Budget 2016

[Tetchytyke]

What I am saying is that a 2% surplus is pathetic when you consider the tax receipts he was raking in.

You seem determined to ignore the proof I gave you before that Brown was not "raking in" tax any more than Economics George was.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IUj_AGJS5WywibuptGr4lZVP9M0QCTvkZQ0Q_Pp9CHw/edit#gid=1

What that shows is that Gordon Brown's tax revenue per year averaged about 35% of GDP. By comparison Economics George's tax revenue per year is about 36% of GDP.

So why, then, was Brown's 2% surplus "not good enough" whereas Economics George's 5% deficit is acceptable?

 

[Dave1987]

Yes, I'm assuming you were only 10 when Blair got in (hence your name), but those of us a little older remember the "Fuel Duty Escalator" was introduced in the Major government. It was removed by Brown in 2000 and reintroduced from 2008 by Darling, at a far lower rate than Ken Clarke's 3p introduction and rapid 5p escalation (and Brown's increase further to 6p/year)



Yes, it was the equivelent of a 3p fuel duty rise on it's own, and generally taking money off poorer people. You and I, fitting in the right-hand-scale by income on this graph from the IFS, were less affected.

I'd rather see taxes on the massive gains in house values over the last 30 years (as a charge on the house that doesn't need paying until the house is sold or inheritted), or a reduction in the inheritance tax bracket and increase in rate - say a £20k threshold and a 70% value on wealth above that.



I agree (aside from the missing apostrophe), a dumb political move, far better to have spent the money on infrastructure.

Yeah I remember during the later years of the last Labour Govt dreading the budget because you knew there would be another hike in the price of fuel.

I think taxes on house price rises would be a pretty good idea if they were set at the right level. It would certainly curtail the huge rise in house prices in London and the SE. I didn't agree with the Mansion tax proposals because that punished people whose homes had naturally risen in price but a tax on the gain in value might not be a bad idea at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You seem determined to ignore the proof I gave you before that Brown was not "raking in" tax any more than Economics George was.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IUj_AGJS5WywibuptGr4lZVP9M0QCTvkZQ0Q_Pp9CHw/edit#gid=1

What that shows is that Gordon Brown's tax revenue per year averaged about 35% of GDP. By comparison Economics George's tax revenue per year is about 36% of GDP.

So why, then, was Brown's 2% surplus "not good enough" whereas Economics George's 5% deficit is acceptable?

Because Osbourne is having to pay vast amounts of money out on debt interest payments left by the last Labour Government. Do you not believe a £150bn deficit is very very large? I don't believe Labour would have been responsible enough to get the Welfare bill under control (yes Osbourne has gone too far in his current budget and will probably pay for it with his job or at least his potential leadership of the Tory party) which they let get out of control. If they hadn't let the welfare budget get as large as it had and made the efficiency savings that were made post 2010 imagine the surplus he could have run. Then maybe the UK would have been in a better position to deal with the crash. Has the last two GE's not told you that the majority of the electorate don't trust Labour on the economy.

 

[LateThanNever]

Yeah I remember during the later years of the last Labour Govt dreading the budget because you knew there would be another hike in the price of fuel.

I think taxes on house price rises would be a pretty good idea if they were set at the right level. It would certainly curtail the huge rise in house prices in London and the SE. I didn't agree with the Mansion tax proposals because that punished people whose homes had naturally risen in price but a tax on the gain in value might not be a bad idea at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Because Osbourne is having to pay vast amounts of money out on debt interest payments left by the last Labour Government. Do you not believe a £150bn deficit is very very large? I don't believe Labour would have been responsible enough to get the Welfare bill under control (yes Osbourne has gone too far in his current budget and will probably pay for it with his job or at least his potential leadership of the Tory party) which they let get out of control. If they hadn't let the welfare budget get as large as it had and made the efficiency savings that were made post 2010 imagine the surplus he could have run. Then maybe the UK would have been in a better position to deal with the crash. Has the last two GE's not told you that the majority of the electorate don't trust Labour on the economy.

