The 'Emergency' Budget

[Dave1987]

I love people pronouncing on benefits when the nearest they have ever been to benefits is a TV programme or the Daily Mail! :roll:



bully for you that you have a choice! Do you ever consider that some people don't?

So you are telling me that the people who live in central London who have no job, live entirely off of the state has no choice but to live in London?

 

[theblackwatch]

One thing that grabbed my attention as a civil servant was the 1% pay award for the next 4 years.

(The boring & technical thing about that is that it isnt actually a pay award, its 1% of the pay bill) and as I am top of my payscale my last two pay awards have been 0.7%and 0.5% non consolidated so they dont count towards my pension, and the last pay award for 2014-15 was £72 net for the year.

Compare that to my annual all zones trio which went up £60 during the same year.

At least I can look forward to my gold plated occupational pension which Daily Fail readers believe all Civil Servants get when they retire....

You clearly don't work in the area of the Civil Service I do - a couple of years ago, it was found that it would take over 100 years to get to the top of our payscale! We've had no incremental rises for years, and even after 19 years of service I'm less than £200 from the bottom of a scale which has a 'minimum' and 'maximum' that are over £2000 apart.

The 'gold plated pension' which the DM loves to mention has more than gobbled up my pay rise in the past year, owing to the increases in contributions which have been forced upon us.

And now we can look forward to a 1% rise for the next four years. Still, the increase in personal tax allowance from £10,000 to £11,000 will put another £80 in my pocket. I can put that towards the £140 vehicle excise duty for my next car (I currently pay none)....

Despite the above comments, I see today's budget as a bit of a 'mixed bag' and there are certainly a few things in it I welcome.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I love people pronouncing on benefits when the nearest they have ever been to benefits is a TV programme or the Daily Mail! :roll:



bully for you that you have a choice! Do you ever consider that some people don't?

Well exactly! London would be screwed if police officers / nurses / bus drivers / school teachers / etc didn't live within Greater London.

 

[transmanche]

can I as one who has paid all the required state pension payments for over 47 years, ask if pensions are "benefits", what is the name for the state pension contributions that I paid INTO the coffers of the state for that time period? Were those also benefits to the state paid by me, to turn your idea upon its head?

The NI you paid all those years went to pay the people who were drawing pensions at that time. Yes, the relationship between NI and the state pension is similar to people 'investing' in a ponzi scheme...

 

[RichmondCommu]

So you are telling me that the people who live in central London who have no job, live entirely off of the state has no choice but to live in London?

There is a case to be said for single Mum's wanting to live close to the rest of their family for free child support / emotional support whilst they are looking for work. Incidentally do you have children / are you planning to start a family?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well exactly! London would be screwed if police officers / nurses / bus drivers / school teachers / etc didn't live within Greater London.

An awful lot of them don't. One day try the 03bleugh MKC to Euston stopper. It contains a not small number of public service workers.

 

[transmanche]

An awful lot of them don't. One day try the 03bleugh MKC to Euston stopper. It contains a not small number of public service workers.

I imagine the free Police Oyster cards help a bit with the travel costs...

 

[EM2]

So you are telling me that the people who live in central London who have no job, live entirely off of the state has no choice but to live in London?

Imagine, for a moment, that you are lucky enough to land a reasonably-paid job in London. You move your family to a nice, average, three-bedroom house that you rent, and can happily afford, thanks to your new job.
And then...you lose your job through no fault of your own. Maybe you're made redundant because of a global financial crisis, or because the Government of the day cut your public-sector role. You get no redundancy money because you haven't been in the job long enough.
Now, you can't afford your rent, because you have no job. You can't afford to move, because you have no money. What are you going to do?

 

[AM9]

Imagine, for a moment, that you are lucky enough to land a reasonably-paid job in London. You move your family to a nice, average, three-bedroom house that you rent, and can happily afford, thanks to your new job.
And then...you lose your job through no fault of your own. Maybe you're made redundant because of a global financial crisis, or because the Government of the day cut your public-sector role. You get no redundancy money because you haven't been in the job long enough.
Now, you can't afford your rent, because you have no job. You can't afford to move, because you have no money. What are you going to do?

You wait until the LA realises that your home if rented can be refurbished and sold to far-east speculators who will never live in it. As for your family's fate, well the 21st century equivalent of the Highland Clearances means that a new future awaits you all in estates on the outskirts of Stoke, Bradford or some such place remote from any family you may have. Your crime in this case, you dared to occupy a location that could be sold or re-let at a profit, when you were sacrificed by your employer.

