether the tax breaks during the saving process but paying income tax on the resultant income ( a pension) is better value than saving without tax breaks but paying no tax on the income and capital gain (an ISA) or not.

    But to save nothing is a terrible idea. The new scheme might only be for the under 40s and can only be accessed with the breaks after age 60 but it provides a top-up from the Govt. However, the annual savings limit is only £4k whereas from the next tax year the regular ISA limit is £20k. (Which includes the £4k if you choose or are able to use it.)
  • cafcfan said:

    stevec said:

    Great if you are under 40 and have money to save. has ignored women born in the 1950s who worked/saved all their lives only to be told they were going to be robbed of £30,000 by having their pension age pushed from 60 to 66 (in the case of my missus).
    So don't pay anything into a pension as you won't receive it when it was promised, even though it's your money.

    I understand the issues behind this post but it really is terrible advice.

    You know that private pension pots can be accessed any time after the age of 55?

    It's a valid question to ask whether the tax breaks during the saving process but paying income tax on the resultant income ( a pension) is better value than saving without tax breaks but paying no tax on the income and capital gain (an ISA) or not.

    But to save nothing is a terrible idea. The new scheme might only be for the under 40s and can only be accessed with the breaks after age 60 but it provides a top-up from the Govt. However, the annual savings limit is only £4k whereas from the next tax year the regular ISA limit is £20k. (Which includes the £4k if you choose or are able to use it.)
    Totally agree, the current pension rules are a big improvement also compared to a few years back.

    Tax efficiency particularly if you are a 40/45 or 60% tax payer make pensions extremely good.

    The new rules meaning you don't have to buy an annuity also help as does being able to leave your pot to your family tax free.

    I'd always advise people do a mixture of different investments for retirement, too many eggs I one basket is never good.
  • IAgree said:

    WSS said:

    12 comments.

    Nobody really cares.


    Re the budget it appears to have redistributed money from ordinary people to the wealthiest and business.


    Well, it's redistributed some money from the Govt, to, well, not the Govt.. For example, a quote from a small high street businesswomen indicated that the abolition of business rates would allow her to pay her staff a bit more and take on a new apprentice. So, that means that "ordinary people" (Jeez I hate that phrase, nobody is ordinary, weird or unique, yes but ordinary, no) will benefit directly from not having Govt. interfering in how money is spent. Business will expand and more people will get jobs - that's a good thing isn't it?

    According to the HMT, the wealthiest 1% pay 28% of all income taxes. A significantly higher figure than it was under the last Labour regime BTW. For example, the top 3,000 earners (I expect a significant number of them are footballers) pay an average £2.6mn a year in income tax.
  • Sponsored links:


  • cafcfan said:

    IAgree said:

    WSS said:

    12 comments.

    Nobody really cares.


    Re the budget it appears to have redistributed money from ordinary people to the wealthiest and business.


    Well, it's redistributed some money from the Govt, to, well, not the Govt.. For example, a quote from a small high street businesswomen indicated that the abolition of business rates would allow her to pay her staff a bit more and take on a new apprentice. So, that means that "ordinary people" (Jeez I hate that phrase, nobody is ordinary, weird or unique, yes but ordinary, no) will benefit directly from not having Govt. interfering in how money is spent. Business will expand and more people will get jobs - that's a good thing isn't it?

    According to the HMT, the wealthiest 1% pay 28% of all income taxes. A significantly higher figure than it was under the last Labour regime BTW. For example, the top 3,000 earners (I expect a significant number of them are footballers) pay an average £2.6mn a year in income tax.
    "85 per cent of Osborne's Budget benefits will go to the wealthiest half of Britain - but the austerity lie continues"

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/85-per-cent-of-benefits-from-new-tax-cut-would-go-to-the-richest-half-of-britain-research-suggests-a6928586.html

    So the less well off half of our society and the most disabled amongst us are paying for tax cuts for the richest half.

  • edited March 2016
    Ian Duncan-Smith has resigned over the disability cuts

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-35848872
  • cafcfan said:


    Well, it's redistributed some money from the Govt, to, well, not the Govt.. For example, a quote from a small high street businesswomen indicated that the abolition of business rates would allow her to pay her staff a bit more and take on a new apprentice. So, that means that "ordinary people" (Jeez I hate that phrase, nobody is ordinary, weird or unique, yes but ordinary, no) will benefit directly from not having Govt. interfering in how money is spent. Business will expand and more people will get jobs - that's a good thing isn't it?

    It really depends what the high street business does.

    I would prefer that the "ordinary" person got a useful job working for the government in a hospital rather than becoming an apprentice in an "I saw you coming" antiques shop.




  • You can swing the story either way sometimes. I agree the disability benefit cuts look wrong and won't probably get through as it stands.

    However a lot of the 'anti' papers say the increase in the tax allowance benefits the richest not the poorest, which isn't entirely true.

    The richest what ever % (probably 2%!) who earn in excess of £120k don't get a tax allowance at all. Once you hit 100k they start to take it away so between 100k and 120k those people pay 62% tax effectively.

    So those who benefit when it increases are those who earn between £10,600 and £100k. Not just the richest then.

    The start of the 40% band has been reduced in real terms for many years and now, particularly in the SE it's no longer 'the rich' who pay 40% tax but normal working people. The current starting point (£31,785) for 15/16 tax year compared to £32,400 in 2005, so over 10 years it's reduced. It's actually been reducing yearly since 2011 having increased prior to that.

    It's a bit like the 45% band, labour going barmy that it was reduced from 50% to 45% when for the whole of the last labour government bar about 2 weeks it was 40%! Go figure......

    People often chose to forget that we also used to have a 10% tax band, labour got rid of that also......

    Child benefit, no longer paid if you earn over £60k..........