1.The debt was left to the government by the private banks!
2. £375billion of quantitative easing has been printed by the government or if you prefer, the Bank of England, who are nationalised and controlled by the government. The Bank of England is called independent, but like anything nationalised in the end that is a fiction.
3. Why has no interest has been paid on this quantitative easing?
4. Answer. Because the government cannot pay interest to itself.

You really don't need to believe the lie that the banks have all the money and the government doesn't. Where do the banks get their money from?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because Osbourne is having to pay vast amounts of money out on debt interest payments left by the last Labour Government.

The debt when Economics George took over was £850bn. It is now £1.5tn.

No doubt that's Gordon Brown's fault too

Has the last two GE's not told you that the majority of the electorate don't trust Labour on the economy.

The GE result told me that 35% of people who voted wanted a Tory party government, and that everyone else didn't.

 

[miami]

Yeah I remember during the later years of the last Labour Govt dreading the budget because you knew there would be another hike in the price of fuel.

Fuel prices were going up due to oil. 1p at the pump isn't a lot, it's 50p to fill up the family car.

In Sep 2007 to July 2008 fuel prices increased from 95p to 120p, with no change in fuel duty. About 21p was incease in the fuel, and 4p in vat.

From July 2008 to Jan 2009 fuel prices dropped back to 86.6p. In June 2009 they were back to 103p, and by May 2010 they were upto 121p.

Had the duty rises in the last 3 years not gone ahead they'd have been 115p.

In May 2011, a year after Osborne took over, fuel prices reached 137p, increasing 16p since Brown left office. That sort of increase dwarfs changes in fuel duty.

I think your memory is faulty.

I think taxes on house price rises would be a pretty good idea if they were set at the right level. It would certainly curtail the huge rise in house prices in London and the SE. I didn't agree with the Mansion tax proposals because that punished people whose homes had naturally risen in price but a tax on the gain in value might not be a bad idea at all.

So you've changed your mind and you now agree with it? Excellent.

The people who have unfairly benefited by "natural gains" - stimulated today by government subsidies in helptobuy and various other schemes, not to mention government subsidies in pushing both parents out to work, could do with a windfall tax.

Those who actually worked on their properties and increasd the value, fair enough, but having a house increase in value to 4 times it's original value in 20 years for doing nothing other than living in it is something that is not sustainable, and something that should have been subjected to capital gains, but that's Labour's fault, and I'm not sure how you could retroactively apply it.

Because Osbourne is having to pay vast amounts of money out on debt interest payments left by the last Labour Government. Do you not believe a £150bn deficit is very very large?

Certainly far larger than the defecit the last labour government left us with. The less said about the actual DEBT the better.

I don't believe Labour would have been responsible enough to get the Welfare bill under control (yes Osbourne has gone too far in his current budget and will probably pay for it with his job or at least his potential leadership of the Tory party) which they let get out of control. If they hadn't let the welfare budget get as large as it had and made the efficiency savings that were made post 2010 imagine the surplus he could have run. Then maybe the UK would have been in a better position to deal with the crash. Has the last two GE's not told you that the majority of the electorate don't trust Labour on the economy.

The last two GEs have told me that the clear majority (about 2 in 3) do not trust the conservatives on anything.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The debt was left to the government by the private banks!

Sort of, the government took the debt out to bail out the banks.

Interestingly Economics George is now taking steps to sell the RBS stake, at just the £22bn loss, and at an undervalue.

Of course when someone's opinion is so entrenched they think a 2% surplus is bad and a 5% deficit is good, based on the same tax revenue as percentage of GDP (and Osborne's real-terms tax take is higher) it's basically pointless arguing further.

For all this talk of "austerity", there's been precious little austerity for the corporates and the wealthy, it's all been targeted at welfare benefit recipients. The latest budget- taking money off people with no legs to fund a corporation tax cut- just summed it up. Austerity is a sham.

 

[northwichcat]

The VAT rise was a shrewd move by Osbourne as it bought him in a lot of extra money. And Browns temporary reduction to 15% did little to make people spend more.

