The 'Emergency' Budget

[TheKnightWho]

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

Clearly bone idle doing all that uni work.

Down the mines with the lot of them!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

You just did put it over, numerous times, and people agreed with you. You are not being persecuted because some people disagree with you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
With regards to the budget itself, I was rather surprised to see numerous tax cuts when cutting the deficit is apparently our greatest priority. It's possible that doing so would actually generate larger income with business taxes, but certainly not with inheritance tax.

 

[radamfi]

The increase in car tax was greeted with relatively little criticism. Even the RAC Foundation excused it: "Costs for many drivers will rise, but two things help offset the financial pain. One is that new car prices have dropped in real terms over many years and the other is that money raised from VED will be ring-fenced for road investment, something not seen since the 1930s."

If it came from a Labour chancellor, it would be considered to be a continuation of the "war on the motorist". The "ring-fencing" is meaningless as it just means less money will come from other sources. Even the government say it is just for maintenance, not "investment" as claimed by the RAC Foundation.

 

[DarloRich]

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

I wouldn't like to elaborate in detail as I am not a certified accountant nor am I lawyer but there is loads of information in the public domain. In general you can use trusts to secure money for particular purposes, maximise the use of the nil rate band, divert the income from pension/life insurance schemes to a trust, use all of your gift exemptions, give to charity, give wedding gifts etc.

This is all before you look into how you own and occupy your home and move onto the more complex schemes that exist.

It is called "tax planning" if you avail yourself of the various legal opportunities to dispose of your estate in a tax efficient manner. It is tax evasion if you dishonestly seek to avoid the payment of tax.

PS: Make sure you have a will and ensure you seek the appropriate professional advice before undertaking any tax planning!

PPS i believe Roy Jenkins once said: “Inheritance Tax is a voluntary levy paid by those who distrust their heirs more than they dislike the Inland Revenue”

 

[radamfi]

PS: Make sure you have a will

You only need a will if you care what happens after you die.

 

[DarloRich]

You only need a will if you care what happens after you die.

well if you have a lot of assets it might be an idea, if only to stop the family fighting over everything Also the intestacy rules are much less generous and more defined than the rules covering probate. It is also very difficult to be tax efficient without a will.

 

[me123]

Introducing a new minimum wage for over 25s will make things at my work place quite interesting. I can see supervisors getting a larger than normal pay-rise to help maintain a premium between what the front-line staff will be on (£7.20) to what a supervisor will be on. Otherwise I can see some of the supervisors stepping down, the extra workload and stress not worth the additional ~30p an hour.

When I worked in a supermarket, we had supervisors who were under 25. At their pay grade, they'd be potentially earning less by the end of this government than the minimum wage for an over-25 year old! I certainly hope that the pay differential is maintained so that the additional level of responsibility is recognised, and there is incentive to progress within the company. (The two "young" supervisors were working their way through the company towards, ultimately, a management position, and I'd hate to see their career progression hampered).

I think the pay differential in the minimum wage should be absolutely the same regardless of age. I don't see why my time is worth any less than someone just a year older. It makes no sense. Clearly, it's just being done to offset the costs of the minimum wage to employers, and there's minimum resistance to the idea because
1. Young people aren't fairly represented.
2. We're all delinquents (at least that's how we're portrayed), and so we don't deserve the money
3. The vast majority of us are going to proceed to the age of 25 and earn the upper tier anyway at some point, at which point we'll stop whinging.

Try suggesting that people over the age of 65 should be paid less per hour and just see what happens... I don't condone paying older works less, of course, but it's interesting that that sort of discrimination wouldn't be acceptable, yet this is.

It's young families who are the biggest losers here. Young parents under the age of 25 aren't being given the same rise in the minimum wage promised to their older counterparts, and the cut in tax credits will only serve to harm this group further. Some have calculated that young families with low income are going to lose between £850-1000 per annum.

VED change is horrendous. After the first year, it will benefit those with more expensive cars whilst penalising those with smaller and cheaper fuel efficient cars. It will remove a key incentive in purchasing a more environmentally friendly vehicle.

This is a very Conservative budget. Hidden amongst the good news (and there are some genuinely good things here, such as the continued increase in income tax threshold to £11,000), there is an ongoing assault on the most vulnerable in society. It also continues to impede social mobility - the poorest students are going to be even further discouraged from studying by the withdrawal of their grants (converting it into even more debt). Whilst us young people take the slack, I can't see much that's going to affect the older members of our society.

And what happened to the Northern Powerhouse?

 

[ExRes]

Clearly bone idle doing all that uni work.

