Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
Now a sugar tax on milkshakes being floated - is nothing sacred? ;-)2
-
I'm shocked theyre not already covered by the existing sugar tax!bobmunro said:Now a sugar tax on milkshakes being floated - is nothing sacred? ;-)0 -
cantersaddick said:
I'm shocked theyre not already covered by the existing sugar tax!bobmunro said:Now a sugar tax on milkshakes being floated - is nothing sacred? ;-)Drinks consisting of 75%+ milk are exempted.My comment was tongue in cheek - I won't be leaving the country because of it!2 -
I have to be honest, I fall more on the side you are talking about. Nobody wants child poverty the problem is the toothpaste is out of the tube in terms of the generational "poverty". My wife used to work in this realm and the attitudes she would encounter really bent my head. So, so many adults in this country are essentially babies that need a state to take care of them. It depresses me if I think too long about how many take the piss and have no concept of how much the working population of the country despise them.valleynick66 said:
Hence my comment on exceptions / subject to circumstances.cantersaddick said:
Don't want to start a whole side path on this issue but a couple of thoughts.valleynick66 said:
I’m torn on the 2 child cap thing.cantersaddick said:
Just want to challenge this bit. This version of the labour party is anything but socialist. Can you point at any specific policy they have done that meets even the loosest definition of socialism? For all the talk of supporting (or rather not harming) working people none of their policy has actually followed this. Removing the 2 child benefit cap, if they follow through with it, will be the first thing they do in a remotely socialist direction. By any independent measure this labour government on both economic and social policy are still pushing hard capitalist, support big business, low welfare, low regulation, cuts in spending, low govt intervention, low service provision, high levels of private sector involvement, anti immigration messages and agenda. The direct opposite of socialism. If the only reference point is the US system then elements may look socialist but the reality is if you compare to say the European model, which isn't even socialism, then it looks like extreme capitalism - or rather beyond, we stopped existing in a capitalist system at least 10 years ago. History will probably call this period oligopoly capitalism, or techno-feudalism so something on those lines.golfaddick said:
The Labour party are basically a Socialist Party. Help for the worker in pay rises & sod the bosses. Help for the downtrodden & poor no matter who has to pay for itSouthbank said:
Every single one a disincentive to work hard and save. People who do are punished and people who do not are rewarded with money taken from those who do.Rob7Lee said:Well the budgets just two days away and the ever dropping of hints seems to have continued for the last few days.So the latest seems to be varied gossip about the 'mansion tax'. Latest consensus seems to be some kind of tax (possibly following revaluation) on the top 2 or even 3 council tax bands, properties over 1.5m or 2m. An alternative seems to just be a doubling (or similar) of council tax on the top two bands. But seeing Band G was properties £160-320k in 1991 to me seems unlikely as in some areas that would be a tax on properties sub £500k.
You then have salary sacrifice on pension contributions to be restricted (muted to be £2k per annum).
A further extension to the freeze on the personal allowance and income tax bands.
Axing of the two child benefit cap.
And muted by some:
Levy on EV's
Change to inheritance tax regarding gifts (having a lifetime limit).
Anything anyone else heard?
I was watching a YouTube clip earlier showing an interview with Michael Foot during the 1983 General Election. Taking about the Labour manifesto & what their first budget would look like. He dismissed that they would put up taxes and said they would borrow the money instead.
Back on this labour govt their issue is that their manifesto promise of not (directly) hurting working people, plus their self imposed ridiculous fiscal rules means they have backed themselves into a corner. Every fiscal event they are looking to raise some cash to satisfy their self imposed formula but they've promised not to do it to income tax, they wont do it to large multinationals because they funded their election campaign so they are stuck squeezing small businesses and the middle classes - the very people you shouldn't squeeze. Which is largely what has happened for the last 15 years. It just feels so much worse because its coming on the back of 15 years of the same thing. People wanted something different but ended up with the same.