Osbourne

or

Osborne

?

Like I already said Osborne voted in favour of the VAT cut so he must have thought it was a good idea.

Darling's temporary cut in VAT bought in 1.25% more tax revenue according to the IFS while Osborne's permanent rise has brought in 1.1% more tax revenue. I think both Osbourne or Osborne will agree that 1.25 is more than 1.1!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think taxes on house price rises would be a pretty good idea if they were set at the right level. It would certainly curtail the huge rise in house prices in London and the SE. I didn't agree with the Mansion tax proposals because that punished people whose homes had naturally risen in price but a tax on the gain in value might not be a bad idea at all.

That certainly puts you and I at odds over that particular aspiration....

You seem prepared to sanction a tax upon "gain in value" without any rhyme nor reason why this should be the case. I take it that you are aware how much the value of my property has appreciated in the period 2004 (when I purchased it) to 2016. You conveniently forget that in that period, I have paid the highest rate of what we now term Community Charge, so do you not think that what I have paid for that in any way covers the tax you so wish to so impose?

 

[miami]

That certainly puts you and I at odds over that particular aspiration....

You seem prepared to sanction a tax upon "gain in value" without any rhyme nor reason why this should be the case. I take it that you are aware how much the value of my property has appreciated in the period 2004 (when I purchased it) to 2016. You conveniently forget that in that period, I have paid the highest rate of what we now term Community Charge, so do you not think that what I have paid for that in any way covers the tax you so wish to so impose?

You have done nothing useful for society to cause that increase in property value, you've simply benefited from government subsidies (low interest rates, help to buys, government funded childcare etc), and while you paid you council tax for that period (a massively regressive tax), you also benefited from those council services.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You seem prepared to sanction a tax upon "gain in value" without any rhyme nor reason why this should be the case.

For a family home I agree, taxing is not appropriate for the gain in value, for the very good reason one cannot control what one's family home is worth. However taxing the purchase price of the property is appropriate, as that is something one can control.

For investment properties, especially buy-to-lets, I'd tax landlords until the pips squeaked. And then tax them some more.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sorry im not responding to anything you post anymore. If you have issues with my posts then report them.

Sure, if you don't want to respond to my posts any more, that is your choice. You can even add me to your Ignore list if you want - I've never tried it myself, but the forum documentation seems to indicate that it means you don't even see a person's posts. However, whether you ignore my posts or not, I don't think repeatedly posting allegations that are clearly not true is a good way to engage in debates, and as long as you continue to do that, I will continue to call you out on it. I see that today, in the thread about IDS's resignation, you've already posted another statement that's verifiably false, but it looks like other people have already picked up on that (about people who work hard and earn a reasonable amount supposedly not voting Labour, when in truth, some will and some won't).

I believe McDonnell's fiscal credibility rule as much as I believe that Elvis is still alive.

Well, yes, if you decide to pull the 'I don't believe person X' line , then I guess you can use that to theoretically justify accusing any politician of intending to do just about anything at all, no matter how absurd, and even if it's the very opposite of what they've clearly stated they intend to do. But once again, it adds nothing to your own credibility and rather destroys any aim of having a sensible discussion.

The VAT rise was a shrewd move by Osbourne as it bought him in a lot of extra money. And Browns temporary reduction to 15% did little to make people spend more.

I love the way that when you talk about tax rises under Labour, it's usually in terms of how dreadful they are ("the haulage firms were begging for mercy"), but as soon as it happens to be George Osborne who's doing roughly the same thing (albeit with different taxes), it becomes 'A shrewd move'.

So - no double standards there at all, eh...

As I've said before I'm not surprised most people on this forum disagree with my political views as I am one of the few people with right wing political opinions, and most on here are either left or hardcore left wingers. People can link to websites that claim Labour were economically competent but these websites seem to be funded or sponsor by left wing charities or by left wing political parties so are hardly impartial.