 

[valenta]

You wait until the LA realises that your home if rented can be refurbished and sold to far-east speculators who will never live in it. As for your family's fate, well the 21st century equivalent of the Highland Clearances means that a new future awaits you all in estates on the outskirts of Stoke, Bradford or some such place remote from any family you may have. Your crime in this case, you dared to occupy a location that could be sold or re-let at a profit, when you were sacrificed by your employer.

Yes, Norman Tebbit's infamous "get on your bike" phrase comes to mind.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Imagine, for a moment, that you are lucky enough to land a reasonably-paid job in London. You move your family to a nice, average, three-bedroom house that you rent, and can happily afford, thanks to your new job.
And then...you lose your job through no fault of your own. Maybe you're made redundant because of a global financial crisis, or because the Government of the day cut your public-sector role. You get no redundancy money because you haven't been in the job long enough.
Now, you can't afford your rent, because you have no job. You can't afford to move, because you have no money. What are you going to do?

In the Notting Hill area of London in the 1950s, a certain Peter Rachman appeared to have his own particular solution to such a problem.

 

[AM9]

In the Notting Hill area of London in the 1950s, a certain Peter Rachman appeared to have his own particular solution to such a problem.

Maybe that is where some of the current administration get their ideas from, after all with their 'we're all in this together' chant is similar to the Macmillan government's 'One Nation' claim.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You wait until the LA realises that your home if rented can be refurbished and sold to far-east speculators who will never live in it.

Have you ever seen any of the homes of far-east speculators. Never in their most desperate moments will they even consider the property that you describe as worth living in themselves.

Can I draw a comparison to the Southfork Ranch in a famous TV series of many years ago and the property occupied by the rather strange people with certain musical talents and unsavourary habits in the film "Deliverance"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe that is where some of the current administration get their ideas from, after all with their 'we're all in this together' chant is similar to the Macmillan government's 'One Nation' claim.

If I may be so bold, was the "One Nation" scenario that you credit to a Conservative government so very many years ago at the time of Harold Macmillan in any way similar to a very more recent launching of a "One Nation" scenario by Jon Cruddas in his capacity of Head of Labour's Policy Review in the last couple of years?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Imagine, for a moment, that you are lucky enough to land a reasonably-paid job in London. You move your family to a nice, average, three-bedroom house that you rent, and can happily afford, thanks to your new job.
And then...you lose your job through no fault of your own. Maybe you're made redundant because of a global financial crisis, or because the Government of the day cut your public-sector role. You get no redundancy money because you haven't been in the job long enough.
Now, you can't afford your rent, because you have no job. You can't afford to move, because you have no money. What are you going to do?

This, rather than long term benefits, is a big issue. Some countries (though I can't recall which) give you a very high unemployment benefit for a short period of time to allow a new job to be found or plans to be made - I think there is a strong case for that. That way people avoid losing homes etc.

One thing you don't see a lot is people taking unemployment insurance - perhaps they should. Perhaps it should even be a mandatory social insurance?

 

[ExRes]

The only way to really achieve that would be to propose a cull of pensioners, as pensions and other benefits for older people make up more than half of the UK's benefits bill.

Could I suggest an alternative ?

How about a cull of bone idle 'students' such as my nephew, 27 years of age, never had a job, leeches off his parents, sits at 'Uni' moving from one course to another so that he doesn't have to cease his membership of the 'student' fraternity, has never paid a brass farthing into the state against even his own costs to that state and thinks it's all very funny indeed, "why should I work when the state can subsidise me" is his proud motto, especially when he and his mates are down the pub spending their university grants on beer

 

[Senex]

This, rather than long term benefits, is a big issue. Some countries (though I can't recall which) give you a very high unemployment benefit for a short period of time to allow a new job to be found or plans to be made - I think there is a strong case for that. That way people avoid losing homes etc.

One thing you don't see a lot is people taking unemployment insurance - perhaps they should. Perhaps it should even be a mandatory social insurance?

Wasn't National Insurance supposed to be a mandatory social insurance scheme, supporting people when they were temporarily out of work and then paying a pension in retirement, both against a proper record of contributions made? And then, as ever, the politicians got their sticky fingers on it and ended up turning it into just another part of income tax, but payable only by the working population (and their employers). Pensions are still directly related to your NI record, with the sum you get diminished if you have an incomplete number of paid-up years. In my book that is not a "benefit" and should not be confused with the payments that really are something for nothing. (And yes, I do know that one of the ways in which the whole scheme has been mucked about with is by paying current pensions out of current income rather than by setting up a genuine NI fund -- but that doesn't turn what the recipients get into a freebie "benefit".)