For all the talk of change we have ended up with exactly the same as we have had over the last 15 years.Of course we don’t want child poverty but…
The child benefit was effectively tapered out at £50k anyway and no longer is that a ‘big’ salary. But I get it’s a universal credit thing as well when out of work too and then a more significant element.But I could never have consciously financially planned for more than 2 kids on a good salary etc. So those who choose to have larger families without financial security / big comfort in their budgets are I think at odds with most people’s approach to sensible life choices.Of course there are exceptions of accident / death / multiple births (twins etc) which place unexpected strain on some households but these must be the exceptions to the rule.Maybe the change will be an allowance for multiple births and the cap upped to 3 in certain circumstances (and not a blanket raise) in an effort to manage the cost and still offer necessary support?
I don't disagree that there needs to be an element of personal responsibility for choices. but if you include job loss as an unforeseen change in circumstances that could lead to needing more help even temporarily then I don't think these will be a minority exception.
I think we need to change the way we think about this. We shouldn't be punishing children for their parents circumstances.
I think there is also an untrue perception that it is laziness or people out of work when that's not the case - DWP data shows 59% of families affected by the two-child limit are working.
https://cpag.org.uk/news/1-million-children-working-families-now-hit-two-child-limit
Overall I think we need to see this as an investment in those children and in preventing this becoming intergenerational. If there is a family with 4 kids reliant on state help but hit by the limit and therefore the kids have worse educational, health and general societal outcomes and in a generations time we are dealing with 4 adults or 4 families who are reliant on state support. The problem only gets larger if you don't end the cycle.Maybe we need to publish the numbers to adjust public perception. How many families with 3 and 4 and more kids etc and with / without multiple births involved ?
If we can show it’s relatively few who ‘abuse’ the system it would land better.
On the subject if tomorrow's big fuck up.
At my work, if plans got leaked people are getting sacked and possibly finding themselves in front of a regulator. The odd thing, ok that can happen but everything now is leaked and tested. What the actual bollocks is that about? These idiots have the data, if they can't make a grown up decision and hold the courage of conviction to do that without all this leaking shit then they have no business being in a leadership role let alone in government3 -
Personally think the cash limit per year should be less than £12k, you can still hold cash in your s&s ISA and invest it in MMFs which match the BOE rate. Cash is a risky asset, only good for short term saving.0
-
The ISA limits used to be split between cash and S&S etc. only in more recent years it’s been fully open to choice (think it changed in 2015). Before then whilst it varied it was roughly in later years 1/3rd cash 2/3rds S&S.
the stupidity of changing back is I don’t think it will encourage more investment in UK, even if there is more investment overall, I’d be investing elsewhere!!
im always on the fence with the 2 child cap, on one hand it feels unfair to penalise children, but on the other there has to be parental responsibility.
As a country a complete review of the benefit system is needed and it should be better targeted, the level of expenditure can’t continue on the path it is. More than 1/3 and ever rising of Income tax & NI is spent on welfare/benefits (inc state pension).
what did we ever do 30+ years ago?2 -
Cash is a risky asset? Really?Diebythesword said:Personally think the cash limit per year should be less than £12k, you can still hold cash in your s&s ISA and invest it in MMFs which match the BOE rate. Cash is a risky asset, only good for short term saving.
I'll be honest I've never woken up and found that after a stock market crash which has wiped 20% plus of the value of my shares that my cash holdings have gone down by a similar amount.
I do, of course, accept that historically investing in the stock market has been much more profitable than holding cash but the world is so mixed up now who can say if that trend will continue in future.
1 -
The general point on cash is whilst the capital is safe, more often than not it is eroded by inflation.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Cash is a risky asset? Really?Diebythesword said:Personally think the cash limit per year should be less than £12k, you can still hold cash in your s&s ISA and invest it in MMFs which match the BOE rate. Cash is a risky asset, only good for short term saving.
I'll be honest I've never woken up and found that after a stock market crash which has wiped 20% plus of the value of my shares that my cash holdings have gone down by a similar amount.
