Budget 2012

[Herr Tubthumper]

37p is pretty hefty and sends out the right message.

Which is smoke and help the nation?

 

[Simster]

I would rather look at the facts and figures rather than a knee jerk " what a disgrace ", " the rich get richer ", " same old tories ", phrases ,wasn't it explained the 50% tax raised hardly anthing and was damaging to the economy ? Also didn't the top earners and wealthiest UK citizens get proportionately richer than at anytime in history under Labour from 1997 - 2010 ?

You are correct, US. The Labour party did nothing to ease the wealth gap. IMO, they always seemed too scared to make the changes that need to be made: reduce VAT and increase and simplify income tax.

 

[The Large One]

Will be interesting to see what this does to the housing market.

A top player in the mortgage industry has already said that this will do for the housing market what the gulliotine did for wig-makers.....

Apparently - though this came from Ed Milliband - there are 4,000 properties in the UK worth more than £2m.

 

[Bozza]

Odd therefore, that George Osborn said just LAST YEAR that it wasn't the right time to remove it, with the country tightening it's belts.

What's changed then?

Nothing has changed. Let's look at the full story. Let's look at what he actually said in Budget '11:

I am clear that the 50 pence tax rate would do lasting damage to our economy if it were to become permanent.

That is why I regard it as a temporary measure. Just as my Labour predecessor, the RHM for Edinburgh South West, did when he introduced it.

I’ve said before that now wouldn’t be the right time to remove it, when we’re asking others in our society on much lower incomes to make sacrifices. For we’re all in this together.

But I think it’s sensible to see how much revenue it actually raises. I’ve asked HMRC to find out the truth when the self-assessment forms start coming in.

That assessment process, carried out by HMRC and OBR, has concluded and it has been found that the 50% band raises next to nothing. So it's not some off-the-cuff solution. It's not been rushed through with little thought.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Thats true Das. It doesn't matter whose in power.

what has a budget done for most people, NOWT IN MY BOOKS, CAN YOU HONESTLY SAY ITS AFFECTED YOUR LIFE STYLE............... honest answer no !!

 

[Simster]

Nothing has changed. Let's look at the full story. Let's look at what he actually said in Budget '11:



That assessment process, carried out by HMRC and OBR, has concluded and it has been found that the 50% band raises next to nothing. So it's not some off-the-cuff solution. It's not been rushed through with little thought.

Here's the key part of that:

I’ve said before that now wouldn’t be the right time to remove it, when we’re asking others in our society on much lower incomes to make sacrifices. For we’re all in this together.

Ultimately, he's phasing out child benefit whilst giving top earners a hefty tax cut.

And what about the other "temporary" tax measures. I remember the Tories "temporarily" upping VAT to 15%, then again to 17.5%. Then Labour upped it to 20%. When do these equally damaging tax hikes get removed then?

 

[Common as Mook]

Which is smoke and help the nation?

hahaha, Ok then.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

All in all nothing will change. Everything is still going up, the welfare bill will keep going up. How can you we reduce the welfare when we have millions unemployed and thousands of people wanting to up sticks and live in the UK. It's going to take years before this country digs itself out of this hole.

 

[gazingdown]

Arguable. We're not talking about a rate of 98% like the bad old days of the 70s. The country is in belt tightening mode, everyone is making sacrifices - except seemingly, the people who need help the least.

Even though, despite the cut, they are paying 5p in the pound MORE than they used to. They've already been in "belt-tightening" mode, except it went too far that they found it worthwhile to avoid it altogether.

What is important is the revenue generated, if lowering the rate means the country get more revenue from the rich then it's gotta be a good thing right? Ultimately the rich will be paying MORE than they are now as less of them will be seeking measures to not pay. It's daft to have a higher rate that generated LESS income than a lower rate, it helps no-one.

Ultimately the richer pay the majority of tax, you don't wanna piss them off too much as there comes a point where they say "sod this" and move their money away from the UK. Punitive tax rates like that is a short road to financial ruin just to satisfy some sense of socialist envy. How hard do you want to bite the hand that feeds........

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Apparently - though this came from Ed Milliband - there are 4,000 properties in the UK worth more than £2m.

That sounds quite a lot, really. I don't see that tax alone affecting the market too much, it's not as if a £2m house is at the top of every chain.