They may well not be impartial, but that doesn't by itself make them wrong. Plenty of accurate news and factual analysis has been written by people who happen to support one or other political party. If you refuse to pay any attention to any article that could be biased, then you'll have precious few news sources available. And if you selectively refuse to pay attention to any articles that may be biased in the opposite direction to your own politics, then it's virtually guaranteed you'll end up with a very inaccurate view of what's going on. (That applies just as much to people on the left as on the right).

No one expected the Tories to win an outright majority at the last election, because it seems that people are targeted for abuse if they dare to say they don't vote Labour or a left wing party.

Oh dear. Yet another assertion from you that appears to be objectively untrue? The reason that (almost) noone expected a Tory victory at the last election was because the polling was wrong. The polling organizations have done a fair bit of investigation since then into what went wrong, and concluded that it was mainly because of issues with unrepresentative sampling. So - as far as we can tell, it was nothing at all to do with any alleged abuse. (And to be clear, I'm not denying that abuse occasionally happens. It shouldn't have any part in a democracy, it's appalling when it does happen, and sadly, people on both left and right are victims of it on occasions. But blaming supposed 'abuse' for the poor opinion poll results last year seems absurd and is simply not backed up by the findings of the polling organizations.)

 

[Tetchytyke]

You have done nothing useful for society to cause that increase in property value

Agreed, but then the owner of a family home can't control the value of the home either. They can sell it at an undervalue if they so wish, but the value of it is more external than that.

 

[EM2]

Hmmm during the boom years I remember when GB put the fuel duty escalator and beer duty escalator to go up by 2p every 6 months automatically which crippled the pub industry, and made fuel go up to about £1.50 a litre!.

So with that one having been disproved, what about all the others mentioned?
Labour is the party of tax, tax, and more tax, eh?

 

[miami]

For a family home I agree, taxing is not appropriate for the gain in value, for the very good reason one cannot control what one's family home is worth. However taxing the purchase price of the property is appropriate, as that is something one can control.

I wouldn't propose taxing up front, only when the house is disposed of via inheritence or via sales.

If you buy a house at £200k you shouldn't need to pay £1500 tax.
If you sell a house for £200k and buy one for £200k you shouldn't need to pay another £1500 in tax.
If you sell a house at £200k and buy one for £500k you shouldn't need to pay £15k in tax.
If you sell a house for £500k and buy one for £500k you shouldn't need to pay £15k in tax.

All of that peanilises the worker who has earned money and put it into property.

However if you buy a house at £200k and sell it at £500k, that's £300k of unearned profit. That should certainly be taxed at the point of sale. If this happened over 30 years - £10k a year, then 20% would be an apporipate amount. If it happened over 6 years - £50k a year, then 40% is probably more appropiate. Either way, you'd be paying between £60k and £120k of your £300k profit.

Now that profit should be transferable onto the next house, so you buy for £200k, sell for £500k, that's £300k of taxable wealth. You buy (within 6 months or so) a house at £500k, that taxable wealth gets assigned to that new house instead.

If you never sell, or if you simply "swap" your £500k house for another £500k house, there shouldn't be a financial implication.

It's when you cash out, or when you pass on as a gift/inheritence, that's when tax shoud become due.

 

[northwichcat]

The GE result told me that 35% of people who voted wanted a Tory party government, and that everyone else didn't.

Indeed the Conservatives have a wafer thin majority using a flawed system. Although, the same was true of Labour in 2005.

Interestingly in the 2015 election if Labour, the SNP, the Lib Dems and Greens had formed a Coalition they would have had 297 seats between them, not enough to get in to government. However, 47% of the public voted for one of those parties at the last election compared to the 37% who voted Conservative.

 

[miami]

So - no double standards there at all, eh...

I do wonder if Dave1987 is simply a troll, and doesn't really hold these internally inconsistent beliefs.

I have no problem with rich people saying they deserve more. I have no problem with people changing their mind ("Do you know what thinking is? It’s just a fancy word for changing your mind"). However when someone can't be internally consistent, yet doesn't realise his own hypocrisy

I do wonder if voting should have a requirement of a logic test.