I do, of course, accept that historically investing in the stock market has been much more profitable than holding cash but the world is so mixed up now who can say if that trend will continue in future.1 -
30 years ago there were 10k less people in the country.Rob7Lee said:The ISA limits used to be split between cash and S&S etc. only in more recent years it’s been fully open to choice (think it changed in 2015). Before then whilst it varied it was roughly in later years 1/3rd cash 2/3rds S&S.
the stupidity of changing back is I don’t think it will encourage more investment in UK, even if there is more investment overall, I’d be investing elsewhere!!
im always on the fence with the 2 child cap, on one hand it feels unfair to penalise children, but on the other there has to be parental responsibility.
As a country a complete review of the benefit system is needed and it should be better targeted, the level of expenditure can’t continue on the path it is. More than 1/3 and ever rising of Income tax & NI is spent on welfare/benefits (inc state pension).
what did we ever do 30+ years ago?
30 years ago there were far more people working than retired.
30 years ago there were less people not working & claiming benefits
30 years ago there were far less hip operations for people aged over 80.1 -
So, another day and another Budget leak.
Rachel had long since ditched pulling a rabbit out of the hat. Tomorrow there wont even be a hat.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
I think you meant 10M less people in the country.golfaddick said:
30 years ago there were 10k less people in the country.Rob7Lee said:The ISA limits used to be split between cash and S&S etc. only in more recent years it’s been fully open to choice (think it changed in 2015). Before then whilst it varied it was roughly in later years 1/3rd cash 2/3rds S&S.
the stupidity of changing back is I don’t think it will encourage more investment in UK, even if there is more investment overall, I’d be investing elsewhere!!
im always on the fence with the 2 child cap, on one hand it feels unfair to penalise children, but on the other there has to be parental responsibility.
As a country a complete review of the benefit system is needed and it should be better targeted, the level of expenditure can’t continue on the path it is. More than 1/3 and ever rising of Income tax & NI is spent on welfare/benefits (inc state pension).
what did we ever do 30+ years ago?
30 years ago there were far more people working than retired.
30 years ago there were less people not working & claiming benefits
30 years ago there were far less hip operations for people aged over 80.1 -
Agreed.Rob7Lee said:
The general point on cash is whilst the capital is safe, more often than not it is eroded by inflation.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Cash is a risky asset? Really?Diebythesword said:Personally think the cash limit per year should be less than £12k, you can still hold cash in your s&s ISA and invest it in MMFs which match the BOE rate. Cash is a risky asset, only good for short term saving.
I'll be honest I've never woken up and found that after a stock market crash which has wiped 20% plus of the value of my shares that my cash holdings have gone down by a similar amount.
I do, of course, accept that historically investing in the stock market has been much more profitable than holding cash but the world is so mixed up now who can say if that trend will continue in future.
But as you get older, that safety is important.2 -
10k less people in the country 30 years ago? Lord I wish that was true.golfaddick said:
30 years ago there were 10k less people in the country.Rob7Lee said:The ISA limits used to be split between cash and S&S etc. only in more recent years it’s been fully open to choice (think it changed in 2015). Before then whilst it varied it was roughly in later years 1/3rd cash 2/3rds S&S.
the stupidity of changing back is I don’t think it will encourage more investment in UK, even if there is more investment overall, I’d be investing elsewhere!!
im always on the fence with the 2 child cap, on one hand it feels unfair to penalise children, but on the other there has to be parental responsibility.
As a country a complete review of the benefit system is needed and it should be better targeted, the level of expenditure can’t continue on the path it is. More than 1/3 and ever rising of Income tax & NI is spent on welfare/benefits (inc state pension).
what did we ever do 30+ years ago?
30 years ago there were far more people working than retired.
30 years ago there were less people not working & claiming benefits
30 years ago there were far less hip operations for people aged over 80.