 

[vegster]

37p divided by 20 fags means that tax has increased by about 1.8p per fag..... wow ! that's really going to hurt, that's almost half a Mars Bar

 

[Common as Mook]

just to satisfy some sense of socialist envy.

That is Ed Milliband's "retort" reduced into 8 succinct words.

 

[Bozza]

Ultimately, he's phasing out child benefit whilst giving top earners a hefty tax cut.

So are you saying that a single Mum living on £15k per year in a rented one-bedroomed flat should receive the same level of child benefit as those who are, for example, on a very high 5 figure salary or more, living in high value owned home in commuter belt South-East England?

The lack of means testing on Child Benefit is absolutely farcical in the extreme.

3 kids equals, what, c£2500 in child benefit per year? I think someone is talking out of their own personal wallet here.

(Note: I lose too, but it's absolutely correct that I do)

 

[gazingdown]

All in all nothing will change. Everything is still going up, the welfare bill will keep going up. How can you we reduce the welfare when we have millions unemployed and thousands of people wanting to up sticks and live in the UK. It's going to take years before this country digs itself out of this hole.

To an extent, that depends on where the unemployed people are coming from. If they were all public sector/civil servants then it's a net saving as instead of paying them £30k (plus benefits/pension etc.), we just pay them a few grand on the dole.......

Anyway, that aside your point is correct. What we need to boost revenue, jobs etc. is to ensure businesses and the rich come/stay here and not go abroad. This is the reasoning, AIUI, for lower corporation tax and not overtaxing the rich.

 

[pork pie]

... ... ...
However, I morally find it wrong that the governemnt should take half of someones earnings.... ... ...

They take that off of a lot of people when NI is taken into account.

 

[Simster]

So are you saying that a single Mum living on £15k per year in a rented one-bedroomed flat should receive the same level of child benefit as those who are, for example, on a very high 5 figure salary or more, living in high value owned home in commuter belt South-East England?

The lack of means testing on Child Benefit is absolutely farcical in the extreme.

3 kids equals, what, c£2500 in child benefit per year? I think someone is talking out of their own personal wallet here.

(Note: I lose too, but it's absolutely correct that I do)

I could understand that logic if means testing was properly implemented instead of the half arsed version being implemented - see [MENTION=179]tinx[/MENTION] 's explanation above.

 

[gazingdown]

Odd therefore, that George Osborn said just LAST YEAR that it wasn't the right time to remove it, with the country tightening it's belts.

What's changed then?

I guess they've had a year of revenue figures from to ascertain that it's not bringing in as much money as it would if they reduced to 45p (see my other post).

Time will tell if they are right or not..... There's a balance somewhere, after all at the time, even the Labour chancellor Alastair Darling said it was only ever to be a temporary rate.

 

[Bozza]

I could understand that logic if means testing was properly implemented instead of the half arsed version being implemented - see [MENTION=179]tinx[/MENTION] 's explanation above.

Be serious - most/all tax and benefits features that attempts to function based on combined income are never going to work. It will be an absolutely horrific administrative headache and cost vast sums to implement and maintain. Abuse would be ridiculously easy - how do you prove a couple are together and should be assessed as such or not?

You know my personal relationship status - we could just say we are not together, have separated and are looking for new homes. We'd say tax and benefits should be assessed on an individual basis. Who's to say whether we are telling the truth or not as we pocket our Child Benefit etc?

We get it - you've taken a hit here and are feeling a bit sour about it. So have I and numerous others. We are both relatively well off - giving a bit to help others can only be right.

 

[tinx]

I could understand that logic if means testing was properly implemented instead of the half arsed version being implemented - see [MENTION=179]tinx[/MENTION] 's explanation above.

Exactly, I accept that I will lose out but when people better off than me don't lose out, it is just ridiculous. If I lose out then so should they and therefore the government make an even bigger saving whilst keeping it fair.

 

[gazingdown]

I could understand that logic if means testing was properly implemented instead of the half arsed version being implemented - see [MENTION=179]tinx[/MENTION] 's explanation above.

I agree it is a but half-arsed but I can see why they've done it this way, it's cheaper! To have means testing requires more civil servants and administration, probably negating any savings/revenue. They've gone with something relatively cheap to implement despite it's obvious anomalies. The bottom line is that it will raise/save more money.