 

[northwichcat]

However if you buy a house at £200k and sell it at £500k, that's £300k of unearned profit. That should certainly be taxed at the point of sale. If this happened over 30 years - £10k a year, then 20% would be an apporipate amount. If it happened over 6 years - £50k a year, then 40% is probably more appropiate. Either way, you'd be paying between £60k and £120k of your £300k profit.

I agree with the general principle after inflation is taken in to consideration. However, I think what elderly people do if they choose to downside or sell to move in to a care home to be considered. If they aren't allowed to use the profit they've made on their property to fund care then it increases the chance of them requiring financial support from the government to pay for their care, so would just create a lot of unnecessary paperwork and admin in some cases.

 

[DarloRich]

Well apart from the "I'm alright Jack" bit at least someone understands where I'm coming from. It does seem there's a real apathy towards anyone in the country who works hard to get themselves into a comfortable position in life. Considering how much we are pushing towards a high wage society some people seem to believe we should all earn just above minimum wage.

What silliness! The wage level isn't the issue. The behaviour of individuals and companies IS.

There is a real anger in the country towards those earning a fortune AND shirking their taxation responsibilities. These are people who have happily taken from the state ( Health, Police, Armed Forces, Education, Social Services etc) yet seem very keen not to pay anything back and seem encouraged to avoid their responsibilities by the government. It is not a one shot deal. The more you earn the more your responsibility to contribute to ensure everyone have access to the the advantages that you were so happy to use to do well for yourself?

There is real anger towards companies making billions yet paying no tax.

There is real anger towards the very rich like the top Tory boys paying no tax on their income via their family trusts then lecturing the rest on austerity and fiscal responsibility while constantly taking from the poorest without contributing to the pot.

There is real anger that the Tories funded a cut in top level tax and corporation tax by taking money off the disabled. BTW the PIP that Gideon wanted to cut is designed to help with some of the extra costs caused by long-term ill-health or a disability. That is money cut from people who need MORE support to overcome their disabilities. Nice work boys. Insert slow hand clap icon here.

It goes on and on and despite what the Tory press say people are sick of austerity being used as a weapon to beat the poorest and most vulnerable in society, denigrate those less fortunate than yourself and cut vital public services all in the name of some false cutting our cloth accordingly message.

The saddest thing is that a decent opposition would be running rings around these Tory spivs...........

 

[northwichcat]

I do wonder if Dave1987 is simply a troll, and doesn't really hold these internally inconsistent beliefs.

David Cameron was a member of Bullingdon Club's class of 1987. I wonder whether that's where Dave1987 username has come from?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't think anyone's commented that the pound's value plummeted last week between Wednesday morning and Thursday morning last week so globally it must look like Osborne's budget was a poor one.

 

[DarloRich]

The issue, for me in taxing value increases on family homes is that this has become, for many, their pension fund!

I would much rather landlords and second home owners were hammered by taxation. They retard supply by being able to buy houses quickly, by eating up capacity at the bottom of the market and by subsequently driving the market up by increasing demand meaning less can get a foothold.

 

[Dave1987]

1.The debt was left to the government by the private banks!
2. £375billion of quantitative easing has been printed by the government or if you prefer, the Bank of England, who are nationalised and controlled by the government. The Bank of England is called independent, but like anything nationalised in the end that is a fiction.
3. Why has no interest has been paid on this quantitative easing?
4. Answer. Because the government cannot pay interest to itself.

You really don't need to believe the lie that the banks have all the money and the government doesn't. Where do the banks get their money from?

Currently the BoE is independent of the government. McDonnell wants to change that so he can have license to print as much money as he wants to. You can't just print money without consequences! McDonnell would seriously risk devaluing people's savings and pension pots.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do wonder if Dave1987 is simply a troll, and doesn't really hold these internally inconsistent beliefs.

I have no problem with rich people saying they deserve more. I have no problem with people changing their mind ("Do you know what thinking is? It’s just a fancy word for changing your mind"). However when someone can't be internally consistent, yet doesn't realise his own hypocrisy

I do wonder if voting should have a requirement of a logic test.

