Budget 2012

[ROSM]

Thank you - so my original post was correct !

yes you are - please accept my apologies

 

[Simster]

So the £55k earner pays approx 21% tax on his smaller income, and the £1m earner appprox 43% on his bigger income. Unfair?

No, obviously not. Progressive taxation is as it should be. I'm not arguing that point.

I'm genuinely not sure what your "this" is in your closing sentence.

However, those who moan about "hefty tax cuts for the rich fat cats" would do well to remember that not only does a "fat cat" contribute more in absolute terms, but also surrenders a far higher proportion of their gross earnings in tax. I know I wouldn't like to give up over 40% of my entire income to the exchequer as Mr. Million-quid-a-year has to.

"This" refers to my example where a bond trader or a soccerist can earn £1m whereas a head teacher can earn £55k. The price we pay for living in a market economy is that earnings are not related to social contribution, but on what the market will bear. My single point is that I feel a taxation policy ought to partly redress this.

 

[yxee]

On the other hand, income tax for earners over £150k goes down to 45% from 50%.

Clearly we're all in it together.

I think I'm right in saying the move is calculated to hit the rich equally, but with a shift from taxing incomes towards taxing wealth. That makes sense to me, money locked up in a house doesn't do much for the economy.

 

[Titanic]

"This" refers to my example where a bond trader or a soccerist can earn £1m whereas a head teacher can earn £55k. The price we pay for living in a market economy is that earnings are not related to social contribution, but on what the market will bear. My single point is that I feel a taxation policy ought to partly redress this.

so which bit of "the £55k earner pays approx 21% tax on his smaller income, and the £1m earner appprox 43% on his bigger income" does not 'partly redress this' then?

 

[ROSM]

The perception is that the Labour/ New Labour/ Left Wingers (whatever term you wish to classify people with these views), think that it's right to penalise those who are successful.

Yes, £570k is a huge amount of money, but then £430k is a f***ing shed-load of tax. That's about what 38 head masters would be paying combined.

Whatever the starting point - is making reductions to this population this the correct approach give the situation we are now in? if we are looking as cuts as a stimulus to kickstart the economy then the body who will do most are the 40-80k earners (who pay on average 90% of any additional £1 back into the Uk economy) or the over 150k (who pay on average 61% back)?

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

How the hell does the middle class in the UK make ends meet? Every time I get those uncontrollable home sickness pains, I remind myself that the UK (like most of Europe) is taxing itself into oblivion. Europeans are now conditioned (and fully accept) a principle of paying the Government 50% of their wages in tax and with whats left pay 5 quid for a gallon of petrol and 3 quid for 16oz of slightly alcoholic hop infused water. I'm amazed the debate isn't about when and where the revolution will begin? Clearly it's FAR from perfect in the good old US of A but mama mia, why is it acceptable to work from Jan 1st to June 30th each year for the benefit of the state?

Completely agree. I’m horrified when I look back at how much it used to cost me just to get into work in London when I was in the UK. Admittedly petrol costs have got worse in the States, but it’s still less than half what you pay in the UK. You felt like you were always knocking your pan out at work but getting shafted royally by the Inland Revenue for the privilege. Even after Federal Tax and New York State tax I’m paying less than I used to pay in the UK.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Absolutely - Child Benefit is such a ridiculous thing - it should simply be scrapped completely and incorporated into other properly (or at least better) means tested elements of the welfare system.

Imagine the uproar from commuter belt Surrey if that happened though. It would be ggggggggrrrrrrrrrrr-central.

Agreed , it should be abolished and alternative payments absorbed into Universal Credit or Working/Childrens Tax Credit for the first 2 children.

 

[jakarta]

Agreed , it should be abolished and alternative payments absorbed into Universal Credit or Working/Childrens Tax Credit for the first 2 children.

Again I ask NSC for a rational reason why Child Benefit exists at all - why should the State (i.e. taxpayers) pay for the completely optional decision for people to breed?

 

[beorhthelm]

Again I ask NSC for a rational reason why Child Benefit exists at all - why should the State (i.e. taxpayers) pay for the completely optional decision for people to breed?

because after the war, when it was introduced, the powers that be wanted to ensure we repopulated a country where many had died. they wanted to encourage people to breed and didnt want certain classes to have a kid then not be able to look after them properly (and gave it to the mother because they didnt trust Father not to spend it down the pub).

 

[drew]

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)

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.

Personally, I think all benefits should be means tested whether they be child benefit or winter fuel allowance. Would be initial problems but if you penalise heavily those that breach the principles. Still, you could say that about the likes of Green and he collects his earnings.

CBI director-general, John Cridland: "by putting more money in the pockets of ordinary people, the chancellor has provided a much-needed confidence boost"

I think that comment is more a reflection of the types of friends that he mixes with and therefore considers them ordinary.

To use a crappy analogy Think of a meal out. It costs £30 now. You pay it and restaurant get £30 of revenue from you.

The restaurant wants more money so put it up to £40. You decide it's not worth it and don't have that meal and the restaurant get £0 revenue from you.

The restaurant alternatively decide to put the price to £35 and you decide that, yes you can stretch to that. The restaurant then get £35 in revenue.

In other words the restaurant get more revenue from meals being £35 than being £40.

Very poor analogy. If you change it so that the restaurant are charging £50 and get 50 customers. However, if 10 of those customers are able to get away with only paying £40 are they going to start paying £45 if the restarant bring their price down to £45 or are they more likely to continue to pocket the £5 saving.

exactly , COUPLES WITHOUT KIDS ALWAYS GET CLOBBERED TO BAIL THE OTHERS OUT, been going on for years, easy targets.

Whether you like it or not or for whatever you and your partner chose not to have kids, there will come a time when the younger generation in one way or another will be looking after you.

