July 2015 budget

[nwgull]

How do you know what I or others do? It's just a guess isn't it?

You'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't, at what can be found out about a person's financial affairs with minimal IT skills and a few clicks.

 

[Bozza]

IBut if you want to know about me personally, I'm slightly better off.

No thanks - I have no interest in how the budget affected you, and nor was I asking.

I was responding to a question seemingly posed to me specifically "Well lets hope you came out of this budget ok, as long as you are all right who cares?"

 

[Simster]

You'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't, at what can be found out about a person's financial affairs with minimal IT skills and a few clicks.

He was responding to this notion of Chicken Run's that most people who talk about the poor and disadvantaged do nothing to help them.

How does he know that?

 

[vegster]

I appreciate your concern, but I genuinely have no idea how today affects me.

I earn a decent, but not spectacular wage. My partner has not been able to find work since we moved back to Sussex from Somerset. I pay a decent chunk of what I earn in maintenance and previously freely gave nearly all of what I had accrued with my then wife in order that she could secure a decent home for herself and our daughter.

What little I did retain from that I then spent, and more besides, when I coughed up c£40,000 in legal fees fighting a move to take my daughter to live permanently in Dubai.

To all intents and purposes I restarted financially sometime around my 40th birthday. That's not ideal.

I'm not moaning, I do a lot better than a lot of people and I'm appreciative of that.

How was today for you?

Hang on, I thought you were the same Bozza who enjoyed toasting the Tories election victory with a fine bottle of Chateaux Something or other ?

 

[Triggaaar]

It looks as if they've kept their promises to the wealthy but not the disabled

What did they promise the disabled?

Bump

 

[Bozza]

Hang on, I thought you were the same Bozza who enjoyed toasting the Tories election victory with a fine bottle of Chateaux Something or other ?

Not really. I took a photo of several bottles of champagne. They were gifts for my partner who had just turned 40 and, as such, were not consumed either then or since.

I enjoy ribbing some of our more militant left-leaning friends and the election result was an open goal in that regard.

However, I'm not sure there's anything about my personal circumstances that indicate I wouldn't or shouldn't be right-leaning.

 

[El Presidente]

Bump

Mark Lever, Chief Executive of the National Autistic Society, said:

"The Government has broken its promise to protect disability benefits. We are pleased to see that the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is being protected, but people on the autism spectrum will have to cope with huge pressures if the Government goes ahead with a cut to the lower rate of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which helps cover basic costs for thousands of autistic people who are unable to work.

 

[Flex Your Head]

It is hard to understand a world where a government legislates to protect the wealth of children whose parents have £1,000,000 'left over' whilst cutting money to children whose parents have little to nothing.

 

[Triggaaar]

Mark Lever, Chief Executive of the National Autistic Society, said:

"The Government has broken its promise to protect disability benefits

Any idea what promise that was? I can't find anything about it.

It is hard to understand a world where a government legislates to protect the wealth of children whose parents have £1,000,000 'left over'

Left over? You make it sound like it was spare change in their back pocket, but Simster says it's mostly from their homes. We could of course raise IHT to the extent that people don't bother saving, sell their homes and spend the cash and live off the state instead.

 

[vegster]

Not really. I took a photo of several bottles of champagne. They were gifts for my partner who had just turned 40 and, as such, were not consumed either then or since.

I enjoy ribbing some of our more militant left-leaning friends and the election result was an open goal in that regard.

However, I'm not sure there's anything about my personal circumstances that indicate I wouldn't or shouldn't be right-leaning.

In that case I had better apologise for the rather blunt " Just so long as you are ok " part of my post, it seemed to me that you were rather revelling in being a Fat Cat " I'm all right " Tory. Now it seems you are closer to the Stokers than the bridge after all.

 

[nwgull]

He was responding to this notion of Chicken Run's that most people who talk about the poor and disadvantaged do nothing to help them.

How does he know that?