So you are now accusing me of being a troll just because my views disagree with most on this forum? Well excuse me for having different views to others, wasn't aware that this forum was specifically aimed at those who hate the Tories. Shall I just close my account now shall for daring to have differing views?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So with that one having been disproved, what about all the others mentioned?
Labour is the party of tax, tax, and more tax, eh?

Me getting the time fuel hit £1.50 a litre wrong does not disprove the fact that Labour we a tax and spend Govt. It was nearly a decade ago that GB was in Govt so excuse me for forgetting exactly how high it got to under GB. Still no one has answered how GB's "temporary" 50p top rate of tax turned into Labour policy.

 

[EM2]

Me getting the time fuel hit £1.50 a litre wrong does not disprove the fact that Labour we a tax and spend Govt. It was nearly a decade ago that GB was in Govt so excuse me for forgetting exactly how high it got to under GB. Still no one has answered how GB's "temporary" 50p top rate of tax turned into Labour policy.

No, but nor does it prove that Labour tax more than other parties. All Governments tax and spend. The coalition, for example, managed to spend billions on air strikes in Libya, despite the country apparently having no money.
The 50p tax rate became Labour policy because the leader of the party thought it was a good idea. It's fairly simple, really.
Margaret Thatcher flatly refused to privatise the railways. How did that become Conservative policy?

 

[northwichcat]

Still no one has answered how GB's "temporary" 50p top rate of tax turned into Labour policy.

And the Conservatives were going to abolish it if they got in 2010. Due to forming a Coalition with the Lib Dems they compromised on reducing it to 45p but why aren't they planning to abolish it completely now? Maybe they are scared of being out voted in parliament given even some Conservative MPs oppose reducing tax for the rich? Or maybe Osborne has found he has no other way of plugging the shortfall in tax revenues which that would create?

 

[LateThanNever]

Currently the BoE is independent of the government. McDonnell wants to change that so he can have license to print as much money as he wants to. You can't just print money without consequences! McDonnell would seriously risk devaluing people's savings and pension pots.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But apparently you can print it for banks and then give it away.
That'll be £375billion.
Of course, a pleasure.

People's savings and pension pots have already been devalued because the BoE aren't delivering 2% inflation. The current scheme isn't working very well is it?

Which is why so many including McDonnell think a change of plan is required.

 

[miami]

Currently the BoE is independent of the government.

Another Gordon Brown/Labour policy you're a fan of. The Tory party used the BOE politically too many times.

So you are now accusing me of being a troll just because my views disagree with most on this forum? Well excuse me for having different views to others, wasn't aware that this forum was specifically aimed at those who hate the Tories. Shall I just close my account now shall for daring to have differing views?

No, I was wondering if you were because your views seem to be all over the shop and internally inconsistent.

 

[Butts]

And the Conservatives were going to abolish it if they got in 2010. Due to forming a Coalition with the Lib Dems they compromised on reducing it to 45p but why aren't they planning to abolish it completely now? Maybe they are scared of being out voted in parliament given even some Conservative MPs oppose reducing tax for the rich? Or maybe Osborne has found he has no other way of plugging the shortfall in tax revenues which that would create?

So by definition anyone paying higher rate tax is rich ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The issue, for me in taxing value increases on family homes is that this has become, for many, their pension fund!

I would much rather landlords and second home owners were hammered by taxation. They retard supply by being able to buy houses quickly, by eating up capacity at the bottom of the market and by subsequently driving the market up by increasing demand meaning less can get a foothold.

A classic example of flawed altruism - someone else should pay

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have no problem with rich people saying they deserve more. I have no problem with people changing their mind ("Do you know what thinking is? It’s just a fancy word for changing your mind"). However when someone can't be internally consistent, yet doesn't realise his own hypocrisy

The frustrating thing for me is that I think Dave1987 is correct that there is a higher proportion of left-wing views here than in the UK as a whole, and it would be nice if this forum was more evenly weighted in that regard. I'm sure it can't be easy posting on a forum in which your views are a minority, and I therefore feel considerable respect for those posters here who are Conservative supporters and who usually post thoughtful, cogently argued, points (such as Oswyntail and Paul Sidorczuk). But I don't believe making a regular habit of attempting to justify your opinions by stating stuff that's clearly untrue (and not hard to verify online as being untrue) is ever justified, no matter what your views are.