 

[radamfi]

This, rather than long term benefits, is a big issue. Some countries (though I can't recall which) give you a very high unemployment benefit for a short period of time to allow a new job to be found or plans to be made - I think there is a strong case for that. That way people avoid losing homes etc.

One thing you don't see a lot is people taking unemployment insurance - perhaps they should. Perhaps it should even be a mandatory social insurance?

Most, if not all, mainland European countries give you a large proportion of your last salary for quite a lengthy amount of time, up to something like 18 months. Denmark has its famous "flexicurity" where employers can effectively hire and fire at will, but in return workers get very generous social security and free training to help them get into work quickly.

Given the far more limited non-means tested benefits in the UK, I find it amazing that so many people are so indifferent about saving for a rainy day. But those who do save are punished. I have been saving aggressively for nearly 20 years. Because of that, I am now basically semi-retired at 40, which of course gives me great freedom, but on the other hand I know I will never be entitled to any kind of benefit until I claim my state pension. I could instead have squandered my money on kids and expensive cars and houses etc. and then rely on the state if things go wrong. My half brother, now in his 50s, went down the kids and benefits route and has been knocking up women since he was 21 and now has 8 kids by 4 women and has been living on benefits his whole life.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I can't afford to live in London, so I don't......

What about people who may have no choice?
Say they have to live near a family member to be able to provide care for them?

So you are telling me that the people who live in central London who have no job, live entirely off of the state has no choice but to live in London?

Except we are often not talking about people who have no job!
The right wing have done a very good job at spreading the rhetoric that benefit claimant = no job.
The reality is that many people on benefits DO work. It is just the pay is so low that they need state support to be able to stay alive.
At to that you ignore those who cannot work, not through choice but through illness or disability.

 

[The Snap]

Most, if not all, mainland European countries give you a large proportion of your last salary for quite a lengthy amount of time, up to something like 18 months. Denmark has its famous "flexicurity" where employers can effectively hire and fire at will, but in return workers get very generous social security and free training to help them get into work quickly.

Given the far more limited non-means tested benefits in the UK, I find it amazing that so many people are so indifferent about saving for a rainy day. But those who do save are punished. I have been saving aggressively for nearly 20 years. Because of that, I am now basically semi-retired at 40, which of course gives me great freedom, but on the other hand I know I will never be entitled to any kind of benefit until I claim my state pension. I could instead have squandered my money on kids and expensive cars and houses etc. and then rely on the state if things go wrong. My half brother, now in his 50s, went down the kids and benefits route and has been knocking up women since he was 21 and now has 8 kids by 4 women and has been living on benefits his whole life.

Hence why I vote Tory, in the hope that these people get as little from me as possible!!

 

[northwichcat]

spending their university grants on beer

When I was at University I got a c.£4,000 loan - no grant despite being from a low income family (Labour had withdrawn them when Blair became PM and I was at University before they changed their minds and reintroduced them.) I'd be interested to know how students today can be seen as just spending a grant of no more than £3,400 a year on beer when they would need more than that to cover basic living costs.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Agreed. That struck me as being odd but it seems increasingly common to restrict benefits for young people wherever possible so adding in another tier in minimum wage I guess is continuing that policy.

Indeed. Very specifically the changes to housing benefit really put the shivers into me. Seriously what do they expect young people to do? Presumably live with their family until they are a bit older if they cannot afford to move out. Which sounds great in theory, but what about those who can't? Be it because of abuse, neglect, there not being enough room or simply the family won't have them there. Or what about those who can, but live in a remote place with no hope of getting more than a part time retail job.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes, Norman Tebbit's infamous "get on your bike" phrase comes to mind.

It's much easier to get a job quite a distance away where there are excellent public transport links. Easy for someone in London to say, not so easy for someone in a rural county to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However in my neck of the woods there are many people who will benefit from today's decision. I've been a Labour member / voter all my working life but on this occasion I agree with Tory policy in that when my wife and I pass away my children and grand children will not be clobbered with a huge amount of tax.

It's not really a case of arguing whether it's reasonable for your children to be taxed but whether it's something that should be done now when the country is broke and cut backs are being made.

Asking people who already own a house and have inherited a second house to pay inheritance tax is a more reasonable thing to do than asking people on low incomes to pay income and council tax and then telling them there isn't enough money to resurface the falling apart road outside their house.