Try 10 million less people.0 -
From what I've read the salary sacrifice limit would apply to NI only, so over the £2k limit the contributions would attract employer and employee NI, income tax relief would remain.Rob7Lee said:Well the budgets just two days away and the ever dropping of hints seems to have continued for the last few days.So the latest seems to be varied gossip about the 'mansion tax'. Latest consensus seems to be some kind of tax (possibly following revaluation) on the top 2 or even 3 council tax bands, properties over 1.5m or 2m. An alternative seems to just be a doubling (or similar) of council tax on the top two bands. But seeing Band G was properties £160-320k in 1991 to me seems unlikely as in some areas that would be a tax on properties sub £500k.
You then have salary sacrifice on pension contributions to be restricted (muted to be £2k per annum).
A further extension to the freeze on the personal allowance and income tax bands.
Axing of the two child benefit cap.
And muted by some:
Levy on EV's
Change to inheritance tax regarding gifts (having a lifetime limit).
Anything anyone else heard?
Were they to remove salary sacrifice altogether it would be a massive hit to middle higher earners still saving into pension, especially those with young kids.0 -
5 million people in the UK of working age that are not working but living on benefits.
Instead of keep freezing the Personal tax allowance I would put a freeze on benefits.
Something has to be done to get people back into work and keep raising benefits is not the way to do it.6 -
It has been highlighted on here before but, with tomorrow’s budget and the potential for any changes in inheritance tax / gifting allowances, it is worth highlighting the current inheritance tax exemption for gifts made out of normal expenditure (link below). It is a useful exemption as these gifts are immediately outside the donor’s estate for inheritance tax (i.e. not subject to the 7 year rules).
It is important to understand the rules and the need for maintaining good record keeping, especially if you pass away and the executor of your will needs to complete an inheritance tax submission. I currently make a quarterly contribution to Junior ISAs for 3 grandchildren. After completion of each year’s tax self-assessment submission I update a spreadsheet which mirrors Page 8 of HMRC’s IHT403 Inheritance Tax Form which essentially enables you to demonstrate that you are able to make such gifts out of your income.
It’s a useful exemption and long may it continue!
https://www.taxadvisermagazine.com/article/normal-expenditure-out-income-exemption
1 -
Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Agreed.Rob7Lee said:
The general point on cash is whilst the capital is safe, more often than not it is eroded by inflation.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Cash is a risky asset? Really?Diebythesword said:Personally think the cash limit per year should be less than £12k, you can still hold cash in your s&s ISA and invest it in MMFs which match the BOE rate. Cash is a risky asset, only good for short term saving.
I'll be honest I've never woken up and found that after a stock market crash which has wiped 20% plus of the value of my shares that my cash holdings have gone down by a similar amount.
I do, of course, accept that historically investing in the stock market has been much more profitable than holding cash but the world is so mixed up now who can say if that trend will continue in future.
But as you get older, that safety is important.Absolutely.Current age/life expectancy (I know, but being realistic) is the biggest single factor affecting risk appetite. I'm 68 and my risk appetite is minimal compared to say 15-20 years ago. Most of my wealth is now in cash and current interest rates either taxable or tax free within an ISA (mix of cash and MMFs) just about protect against inflation but I can plan with a degree of certainty what my income levels will be in my later years. If I was still heavily weighted towards stocks and shares I may not have the luxury of time to recover from a sudden downturn, and stability isn't helped while the Great Orange One is residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.0 -
I thought I read that one consideration was to extend the 7 years to 10. Only one more sleep before we find out.Rob7Lee said:
Surely reducing the 7 year rule to 3 or 4 is a tax giveaway? Unlikely!?golfaddick said:
Rumours that the 7 year rule might be reduced to 3 or 4.bobmunro said:
I hadn't heard that, any impact on the seven year rule would be interesting. As would any backdating but one would assume it wouldn't be retrospectively applied and would come in at the start of the next tax year? If that's the case there will be plenty of kids getting windfalls before April!Rob7Lee said:Well the budgets just two days away and the ever dropping of hints seems to have continued for the last few days.So the latest seems to be varied gossip about the 'mansion tax'. Latest consensus seems to be some kind of tax (possibly following revaluation) on the top 2 or even 3 council tax bands, properties over 1.5m or 2m. An alternative seems to just be a doubling (or similar) of council tax on the top two bands. But seeing Band G was properties £160-320k in 1991 to me seems unlikely as in some areas that would be a tax on properties sub £500k.