For investment properties, especially buy-to-lets, I'd tax landlords until the pips squeaked. And then tax them some more.

I'm not sure I would agree with the language or sentiments there. I think we need to remember that the purpose of tax is (a) to raise money, and (b) by differentially taxing different activities, to discourage people from doing things that are harmful to others; to the wider community. It's definitely not to make people suffer - which seems to be implied by the phrase 'until the pips squeaked' - or for the sake of taxing. The large number of buy-to-let landlords is admittedly causing significant problems for many other people, but that doesn't mean all landlords are intrinsically bad and should be deliberately overtaxed. The fault here is with long term lack of house-building, and ultimately what's needed to sort out housing issues is - umm - for the Government to start seriously making sure enough houses (and associated infrastructure) get built. Not for the Government to start gleefully taxing certain people more just for the sake of it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think anyone's commented that the pound's value plummeted last week between Wednesday morning and Thursday morning last week so globally it must look like Osborne's budget was a poor one.

Uh???? oanda.com is showing the £ rose against both the Euro and US$ between 16 and 17 March, roughly cancelling out a fall the previous couple of days (Though it's possible there could be some time zone differences I haven't accounted for). Either way, a fall one day matched by a corresponding rise the next day doesn't strike me as likely to be too significant.

 

[miami]

Margaret Thatcher flatly refused to privatise the railways. How did that become Conservative policy?

Careful, you'll draw the wrath of the anti-thatcherites!

Dave1987 raised a point that others are ignoring, perhaps it got lost in his more ridiculous claims. There is a large problem around the £40k-60 range. This isn't a lot of money -- it's about 1/5th of the average house price, a typical qualified train driver earns in this range for example.

For a traditional family, with a stay-at-home parent, 2 kids, a mortgage, once you go over £40k things just get worse and worse

* Marginal income tax/ni rate shoots up from 31% to 42%
* You lose the ability to shift £1100 of the lower-earner's tax-free allowance to the higher earner
* You lose child benefits

At £40k you pay (£10600k tax allowance + £1060 transfered)
3,832.80 NI
5,568.0 Income tax
But also get back
1788.80 child benefit

Meaning a net takehome pay of £32,288.00

At £60k
4,470.80 NI
13,403.00 income tax

Meaning a net takehome pay of £42,126.20

That's a marginal tax rate of 50.8% between £40k and £60k. Between £50k and £60k the loss in child benefits means a marginal tax of 60%.

Why bother taking that promotion, which probably means doing less of what you enjoy doing and more report filling and working longer into the evenings?

By comparison at £80k it's 42% marginal, and at £200K it's 47%

It's only in the £100k-£120k area where a similar massive hit applies - with a marginal tax of 62%.

Now the Tory Party don't really care about people in this income bracket/lifestyle, otherwise it would have been fixed.

In the 80s in this income band you'd not only get a married tax allowance worth (on today's thresholds) about £2500 (40% of about 50% of the personal allowance), you'd also get relief on your mortgage, you wouldn't be paying the extra 2%NI contributions (which mean it's income tax), house prices were in the region of 3-4 times a single person's income, and wage inflation was high enough to wipe out debts.

When train drivers are paying 60% tax on their overtime, but stockbrokers are paying 47% on their bonuses (after tax deducting their champagne and lapdances), you know that the government has failed the working man.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For a family home I agree, taxing is not appropriate for the gain in value, for the very good reason one cannot control what one's family home is worth. However taxing the purchase price of the property is appropriate, as that is something one can control.

For investment properties, especially buy-to-lets, I'd tax landlords until the pips squeaked. And then tax them some more.

