[Politics] Spreadsheet Phil's Budget

[Weststander]

Pretty clear who really benefits from these changes though:


View attachment 101720

Everyone.

That’s how taxation works. Someone earning £30,000 will gain more in £ than someone on £20,000.

What the narrow graph fails to cover is the big picture for the lower paid:
1. The exponential rises in personal allowance including today over the last 21 years have taken countless millions out of tax.
2. The national minimum wage and living wage have increased incomes substantially.

 

[beorhthelm]

Pretty clear who really benefits from these changes though:

housholds with two higher earners. perhaps we should tax couples more than single people to balance this out.

 

[highflyer]

Everyone.

That’s how taxation works. Someone earning £30,000 will gain more in £ than someone on £20,000.

What the narrow graph fails to cover is the big picture for the lower paid:
1. The exponential rises in personal allowance including today over the last 21 years have taken countless millions out of tax.
2. The national minimum wage and living wage have increased incomes substantially.

Spin it as you like, but clearly not everyone benefits equally from this tax cut. Most of the benefit goes to the rich. It boosts overall inequality. And this effective tax cut reduces the options for increasing spend on public services.(unless you happen to be into modern monetary theory)

We won't agree, and really should get back to work! But the point is (and as you know) there is always more than one way to look at things, especially where tax policy is concerned, and what you see depends often on what you already believe about what is 'fair', how society should work etc.

Also Bong is a very good defender..

 

[darkwolf666]

Everyone.

That’s how taxation works. Someone earning £30,000 will gain more in £ than someone on £20,000.

What the narrow graph fails to cover is the big picture for the lower paid:
1. The exponential rises in personal allowance including today over the last 21 years have taken countless millions out of tax.
2. The national minimum wage and living wage have increased incomes substantially.

Points 1 & 2 are fair, but unfortunately many of these people still rely heavily on other subsides like Working Tax Credits and Family Tax Credits.

The minimum wage rise has just brought those on it up from Very poorly paid to poorly paid!

 

[Weststander]

Spin it as you like, but clearly not everyone benefits equally from this tax cut. Most of the benefit goes to the rich. It boosts overall inequality. And this effective tax cut reduces the options for increasing spend on public services.(unless you happen to be into modern monetary theory)

We won't agree, and really should get back to work! But the point is (and as you know) there is always more than one way to look at things, especially where tax policy is concerned, and what you see depends often on what you already believe about what is 'fair', how society should work etc.

Also Bong is a very good defender..

I actually believe in the poor paying no tax or NI at all. We have one of the most complicated tax systems on the whole, the legislation running to 10,000’s of pages. I’d love to see a relative high personal allowance, NI abolished, with a single (higher) tax rate to cover everything. No smoke and mirrors. Overnight it would stop all the moves by the millions who can control their working lives and tax affairs, to keep income below the various tax thresholds. Tax take would rise.

Bong’s alright.

 

[Weststander]

Points 1 & 2 are fair, but unfortunately many of these people still rely heavily on other subsides like Working Tax Credits and Family Tax Credits.

The minimum wage rise has just brought those on it up from Very poorly paid to poorly paid!

Minimum wage - before Blair brought it in, employers could pay rock bottom wages of £1 or £2 an hour and did. It was also completely uncontrolled, e.g. an unscrupulous employer would underpay for the hours worked. The min wage came with legislation making that paid hours ‘fraud’ a criminal offence. HMRC monitor that too.

 

[darkwolf666]

Minimum wage - before Blair brought it in, employers could pay rock bottom wages of £1 or £2 an hour and did. It was also completely uncontrolled, e.g. an unscrupulous employer would underpay for the hours worked. The min wage came with legislation making that paid hours ‘fraud’ a criminal offence. HMRC monitor that too.

Yep, all again true, but still doesn’t change the fact of this budget that those benefiting most from the tax changes, individually, will be those on the higher rate change bracket.

 

[Weststander]

Yep, all again true, but still doesn’t change the fact of this budget that those benefiting most from the tax changes, individually, will be those on the higher rate change bracket.

And the very bottom. Many taken out of tax altogether.

Yes, £ for £, an income tax cut nornally gives someone on greater income a greater gain in £.

There are a lot of people on income greater than £45k, especially somewhere like Sussex. Are they really all high earners?

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Burnside, Flotta, Stromness, Orkney Islands, KW16
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-66688162.html

There are cheaper properties out there if you’re prepared to look

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The country needs 4,000,000 new homes. That’s new units.

Concentrating on bullying or engineering BTL landlords to sell will create zero new homes. It will simply change the freehold title to some of them. (I own no other properties btw).

The country simply needs to get building, far more than it does currently, to start solving this housing crisis. Then market forces, the ability to raise rents above general inflation will dissipate.

This.