HT said that it was just a guess. However, anyone working as a Ltd. company has to submit accounts to companies house, which are publicly available. This won't give every detail, but gives a fairly good indication of how you set yourself up for tax payment, which is what this whole left/right wing budget discussion is about, isn't it?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

It is hard to understand a world where a government legislates to protect the wealth of children whose parents have £1,000,000 'left over' whilst cutting money to children whose parents have little to nothing.

I agree with you. Unfortunately 36.9% of the people who were registered, able and motivated to vote in the General Election decided that such a government was in their best interest.

I know it has all been said a million times but the significance of Tory delight in abolishing IHT for extremely wealthy people, while at the same time cutting benefits for disadvantaged and disabled people who have had no real opportunity, cannot be overstated.

 

[LamieRobertson]

HT said that it was just a guess. However, anyone working as a Ltd. company has to submit accounts to companies house, which are publicly available. This won't give every detail, but gives a fairly good indication of how you set yourself up for tax payment, which is what this whole left/right wing budget discussion is about, isn't it?

no profit and loss account for starters...it could be said they don't give much detail at all....re the left/right wing bit...it is interesting that one of the biggest rushes to go 'Limited' was created by the then chancellor Gordon Brown who at one stage knocked corporation tax to zero for the first 10k in profit...at the time i recall the personal allowance was in the region of 5k ..it meant a lot of sole traders could earn 15k net without paying any tax or NI ..needless to say it was changed a i think to 10% initially and then back to the normal rate..slightly ironic that he did it in the first place considering his left leaning.

 

[nwgull]

no profit and loss account for starters...it could be said they don't give much detail at all....re the left/right wing bit...it is interesting that one of the biggest rushes to go 'Limited' was created by the then chancellor Gordon Brown who at one stage knocked corporation tax to zero for the first 10k in profit...at the time i recall the personal allowance was in the region of 5k ..it meant a lot of sole traders could earn 15k net without paying any tax or NI ..needless to say it was changed a i think to 10% initially and then back to the normal rate..slightly ironic that he did it in the first place considering his left leaning.

Not everything I agree, but an indication. For example, setting up as a 1 man ltd company is tax 'efficiency' in itself by avoidance of NI payments. Another example would be that a few of the 1 man companies that I know have their wives as either co-director or company secretary to be able to pay them a dividend and use their tax allowance.

I'm making no judgement on the morality of any of this - no-one likes
paying tax - just pointing out that this sort of thing is freely available info.

 

[Bozza]

In that case I had better apologise for the rather blunt " Just so long as you are ok " part of my post, it seemed to me that you were rather revelling in being a Fat Cat " I'm all right " Tory. Now it seems you are closer to the Stokers than the bridge after all.

No apology needed. As I say, I'm appreciative that there are a lot of people worse off than us but I'm not wiping my arse with £50 notes. Not even fivers.

 

[soistes]

"This will be a Budget for working people..."

Leaving aside the question of whether this was really a budget for all working people (as the IFS estimates suggest that a fair few, tax credit recipients in particular, will be worse off, even after the proposed increase in the minimum wage), this persistent rhetorical emphasis on "working people" (sometimes "hard working people") is very revealing and very symbolic. I've nothing against working people, not least because I am one, but this continual harping on about them seems to imply that working people are the only people who matter, or the people who matter the most, or the people who somehow "deserve" to benefit the most from budget changes. This isn't just a Tory thing these days; all the parties seem to use this rhetoric. But when you look at the statistics - the most recent ONS mid-year population estimates (for June 2014) tell us that the UK population is estimated to be 64,596,800. The most recent estimates (from the Labour Force Survey, published by ONS) tell us that there are 31,053,000 working people in the UK. So "This will be a budget for 48% of the population". Never mind the non-working people who, are still, as it happens a majority of the population, including children (of whom more will be in poverty following recent changes), sick and disabled people who can't work (of whom more will struggle following the cuts to ESA), and of course elderly people..... You could, of course, argue that many working people are best-placed to look after themselves, and the role of government and the welfare state should be to ensure that those who can't or shouldn't be working have a good life and a good standard of living. I look forward to the chancellor who has the courage to say "This will be a Budget for non-working people..."