Many people bought an investment flat/house as a pension. Our landlord at university did that. Those that did so in the late 90s hvae benefited massively. Lucky them. Not something that should be encouraged (gambling), but that's what we built up through in the Blair years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The frustrating thing for me is that I think Dave1987 is correct that there is a higher proportion of left-wing views here than in the UK as a whole, and it would be nice if this forum was more evenly weighted in that regard.

Well taking out UKIP, who for argument's sake we'll say are made up of disenfranchised Working Class Labour suppoerters and Euroskeptic Tory supporters in equal measure, the votes in 2010 were

Left wing parties (SNP, Plaid, Green, Labour) - 12,141,077 votes
Lib Dems - 2,415,862
Right wing parties (Tory) - 11,300,109 votes

So if you lump Lib Dems in with the "left wing", as certainly seems to be the opinion on here, you get 56% Left wing, 44% right wing.

The large number of buy-to-let landlords is admittedly causing significant problems for many other people, but that doesn't mean all landlords are intrinsically bad and should be deliberately overtaxed.

The Tory party have really hammered the buy-to-let market, at least those houses run by people who have mortgages. Those run by people who are already wealthy (and thus don't have to pay a mortgage) aren't being hit anywhere near as much.

Same old same old.

The fault here is with long term lack of house-building, and ultimately what's needed to sort out housing issues is - umm - for the Government to start seriously making sure enough houses (and associated infrastructure) get built.

Lots of houses being built in the north west. Haven't looked into how good they actually are (are they made of brick or wood?), and they're building them on top of each other, however the biggest problem for those of us looking to buy is the fact that they aren't actually selling houses. They're selling leases, with ground rents, then selling on the leases to unscruplous companies that charge £500 for permission to put up a shed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a real anger in the country towards those earning a fortune AND shirking their taxation responsibilities. These are people who have happily taken from the state ( Health, Police, Armed Forces, Education, Social Services etc) yet seem very keen not to pay anything back and seem encouraged to avoid their responsibilities by the government. It is not a one shot deal. The more you earn the more your responsibility to contribute to ensure everyone have access to the the advantages that you were so happy to use to do well for yourself?

It's more than fairness. The wealth of the top 10% relies on companies that rely on the other 90% having quality defence, health, education and a social safety net.

There is real anger towards companies making billions yet paying no tax.

There is, it goes agianst that sense of fairness. Why should I pay tax when others don't seem to.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't make much difference. Fortunatly. If the UK exchequer relied on the tax payments from a handful of large multi-nationals we'd have to bend to their every whim.

There is real anger towards the very rich like the top Tory boys paying no tax on their income via their family trusts then lecturing the rest on austerity and fiscal responsibility while constantly taking from the poorest without contributing to the pot.

Don't worry, not only do they pay no tax, the rest of us will be topping it up, £1000 a year - that's a couple of bottles of champagne!

There is real anger that the Tories funded a cut in top level tax and corporation tax by taking money off the disabled. BTW the PIP that Gideon wanted to cut is designed to help with some of the extra costs caused by long-term ill-health or a disability. That is money cut from people who need MORE support to overcome their disabilities. Nice work boys. Insert slow hand clap icon here.

At best it's a PR cockup. That assumes that a cut in top level tax and corporation tax will actually increase the takings in those areas.

But even if that's true, you don't give tax breaks to the rich at the same time taking them from disabled people.

The saddest thing is that a decent opposition would be running rings around these Tory spivs...........

Still not sure of the point of opposition. Every time there's an election we elect a dictator, the only people who can unelect him is his own party.

 

[northwichcat]

oanda.com is showing the £ rose against both the Euro and US$ between 16 and 17 March

Those graphs show a small decrease in the 24 hours following the budget followed by a big drop, the increase you refer to happened before the budget!

So by definition anyone paying higher rate tax is rich ?

If you earn over £150,000 in a year and you're not rich then you will be very soon!

 

[miami]

If you earn over £150,000 in a year and you're not rich then you will be very soon!

How about a train driver on £51k?