As usual.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I actually believe in the poor paying no tax or NI at all. We have one of the most complicated tax systems on the whole, the legislation running to 10,000’s of pages. I’d love to see a relative high personal allowance, NI abolished, with a single (higher) tax rate to cover everything. No smoke and mirrors. Overnight it would stop all the moves by the millions who can control their working lives and tax affairs, to keep income below the various tax thresholds. Tax take would rise.

Bong’s alright.

I agree it’s that.

And Bong is ok, but we can do better

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Jam! ........ Not tomorrow but hopefully eventually.

And bread

 

[darkwolf666]

And the very bottom. Many taken out of tax altogether.

Yes, £ for £, an income tax cut nornally gives someone on greater income a greater gain in £.

There are a lot of people on income greater than £45k, especially somewhere like Sussex. Are they really all high earners?

Again you are ignoring my point that the higher percentage increase has gone to the higher earners, ergo they are getting richer!

As for your question about what constitutes a high earner, well £45k sounds quite high to me!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Burnside, Flotta, Stromness, Orkney Islands, KW16
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-66688162.html

There are cheaper properties out there if you’re prepared to look

Yes. People need to Get On Their Bike if they can't find a home.



In seriousness, you either subscribe to a free market or not. Personally I am not keen on central government telling me how much toothpaste I can use. Or how many houses I can buy.

That said, as [MENTION=21158]Weststander[/MENTION] said, we need more builds. That also said, the working class tories in my town oppose new builds. Fancy that.

That also said, the new builds planned come with no infrastructure upgrades, so it will simply create a school place war, blocked roads and anger.

Because we can't plan a piss up in a pub. How we ever won the war beats me.

 

[darkwolf666]

Yes. People need to Get On Their Bike if they can't find a home.

View attachment 101723

In seriousness, you either subscribe to a free market or not. Personally I am not keen on central government telling me how much toothpaste I can use. Or how many houses I can buy.

That said, as [MENTION=21158]Weststander[/MENTION] said, we need more builds. That also said, the working class tories in my town oppose new builds. Fancy that.

That also said, the new builds planned come with no infrastructure upgrades, so it will simply create a school place war, blocked roads and anger.

Because we can't plan a piss up in a pub. How we ever won the war beats me.

NIMBY’s in Faversham, never?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

NIMBY’s in Faversham, never?

Hope you're winning. All the best

 

[Weststander]

Yes. People need to Get On Their Bike if they can't find a home.

View attachment 101723

In seriousness, you either subscribe to a free market or not. Personally I am not keen on central government telling me how much toothpaste I can use. Or how many houses I can buy.

That said, as [MENTION=21158]Weststander[/MENTION] said, we need more builds. That also said, the working class tories in my town oppose new builds. Fancy that.

That also said, the new builds planned come with no infrastructure upgrades, so it will simply create a school place war, blocked roads and anger.

Because we can't plan a piss up in a pub. How we ever won the war beats me.

As a Brightonian, with knowledge through work of Lewes too, ALL the parties councillors oppose every brownfield and urban fringe sites, where there's organised opposition. Never admitted of course, but there are significant votes (relative to the trifling votes required to win a ward), compared to that of the landowner and developer/housing association. Even brownfield sites take many years to get through, often via Appeal, and I'm not talking skyscrapers, but 2 and 3 story townhouses with double the requisite number of affordables included.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Expansion of the (relatively) recent public sector IR35 changes to the private sector is a stone-cold nailed-on dead-cert.

I do hope you didn't put your house on it .... and a 12 month deferment does not get you out of jail either!

 

[Weststander]

Again you are ignoring my point that the higher percentage increase has gone to the higher earners, ergo they are getting richer!

As for your question about what constitutes a high earner, well £45k sounds quite high to me!

Yes, I admit again that higher earners will gain more in £ from today's budget. Websites are showing a gain of £520 per year from next April for those earning over £46,350.

But it's still well worth mentioning the beneficial effect of the huge personal allowance changes. In 2010 it was £6,475, from next April £12,500. Taking 5.75m low and part time earners out of income tax altogether.

Overall, whatever pay I've been on including rubbish low pay, budgets have only ever given a few extra quid of net pay each month. Whether it be a Tory, Labour or Coalition government. I assume the reason is that there's only so much that can be done for 28 million tax payers. I'm convinced that the best way for incomes to improve for the poor and disadvantaged is for significant increases in minimum/living wage, including for younger age brackets. Half the employers out there will exploit as much as possible.

 

[beorhthelm]

That said, as [MENTION=21158]Weststander[/MENTION] said, we need more builds. That also said, the working class tories in my town oppose new builds. Fancy that.

the working class tory is too busy to oppose building, or looking to get work on the them. in my observation opposition is an unholy alliance of the middle-class from across political colours.