 

[BLOCK F]

I agree with you. Unfortunately 36.9% of the people who were registered, able and motivated to vote in the General Election decided that such a government was in their best interest.

I know it has all been said a million times but the significance of Tory delight in abolishing IHT for extremely wealthy people, while at the same time cutting benefits for disadvantaged and disabled people who have had no real opportunity, cannot be overstated.

I think that many people who voted for the Conservatives, including myself, rapidly came to the conclusion that the Labour Party were unelectable and Ed fell well short of being PM material.
We probably disagree on the definition of 'extremely wealthy' people; however, don't presume that all Tory voters are evil ,selfish, uncaring individuals.
Finally,no Budget or Government will ever please everybody,it is impossible;but at least this Government wants to try and give hope to those who wish to take responsibility for their own lives rather than just say more money is the answer and chuck a few more crumbs at the disadvantaged to keep them happy.Yes,there is a poverty trap and it is one hell of problem to solve, but somewhere along the line,it has got to be made more attractive for those who can,to work rather than give up hope and think that festering on benefits is all that is ahead of them.I, along with many others,I suspect, would like to see help targetted more accurately at those who really need it.It is another topic entirely, but ,at present, there is one hell of a lot of waste and inefficiency abounding in welfare budgets.

 

[beorhthelm]

... So "This will be a budget for 48% of the population". Never mind the non-working people who, are still, as it happens a majority of the population, including children (of whom more will be in poverty following recent changes), sick and disabled people who can't work (of whom more will struggle following the cuts to ESA), and of course elderly people.....

all you are doing there is highlighting that less than half the population support the rest.

 

[BLOCK F]

Leaving aside the question of whether this was really a budget for all working people (as the IFS estimates suggest that a fair few, tax credit recipients in particular, will be worse off, even after the proposed increase in the minimum wage), this persistent rhetorical emphasis on "working people" (sometimes "hard working people") is very revealing and very symbolic. I've nothing against working people, not least because I am one, but this continual harping on about them seems to imply that working people are the only people who matter, or the people who matter the most, or the people who somehow "deserve" to benefit the most from budget changes. This isn't just a Tory thing these days; all the parties seem to use this rhetoric. But when you look at the statistics - the most recent ONS mid-year population estimates (for June 2014) tell us that the UK population is estimated to be 64,596,800. The most recent estimates (from the Labour Force Survey, published by ONS) tell us that there are 31,053,000 working people in the UK. So "This will be a budget for 48% of the population". Never mind the non-working people who, are still, as it happens a majority of the population, including children (of whom more will be in poverty following recent changes), sick and disabled people who can't work (of whom more will struggle following the cuts to ESA), and of course elderly people..... You could, of course, argue that many working people are best-placed to look after themselves, and the role of government and the welfare state should be to ensure that those who can't or shouldn't be working have a good life and a good standard of living. I look forward to the chancellor who has the courage to say "This will be a Budget for non-working people..."

A fair few of the non-working people in this country are pensioners, myself included, and I reckon they have been treated pretty fairly by the Government; indeed, there is an argument that says they have been too well looked after and that the younger generation have been rather clobbered.It is an argument that I wouldn't disagree with.
Plenty of the 'working people' in the country have children and do there best to provide for them, so anything that helps those parents carry out that duty must be a good thing.
The present definition of children living in poverty is a bit of a nonsense and has been argued about ad infinitum, but in cannot be wrong to limit future tax credits to 2 children as the whole system has become way out of hand and unsustainable.
As I said in a previous post, benefits and welfare should be directed at those who are most in need. At present I am not convinced it is.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Not everything I agree, but an indication. For example, setting up as a 1 man ltd company is tax 'efficiency' in itself by avoidance of NI payments. Another example would be that a few of the 1 man companies that I know have their wives as either co-director or company secretary to be able to pay them a dividend and use their tax allowance.

I'm making no judgement on the morality of any of this - no-one likes
paying tax - just pointing out that this sort of thing is freely available info.

understand what you are saying ....hope the irony of Brown almost promoting Ltd isent lost either