You then have salary sacrifice on pension contributions to be restricted (muted to be £2k per annum).
A further extension to the freeze on the personal allowance and income tax bands.
Axing of the two child benefit cap.
And muted by some:
Levy on EV's
Change to inheritance tax regarding gifts (having a lifetime limit).
Anything anyone else heard?
Even stronger rumours that the Residential Nil Rate Band could be abolished.
If the Residential nil rate band goes that probably helps the decision for me. I either need to load up on debt or get out the county!0 -
Sadly that is much more likely.robinofottershaw said:
I thought I read that one consideration was to extend the 7 years to 10. Only one more sleep before we find out.Rob7Lee said:
Surely reducing the 7 year rule to 3 or 4 is a tax giveaway? Unlikely!?golfaddick said:
Rumours that the 7 year rule might be reduced to 3 or 4.bobmunro said:
I hadn't heard that, any impact on the seven year rule would be interesting. As would any backdating but one would assume it wouldn't be retrospectively applied and would come in at the start of the next tax year? If that's the case there will be plenty of kids getting windfalls before April!Rob7Lee said:Well the budgets just two days away and the ever dropping of hints seems to have continued for the last few days.So the latest seems to be varied gossip about the 'mansion tax'. Latest consensus seems to be some kind of tax (possibly following revaluation) on the top 2 or even 3 council tax bands, properties over 1.5m or 2m. An alternative seems to just be a doubling (or similar) of council tax on the top two bands. But seeing Band G was properties £160-320k in 1991 to me seems unlikely as in some areas that would be a tax on properties sub £500k.
You then have salary sacrifice on pension contributions to be restricted (muted to be £2k per annum).
A further extension to the freeze on the personal allowance and income tax bands.
Axing of the two child benefit cap.
And muted by some:
Levy on EV's
Change to inheritance tax regarding gifts (having a lifetime limit).
Anything anyone else heard?
Even stronger rumours that the Residential Nil Rate Band could be abolished.
If the Residential nil rate band goes that probably helps the decision for me. I either need to load up on debt or get out the county!0 -
Many of the 5m people probably want to work but the jobs market (especially retail, basic services, pubs, restaurants, etc.) has been drastically reduced by the employer NI increases that were implemented. Many businesses have either cut staff or stopped hiring. Estimates are around 600,000 less jobs. It amazes me that they thought - lets increase what companies have to pay without thinking it will affect the job market - so they take more money from companies but lose the tax income from the lost jobs! Unemployment now highest its been for 5 years...blackpool72 said:5 million people in the UK of working age that are not working but living on benefits.
Instead of keep freezing the Personal tax allowance I would put a freeze on benefits.
Something has to be done to get people back into work and keep raising benefits is not the way to do it.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
What's it excluding state pensions? The Benefit System isn't the biggest issue...Rob7Lee said:The ISA limits used to be split between cash and S&S etc. only in more recent years it’s been fully open to choice (think it changed in 2015). Before then whilst it varied it was roughly in later years 1/3rd cash 2/3rds S&S.
the stupidity of changing back is I don’t think it will encourage more investment in UK, even if there is more investment overall, I’d be investing elsewhere!!
im always on the fence with the 2 child cap, on one hand it feels unfair to penalise children, but on the other there has to be parental responsibility.
As a country a complete review of the benefit system is needed and it should be better targeted, the level of expenditure can’t continue on the path it is. More than 1/3 and ever rising of Income tax & NI is spent on welfare/benefits (inc state pension).
what did we ever do 30+ years ago?0 -
I think the Tories will be back in power at the next election.
Most/all want better services but most don’t want to pay for it (me included).
When voting time comes I think many will shy away from Reform with the concern of possible racism.0 -
The likelihood of making money invested in the market is about 70% likely in your first year and continues to go up until year 10 is 99% likely to be in the green. By 10 years you’ve probably lost money being in cash.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Cash is a risky asset? Really?Diebythesword said:Personally think the cash limit per year should be less than £12k, you can still hold cash in your s&s ISA and invest it in MMFs which match the BOE rate. Cash is a risky asset, only good for short term saving.