Down the mines with the lot of them!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You just did put it over, numerous times, and people agreed with you. You are not being persecuted because some people disagree with you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
With regards to the budget itself, I was rather surprised to see numerous tax cuts when cutting the deficit is apparently our greatest priority. It's possible that doing so would actually generate larger income with business taxes, but certainly not with inheritance tax.

You have no idea whatsoever how much work he doe's/doesn't do at uni, for your information he chops and changes around and hasn't finished a single subject in 7 or 8 years, which I and every other tax payer has underwritten for him by our years of work and contributions, maybe he's even wasting money that you've worked for, certainly your family

I find your suggestion of sending him down the mines pretty pathetic, perhaps you meant it as a joke ?

As for your surprise at tax cuts, some believe that cutting taxes makes people individually work harder and, in the end, leads to increased tax contributions from both them and business

 

[muddythefish]

If it came from a Labour chancellor, it would be considered to be a continuation of the "war on the motorist". The "ring-fencing" is meaningless as it just means less money will come from other sources. Even the government say it is just for maintenance, not "investment" as claimed by the RAC Foundation.

The Budget as a whole contained alot of measures that would have been applauded by Ed Balls and Gordon Brown but because of its inherent right wing bias was given a warm welcome by the media.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You have no idea whatsoever how much work he doe's/doesn't do at uni, for your information he chops and changes around and hasn't finished a single subject in 7 or 8 years, which I and every other tax payer has underwritten for him by our years of work and contributions, maybe he's even wasting money that you've worked for, certainly your family

I find your suggestion of sending him down the mines pretty pathetic, perhaps you meant it as a joke ?

As for your surprise at tax cuts, some believe that cutting taxes makes people individually work harder and, in the end, leads to increased tax contributions from both them and business

It was a joke.

Also, I am perfectly aware of how tax cuts work. If you actually read my post rather than blinding yourself with outrage at the audacity of someone who challenged your sacred opinion, you would see I was questioning inheritance taxes, which don't work in the way you describe.

 

[Polarbear]

There were a couple of interesting discussions on The World at One today. The first interview was with a representative from the IFS who basically said that people at the bottom WILL be worse off under the measures announced in the budget. Perversely, it's those who are already in work and claiming tax credits to supplement low wages that will suffer, as the uplift to £9 per hour by 2020 will not make up the shortfall that will disappear under the reform to tax credits.

The second interview was with a UNISON representative. Despite a lot of rhetoric that suggests public sector workers have good wages (and are generally lazy-a frequent accusation that annoys me intensely as there are lazy people in all walks of life), a significant number of people are paid below the magical £9 per hour due to be paid by 2020. Certainly where I work, the two lowest grades are paid well below this, with the maximum for the second tier grade being £9.14 per hour at present.

My question is, how do you raise those pay levels, retain a pay differential between the lowest two grades whilst staying within a 1% pay remit. Answer is, it's not possible as those working at the lowest grades will typically have to see their pay rate rise by between 16% and 23%.

If these increases come out of the 1% remit, it would mean that the majority of public sector workers will receive no pay rise for at least four years & probably for sometime after that. Whilst the government wants to shrink th public sector, I can see a flight of experience leaving the services over the next few years which will result in recruitment issues in many key sectors.

And for anyone who suggests this is a good thing, I sincerely hope you never have a fire, a medical emergency, or need you council to address serious issues, as we are fast heading for a situation where no one will want to work in those roles.

Sorry, while there are element of the budget that are good, it's a pretty thinly veiled attack on those sectors of society that cannot retaliate against millionaire politicians who remain largely unaccountable during their five years of tenure.

 

[tony6499]

There were a couple of interesting discussions on The World at One today. The first interview was with a representative from the IFS who basically said that people at the bottom WILL be worse off under the measures announced in the budget. Perversely, it's those who are already in work and claiming tax credits to supplement low wages that will suffer, as the uplift to £9 per hour by 2020 will not make up the shortfall that will disappear under the reform to tax credits.

The second interview was with a UNISON representative. Despite a lot of rhetoric that suggests public sector workers have good wages (and are generally lazy-a frequent accusation that annoys me intensely as there are lazy people in all walks of life), a significant number of people are paid below the magical £9 per hour due to be paid by 2020. Certainly where I work, the two lowest grades are paid well below this, with the maximum for the second tier grade being £9.14 per hour at present.

My question is, how do you raise those pay levels, retain a pay differential between the lowest two grades whilst staying within a 1% pay remit. Answer is, it's not possible as those working at the lowest grades will typically have to see their pay rate rise by between 16% and 23%.

If these increases come out of the 1% remit, it would mean that the majority of public sector workers will receive no pay rise for at least four years & probably for sometime after that. Whilst the government wants to shrink th public sector, I can see a flight of experience leaving the services over the next few years which will result in recruitment issues in many key sectors.