Make up your mind !!!!! How is £200 in a £10k income a HEFTY tax cut. You're letting your hatred of the Tories get in the way of the figures.

Those earning over £150k will get a 5% reduction. Those under £100k are going to get a 23% increase in personal allowance. I'd say that somewhat favours lower paid people !

Have you done the math? The increase in the personal allowance is supposed to benefit 24m to the tune of £220 per year. The 5% drop in top rate tax will save £2,500 per year. Do you think that still benefits the lower paid?

The perception is that the Labour/ New Labour/ Left Wingers (whatever term you wish to classify people with these views), think that it's right to penalise those who are successful.

Yes, £570k is a huge amount of money, but then £430k is a f***ing shed-load of tax. That's about what 38 head masters would be paying combined.

I think you have a blinkered tory view. The left believe that those that can should help those that can't. Simple as.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The left believe that those that can should help those that can't. Simple as.

What about those that won't though

 

[beorhthelm]

the 50% tax change ,some perspective:

the cut is politically motivated. so was introduction in the first place. it didnt raise us much as expected because people did leave the country, those effected are those most flexible and able to simply relocate (at least for tax, still spending half the year at home.). will the reduction bring them back? probably not, but might do for some of the obsenely high earners. a 1million earner would save ~40k.

so now a 1million earner will pay "only" 382.5k tax, where as yesturday they paid 425k tax. i dont really know which way to look at that, except they look like they are paying their fair share either way.

if the higher tax is so justified and important to social and economic cohesion, why was it only intorduced in 2009? a little time bomb left on the incoming Tory chancellors desk "here you go, £100bn+ deficit and a policy your backbenchers will hate"

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

Agreed , it should be abolished and alternative payments absorbed into Universal Credit or Working/Childrens Tax Credit for the first 2 children.

Scrap all benefits as they are
Unemployed get £100 pw
Pensioners get £150pw
Tax doesn't start until you get an income of £10,000 pa
20% tax on all earnings in excess of £10,001 up to £25,000pa
25% tax on all earning in excess of £25,001 up to £40,000pa
40% tax on all earning in excess of £40,001 up to infinity

We need entrepreneurs and high end earners to employ people and fuel the engine of the economy.

Simple tax system like above would save about 500,000 civil servants, get them out earning and generating real wealth in the private sector.

So bloody simple and fair.

Sort it

TNBA

TTF

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Osbourne has got absolutely slaughtered in the papers today, even the Tory one's !

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Personally, I think all benefits should be means tested whether they be child benefit or winter fuel allowance. Would be initial problems but if you penalise heavily those that breach the principles. Still, you could say that about the likes of Green and he collects his earnings.



I think that comment is more a reflection of the types of friends that he mixes with and therefore considers them ordinary.

Very poor analogy. If you change it so that the restaurant are charging £50 and get 50 customers. However, if 10 of those customers are able to get away with only paying £40 are they going to start paying £45 if the restarant bring their price down to £45 or are they more likely to continue to pocket the £5 saving.



Whether you like it or not or for whatever you and your partner chose not to have kids, there will come a time when the younger generation in one way or another will be looking after you.



Have you done the math? The increase in the personal allowance is supposed to benefit 24m to the tune of £220 per year. The 5% drop in top rate tax will save £2,500 per year. Do you think that still benefits the lower paid?



I think you have a blinkered tory view. The left believe that those that can should help those that can't. Simple as.

SHOULDN'T PARENTS BE TAKING FULL RESPONSIBILLITY FOR THEIR CHILDREN, this child allowance is old hat OR MAYBE CHILDLESS COUPLES COULD GET AN ALLOWANCE OF SOME SORT ?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

SHOULDN'T PARENTS BE TAKING FULL RESPONSIBILLITY FOR THEIR CHILDREN, this child allowance is old hat OR MAYBE CHILDLESS COUPLES COULD GET AN ALLOWANCE OF SOME SORT ?

I've always wondered why the state has to pay for a large number of kids. I could see, possibly, that if you want to have, say, up to 3, then you get child benefit, but anything over that should be your responsibility - you chose to have more than that, then ensure that you can afford it. Unfortunately, it won't stop some people having loads of kids when they can't afford it, and it would be the kids that suffer. Sad to say, there are many people that are that stupid.

 

[ROSM]

SHOULDN'T PARENTS BE TAKING FULL RESPONSIBILLITY FOR THEIR CHILDREN, this child allowance is old hat OR MAYBE CHILDLESS COUPLES COULD GET AN ALLOWANCE OF SOME SORT ?

I understand your view and largely agree. However is now the right time to be removing it given the need to kick start the economy (as opposed to other reductions in expenditure/increases in income that could have been made)? Also, is how it has been done (two people earning 49k each keep it, one earning 60k loses it) the right approach?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I've always wondered why the state has to pay for a large number of kids. I could see, possibly, that if you want to have, say, up to 3, then you get child benefit, but anything over that should be your responsibility - you chose to have more than that, then ensure that you can afford it. Unfortunately, it won't stop some people having loads of kids when they can't afford it, and it would be the kids that suffer. Sad to say, there are many people that are that stupid.

this has always been an argument , don't get me wrong I'm not against families it's just that i don't see why other categories have to pick up the pieces for them .

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I understand your view and largely agree. However is now the right time to be removing it given the need to kick start the economy (as opposed to other reductions in expenditure/increases in income that could have been made)? Also, is how it has been done (two people earning 49k each keep it, one earning 60k loses it) the right approach?

outrageous isn't it. 98k joint income and you need child benefit , NICE BIT OF POCKET MONEY

 

[Simster]

outrageous isn't it. 98k joint income and you need child benefit , NICE BIT OF POCKET MONEY

Spot on. Means test it properly or not at all. Or just abandon it for everyone. This way is half arsed.