I'll be honest I've never woken up and found that after a stock market crash which has wiped 20% plus of the value of my shares that my cash holdings have gone down by a similar amount.
I do, of course, accept that historically investing in the stock market has been much more profitable than holding cash but the world is so mixed up now who can say if that trend will continue in future.£100 invested in the market every month over 30 years returns you something like 150k in real terms. Whilst you lose money in real terms. Sure some people want to keep the capital secure, but there are much better ways of doing that thats not cash.This is all taking into account data of over 100 years which includes two world wars and a Great Depression and great financial crisis, and two global pandemics.0 -
I really hope they do something about stamp duty. The property taxes in this country are insane, and the new landlord licensing scheme is ludicrous.1
-
tax year before last was 21.6%Friend Or Defoe said:
What's it excluding state pensions? The Benefit System isn't the biggest issue...Rob7Lee said:The ISA limits used to be split between cash and S&S etc. only in more recent years it’s been fully open to choice (think it changed in 2015). Before then whilst it varied it was roughly in later years 1/3rd cash 2/3rds S&S.
the stupidity of changing back is I don’t think it will encourage more investment in UK, even if there is more investment overall, I’d be investing elsewhere!!
im always on the fence with the 2 child cap, on one hand it feels unfair to penalise children, but on the other there has to be parental responsibility.
As a country a complete review of the benefit system is needed and it should be better targeted, the level of expenditure can’t continue on the path it is. More than 1/3 and ever rising of Income tax & NI is spent on welfare/benefits (inc state pension).
what did we ever do 30+ years ago?
which by the way is the biggest single expenditure. More than the NHS in second0 -
Worth noting benefit rates have been frozen for at least 8 years since 2012. In that time there have also been at least 10 cuts to various parts of the system not least the big one of UC being introduced as a cut. So in effect what you are asking for has already happened.blackpool72 said:5 million people in the UK of working age that are not working but living on benefits.
Instead of keep freezing the Personal tax allowance I would put a freeze on benefits.
Something has to be done to get people back into work and keep raising benefits is not the way to do it.1 -
When the Conservative Party decided to cut National Insurance they did so in the knowledge that they were going to lose the general election and not have to find the money to pay for this cut.CafcWest said:
Many of the 5m people probably want to work but the jobs market (especially retail, basic services, pubs, restaurants, etc.) has been drastically reduced by the employer NI increases that were implemented. Many businesses have either cut staff or stopped hiring. Estimates are around 600,000 less jobs. It amazes me that they thought - lets increase what companies have to pay without thinking it will affect the job market - so they take more money from companies but lose the tax income from the lost jobs! Unemployment now highest its been for 5 years...blackpool72 said:5 million people in the UK of working age that are not working but living on benefits.
Instead of keep freezing the Personal tax allowance I would put a freeze on benefits.
Something has to be done to get people back into work and keep raising benefits is not the way to do it.
Labour in the run up to the last election should have said that the 2% cut is unaffordable and they would overturn it.
Instead they decided to pass the 2% over to the employer's with a 2% increase.
This has led to many job losses as you mention in your post.
I blame both the Tories and Labour for this as it could and should never of happened.4 -
Looks like that still includes pension aged social security. Split that out and working aged and children social security is 10.2%, and 4th on the list after "other", health, and Pension aged social security.Rob7Lee said:
tax year before last was 21.6%Friend Or Defoe said:
What's it excluding state pensions? The Benefit System isn't the biggest issue...Rob7Lee said:The ISA limits used to be split between cash and S&S etc. only in more recent years it’s been fully open to choice (think it changed in 2015). Before then whilst it varied it was roughly in later years 1/3rd cash 2/3rds S&S.
the stupidity of changing back is I don’t think it will encourage more investment in UK, even if there is more investment overall, I’d be investing elsewhere!!
im always on the fence with the 2 child cap, on one hand it feels unfair to penalise children, but on the other there has to be parental responsibility.