And for anyone who suggests this is a good thing, I sincerely hope you never have a fire, a medical emergency, or need you council to address serious issues, as we are fast heading for a situation where no one will want to work in those roles.

Sorry, while there are element of the budget that are good, it's a pretty thinly veiled attack on those sectors of society that cannot retaliate against millionaire politicians who remain largely unaccountable during their five years of tenure.

Very well put

 

[ExRes]

It was a joke.

Also, I am perfectly aware of how tax cuts work. If you actually read my post rather than blinding yourself with outrage at the audacity of someone who challenged your sacred opinion, you would see I was questioning inheritance taxes, which don't work in the way you describe.

Shame you can't parcel your verbal garbage up and sell it, you'd be a tax exile in no time

I notice you don't quote my first paragraph in your response though, as you never respond to anyone who calls your bluff, do you ?

'Outrage' ?, I wouldn't waste my breath

 

[me123]

IFS analysis is a real eye-opener. Have a look at slide 12. Makes me feel sick.

 

[AntoniC]

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.

I am actually the second lowest grade in the Civil Service but have been lucky to be top of my grade for the last 24 years (been in the same department for 27 years with no promotions).

But bottom line for me is I still have a job .... for now anyway

 

[TheKnightWho]

Shame you can't parcel your verbal garbage up and sell it, you'd be a tax exile in no time

I notice you don't quote my first paragraph in your response though, as you never respond to anyone who calls your bluff, do you ?

'Outrage' ?, I wouldn't waste my breath

I'm not even going to bother giving this a proper reply. When you want to talk like an actual adult, I'll be happy to engage.

You'll also notice that I quote your entire post. However, I also notice that you ignore the actual point I made against your previous post. Pot? Kettle? Black?

 

[meridian2]

You have no idea whatsoever how much work he doe's/doesn't do at uni, for your information he chops and changes around and hasn't finished a single subject in 7 or 8 years, which I and every other tax payer has underwritten for him by our years of work and contributions, maybe he's even wasting money that you've worked for,

Maybe he/she should've invested in a real course not social studies or media studies and then the 8 years of taxpayer's money wouldn't have gone to waste.

:roll:

 

[Skutter]

You have no idea whatsoever how much work he doe's/doesn't do at uni, for your information he chops and changes around and hasn't finished a single subject in 7 or 8 years, which I and every other tax payer has underwritten for him by our years of work and contributions, maybe he's even wasting money that you've worked for, certainly your family

I find your suggestion of sending him down the mines pretty pathetic, perhaps you meant it as a joke ?

As for your surprise at tax cuts, some believe that cutting taxes makes people individually work harder and, in the end, leads to increased tax contributions from both them and business

How much taxpayer's money has your relative actually had - it sounds like most of it has really come from his parents. Once you're a student you lose all sorts of housing and income related benefits, and student loans are real loans which hang over you for the next 30 years and (these days) have real interest rates.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Like matters in governmental circles, I have given this thread a second reading. It seems an opportune time to have an official re-enactment of Magna Carta.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Like matters in governmental circles, I have given this thread a second reading. It seems an opportune time to have an official re-enactment of Magna Carta.

It's still in force (albeit mostly repealed).

 

[WelshBluebird]

And for anyone who suggests this is a good thing, I sincerely hope you never have a fire, a medical emergency, or need you council to address serious issues, as we are fast heading for a situation where no one will want to work in those roles.

Or even something as menial as having to sort out your tax payments!
Over the last 10-15 years a lot of experienced people have left HMRC (or whatever name it has been called in that time period) and have been replaced with fresh out of university graduates who have had little training before being put straight onto the phones to deal with the public.

 

[northwichcat]

IFS analysis is a real eye-opener. Have a look at slide 12. Makes me feel sick.

I think the general gist of it is most people will be worse off as a result of the budget. The exception being the richest, exactly what Badger89 predicted in post 2.

The IFS did warn us. Pre-election they said the Conservative's were presenting a misleading plan while they said Labour's plan was too vague and the Lib Dems had a full transparent plan. Yet when voters voted it seems a full transparent plan was unpopular, a vague plan was more popular but the misleading plan was the most popular.

 

[Polarbear]

Or even something as menial as having to sort out your tax payments!
Over the last 10-15 years a lot of experienced people have left HMRC (or whatever name it has been called in that time period) and have been replaced with fresh out of university graduates who have had little training before being put straight onto the phones to deal with the public.