 

[ExRes]

When I was at University I got a c.£4,000 loan - no grant despite being from a low income family (Labour had withdrawn them when Blair became PM and I was at University before they changed their minds and reintroduced them.) I'd be interested to know how students today can be seen as just spending a grant of no more than £3,400 a year on beer when they would need more than that to cover basic living costs.

Surely a loan is something you repay, my nephew has no intention of looking for employment, any employment, so he will never repay the grant, therefore it is a grant not a loan in his case

As far as covering his basic living costs, he leeches from his parents who are stupid enough to give into him, so he has no basic living costs

 

[DarloRich]

However in my neck of the woods there are many people who will benefit from today's decision. I've been a Labour member / voter all my working life but on this occasion I agree with Tory policy in that when my wife and I pass away my children and grand children will not be clobbered with a huge amount of tax.

To me this is an easy headline grabber but honestly you shouldn't be paying inheritance tax at all. With proper "tax planning" you can easily divest the estate. Your lawyer and accountant can put in place simple schemes today, without the increase in the rolled over IHT threshold, that should reduce your exposure.

Now there is an argument about when you stop being "normal" and start being "rich" which isn't for this thread. Only the very rich should be faced with an IHT bill. It was never intended to (and should never)impact upon normal people.

Your executors can even do a postmortem alteration of your will ( in certain circumstances) to reduce the tax liability if you mess it up!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely a loan is something you repay, my nephew has no intention of looking for employment, any employment, so he will never repay the grant, therefore it is a grant not a loan in his case

the newer loans have a much lower repayment threshold at around £17k earnings p/a and they don't get written off as easily as the older ones. My student loan is on a vastly older scheme and you could, quite easily, work all your life and never repay it due to the very high deferment figure. I have paid some years and deferred some years as earnings and jobs change.

 

[radamfi]

To me this is an easy headline grabber but honestly you shouldn't be paying inheritance tax at all. With proper "tax planning" you can easily divest the estate.

In simple terms, you have to gift away your assets more than 7 years before you die. But a lot of people who are alive are interested in holding on to their stuff as long as possible and only give away their possessions when they get too old to enjoy them, and that is often less than 7 years before death. Obviously if you die younger than expected, before you think about gifting away your assets, you will also pay tax on your estate.

I think the culture of people with property not thinking they are "rich" needs to be resolved. Earlier in this thread I pointed out that property in current British culture is seen as not part of wealth, when it really is. There is a culture of pouring all your money into the biggest house you can get. If you do that, you are really hiding your wealth. If you are "lucky" in living somewhere where your property has increased in value dramatically without you doing anything, why shouldn't you be taxed on that after your death? Better than being taxed on it when you are alive. Inheritance tax is only paid by dead people, so arguably is the fairest tax there is.

Perhaps we need a proper wealth tax like what they have in the Netherlands. They don't pay income tax on savings interest or dividends, and no capital gains tax (so no need for ISAs), but they add up all your assets and you pay 1.2% tax on it all. That way, people with property do realise they have a valuable asset.

 

[northwichcat]

Surely a loan is something you repay, my nephew has no intention of looking for employment, any employment, so he will never repay the grant, therefore it is a grant not a loan in his case

As far as covering his basic living costs, he leeches from his parents who are stupid enough to give into him, so he has no basic living costs

Ah OK. What I was getting at is for most students the grant would only cover basic living costs, so the additional repayable loan would have to be used for luxury items. It's not really fair to presume all students are lazy leeching sods.

 

[DarloRich]

In simple terms, you have to gift away your assets more than 7 years before you die. But a lot of people who are alive are interested in holding on to their stuff as long as possible and only give away their possessions when they get too old to enjoy them

that is the most simple/basic way of dealing with the issue. There are much better ones. You don't have to give anything away at all.

 

[radamfi]

that is the most simple/basic way of dealing with the issue. There are much better ones. You don't have to give anything away at all.

Really? Can you elaborate? Would this be classed by some as aggressive tax avoidance or even evasion?

 

[ExRes]

It's not really fair to presume all students are lazy leeching sods.

Quite so, that's why I didn't say that, but it's also unfair the way that some on here seem to think 'pensioners' are responsible for all the ills of humanity but, as I've found out on numerous occasions, one is not allowed to put that point over

 

[Johnuk123]

Quite so, that's why I didn't say that, but it's also unfair the way that some on here seem to think 'pensioners' are responsible for all the ills of humanity but, as I've found out on numerous occasions, one is not allowed to put that point over

Spot on.