As a country a complete review of the benefit system is needed and it should be better targeted, the level of expenditure can’t continue on the path it is. More than 1/3 and ever rising of Income tax & NI is spent on welfare/benefits (inc state pension).
what did we ever do 30+ years ago?
which by the way is the biggest single expenditure. More than the NHS in second
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money0 -
In my view it wasnt the 2% rate increase that was the issue. The employer contribution rate had been higher in the past. The issue was the messing around with the lower threshold. This meant that people who were employed on part time hours a lot didnt meet the threshold. So smaller businesses, particularly things like hospitality were massively affected. It was clearly a mistake. I think if they really wanted to do it they should have put in an exemption for small businesses.blackpool72 said:
When the Conservative Party decided to cut National Insurance they did so in the knowledge that they were going to lose the general election and not have to find the money to pay for this cut.CafcWest said:
Many of the 5m people probably want to work but the jobs market (especially retail, basic services, pubs, restaurants, etc.) has been drastically reduced by the employer NI increases that were implemented. Many businesses have either cut staff or stopped hiring. Estimates are around 600,000 less jobs. It amazes me that they thought - lets increase what companies have to pay without thinking it will affect the job market - so they take more money from companies but lose the tax income from the lost jobs! Unemployment now highest its been for 5 years...blackpool72 said:5 million people in the UK of working age that are not working but living on benefits.
Instead of keep freezing the Personal tax allowance I would put a freeze on benefits.
Something has to be done to get people back into work and keep raising benefits is not the way to do it.
Labour in the run up to the last election should have said that the 2% cut is unaffordable and they would overturn it.
Instead they decided to pass the 2% over to the employer's with a 2% increase.
This has led to many job losses as you mention in your post.
I blame both the Tories and Labour for this as it could and should never of happened.4 -
I was asked what it was excluding state pension not a plethora of other things. According to my tax return and HMRC account, this is for the tax year 2023 2024 and what HMRC are saying my tax (Income and NI) was spent on, just says 'Welfare' 21.6% (state pension a separate line and over 11%). Whatever it is made up of, it's not including state pension as that is a separate line.cantersaddick said:
Looks like that still includes pension aged social security. Split that out and working aged and children social security is 10.4%, and 4th on the list after "other", health, and Pension aged social security.Rob7Lee said:
tax year before last was 21.6%Friend Or Defoe said:
What's it excluding state pensions? The Benefit System isn't the biggest issue...Rob7Lee said:The ISA limits used to be split between cash and S&S etc. only in more recent years it’s been fully open to choice (think it changed in 2015). Before then whilst it varied it was roughly in later years 1/3rd cash 2/3rds S&S.
the stupidity of changing back is I don’t think it will encourage more investment in UK, even if there is more investment overall, I’d be investing elsewhere!!
im always on the fence with the 2 child cap, on one hand it feels unfair to penalise children, but on the other there has to be parental responsibility.
As a country a complete review of the benefit system is needed and it should be better targeted, the level of expenditure can’t continue on the path it is. More than 1/3 and ever rising of Income tax & NI is spent on welfare/benefits (inc state pension).
what did we ever do 30+ years ago?
which by the way is the biggest single expenditure. More than the NHS in second
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
The table goes:
Welfare: 21.6%
Health 20.2%
State Pension 11.4%
National debt interest 11.1%
Education 10.2%
Defense 5.2%
PO and Safety 4.4%
Transport 4.2%
Plus abotu 10 other smaller one's
So whatever is included in Welfare....... it is the biggest % expenditure of Income/NI taxation. (I'm sure everyone who completes a tax return would have had exactly the same % numbers, only the monetary amounts for each would be different). Of my tax over £19,000 goes on Welfare, although I feel more comfortable that my State pension contribution effectively pays my father in laws state pension plus a little bit, less so that the same again goes on debt interest! I pay more money on the countries debt interest than my mortgage :-)0