I can certainly vouch for this. Experienced people either leave to get better jobs elsewhere or retire (many of those experienced people had been with HMRC or its predecessors for years). The other option is promotion which does give an improvement in pay, but with a trade off of worsening terms & conditions, not to mention a further increase in pension contributions. But hey, we're all in it together aren't we?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I can certainly vouch for this. Experienced people either leave to get better jobs elsewhere or retire (many of those experienced people had been with HMRC or its predecessors for years). The other option is promotion which does give an improvement in pay, but with a trade off of worsening terms & conditions, not to mention a further increase in pension contributions. But hey, we're all in it together aren't we?

The ultimate irony of this is that I can well see that if (very likely) the service gets poorer thanks to experienced people leaving, many of the public are going to start thinking along the lines of 'why are we paying for this? The Civil Service is clearly incompetent, it should get less money so we can have lower taxes' - and that could easily lead to a vicious circle that will - in political terms - suit small-government-right-wingers perfectly but will be disastrous for the UK as a whole

 

[Polarbear]

The ultimate irony of this is that I can well see that if (very likely) the service gets poorer thanks to experienced people leaving, many of the public are going to start thinking along the lines of 'why are we paying for this? The Civil Service is clearly incompetent, it should get less money so we can have lower taxes' - and that could easily lead to a vicious circle that will - in political terms - suit small-government-right-wingers perfectly but will be disastrous for the UK as a whole

I agree wholeheartedly with you & it's something that's been happening for many years now. What worries me is that public sector workers also include those working within the NHS. Now my personal experiences of NHS staff have been overwhelmingly good but if the current trend of demonisation of those who work in public services continues, it sets a very dangerous precedent for the level of service that will be provided in the future.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the general gist of it is most people will be worse off as a result of the budget. The exception being the richest, exactly what Badger89 predicted in post 2.

The IFS did warn us. Pre-election they said the Conservative's were presenting a misleading plan while they said Labour's plan was too vague and the Lib Dems had a full transparent plan. Yet when voters voted it seems a full transparent plan was unpopular, a vague plan was more popular but the misleading plan was the most popular.

Yep - and there's a very clear trend in most of the graph linked to that the poorer you are, the more badly you get hit. Indeed according to the graph the only people who end up (on average) very slightly better off are the ones in the 2nd richest decile (the ones who if you lined everyone up in order of their incomes, would come in the top 10-20%). Everyone else becomes worse off, but whereas the very richest 10% become 2% worse off, but the poorest 30% are on average losing around 5-7% of their income. Considering this will include many people who are already practically living hand-to-mouth, that can't be good.

That kind of significant growth in inequality is not merely going to be disastrous personally for many of the poorest in the UK, but is also likely to affect all of us to some extent because of the tendency for greater inequality to lead to a less stable society, more crime, etc.

 

[transmanche]

IFS analysis is a real eye-opener. Have a look at slide 12. Makes me feel sick.

The Independent picked up on that today, using an annotated version of that graph from the IFS:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's still in force (albeit mostly repealed).

Hence the use of the word "re-enactment" in my posting.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Hence the use of the word "re-enactment" in my posting.

I assumed you thought it was no longer in force

 

[ExRes]

I'm not even going to bother giving this a proper reply. When you want to talk like an actual adult, I'll be happy to engage.

You'll also notice that I quote your entire post. However, I also notice that you ignore the actual point I made against your previous post. Pot? Kettle? Black?

You never give a proper reply anyway, just your own tedious version of the 'truth', I'd be extremely happy if you wouldn't engage in future, then I wouldn't have to put up with your overbearing childishness, which is why I'm always tempted to reply in the same manner

Did you make a point in your post ?, I'll have a look later and see if I can find it
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe he/she should've invested in a real course not social studies or media studies and then the 8 years of taxpayer's money wouldn't have gone to waste.

:roll:

Exactly right, but how and why is he able to waste everyones time and money, incidentally, one of his 'courses' was Technical Drawing, that didn't do any better than social/media studies either
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You'll also notice that I quote your entire post. However, I also notice that you ignore the actual point I made against your previous post. Pot? Kettle? Black?

No, I can't find any 'actual point' that is deserving of a response

 

[TheKnightWho]

You never give a proper reply anyway, just your own tedious version of the 'truth', I'd be extremely happy if you wouldn't engage in future, then I wouldn't have to put up with your overbearing childishness, which is why I'm always tempted to reply in the same manner

Did you make a point in your post ?, I'll have a look later and see if I can find it
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Exactly right, but how and why is he able to waste everyones time and money, incidentally, one of his 'courses' was Technical Drawing, that didn't do any better than social/media studies either
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No, I can't find any 'actual point' that is deserving of a response

No, you're just constantly outraged that anyone disagrees with you and interpret it as a personal attack on you and your free speech

I've given you many thoughtful answers before, and your only replies have been that you feel you're being silenced. Frankly, there's no point doing anything other than laugh at you at this stage. So I will.