    So this constant 'the rich are getting the tax breaks' etc isn't entirely true is it.

    My salary hasn't changed greatly in the past 5 years but i'm definitely paying a fair bit more Tax and NI and also no longer receive child benefit. Interestingly my neighbours as a couple earn more than my wife and I yet still get their child benefit!
  • Mackle said:

    IAgree said:

    Ian Duncan-Smith has resigned over the disability cuts - Respect!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-35848872

    Didn't he vote for them though? Or was that a different disabled cut?
    Weren't they his idea?! Definitely more to this!
  • It's easy to say something along the lines of 'the richest half are the only beneficiaries of this Budget' if you ignore the nuances of how national economies work and are managed.

    This is not a defence of a budget by the way but just providing some insight that some people appear to lack.

    Inflation and consumption in the UK is still far too low. So are tax receipts. The less tax middle classes pay the more they spend, particularly as interest rates are so low. This helps both inflation and consumption.

    Helping high street and small businesses employ more staff generally helps the bottom half who tend to make up the rosters of small businesses. They are less of a burden on the taxpayer and not only are they earning they are claiming less.

    It's easy to take the view that we should concentrate on hiring nurses instead of lowering taxes but without these kinds of macroeconomic stimuli we cannot afford those extra nurses. That's the simple truth. Taking such binary views on economic matters does not work, it assumes we live in a world of zero or limited consequences.

    Whether or not this Budget is achieving this stimuli is another discussion. As is whether the cuts are unfairly falling on the disabled.
  • IAgree said:

    cafcfan said:

    IAgree said:

    WSS said:

    12 comments.

    Nobody really cares.


    Re the budget it appears to have redistributed money from ordinary people to the wealthiest and business.


    Well, it's redistributed some money from the Govt, to, well, not the Govt.. For example, a quote from a small high street businesswomen indicated that the abolition of business rates would allow her to pay her staff a bit more and take on a new apprentice. So, that means that "ordinary people" (Jeez I hate that phrase, nobody is ordinary, weird or unique, yes but ordinary, no) will benefit directly from not having Govt. interfering in how money is spent. Business will expand and more people will get jobs - that's a good thing isn't it?

    According to the HMT, the wealthiest 1% pay 28% of all income taxes. A significantly higher figure than it was under the last Labour regime BTW. For example, the top 3,000 earners (I expect a significant number of them are footballers) pay an average £2.6mn a year in income tax.
    "85 per cent of Osborne's Budget benefits will go to the wealthiest half of Britain - but the austerity lie continues"

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/85-per-cent-of-benefits-from-new-tax-cut-would-go-to-the-richest-half-of-britain-research-suggests-a6928586.html

    So the less well off half of our society and the most disabled amongst us are paying for tax cuts for the richest half.

    Here are some figures. I provide them and ask questions.

    As at January 31 this year, 692,100 people were receiving a Personal Independence Payment, a benefit intended to help people of working age with some of the extra costs caused by a disability. PIP is part of a system of disability benefits paid to more than five million people that in total will cost taxpayers £16.2 billion this year, a sum that is rising as more people qualify for it. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that, unchecked, the cost would reach £18.2 billion in 2021. To slow that rise, ministers will make it harder to qualify for some parts of the PIP. Their changes mean disability spending will only rise to £17.2 billion in 2021.

    So, from those figures, it appears that the intention is to reduce the increase, not cut the total spend as has been portrayed. By comparison the spend on disability benefit at the time of the last Labour Govt. was around £11.5bn.

    I do not know anywhere near enough about the whole process to know whether it can be right that 5mn people receive such benefits. Do people know whether that is a correct figure as it seems to me to be a very high percentage of the total population (close to 8%).

    The claims system is obviously a complex one which affects different individuals in different ways, some badly, some not so badly.

    But is it right for politicians to be pigeonholing people in this way? Rich = healthy vs poor = disabled? Does that not only serve to discriminate against individuals? Surely, people are not all disabled and financially disadvantaged. Some of the disabled are very well off. Is it right that they should get benefits without means/needs testing when others who really need the money suffer? Some examples would be those severely injured in car crashes who received hefty payments from insurance companies and my mate the wheelchair-bound barrister who gets significant financial assistance from both the Govt. and his local Govt. when he could easily afford to pay for it himself.

    BTW the reason we have this problem, I suspect, is partly because Gordon Brown thought it would be a good wheeze to get the long-term unemployed off Jobseekers and on to disability benefit instead. This in order to make the unemployment figures look better. Gordon Brown, himself, is another example of a disabled person who is well off of course.
  • Fiiish said:

    It's easy to say something along the lines of 'the richest half are the only beneficiaries of this Budget' if you ignore the nuances of how national economies work and are managed.

    This is not a defence of a budget by the way but just providing some insight that some people appear to lack.

    Inflation and consumption in the UK is still far too low. So are tax receipts. The less tax middle classes pay the more they spend, particularly as interest rates are so low. This helps both inflation and consumption.

    Helping high street and small businesses employ more staff generally helps the bottom half who tend to make up the rosters of small businesses. They are less of a burden on the taxpayer and not only are they earning they are claiming less.

    It's easy to take the view that we should concentrate on hiring nurses instead of lowering taxes but without these kinds of macroeconomic stimuli we cannot afford those extra nurses. That's the simple truth. Taking such binary views on economic matters does not work, it assumes we live in a world of zero or limited consequences.

    Whether or not this Budget is achieving this stimuli is another discussion. As is whether the cuts are unfairly falling on the disabled.

    Stimulating middle-class spending will help business owners, sure. It may even encourage them to employ more workers, if they think this will be profitable. And so we have a few more people on flexi-time minimum-wage contracts. Hurrah, everyone's won!

    Although short of making greed illegal I don't know how a good budget could be made so not envying Gideon here
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!