Poll: The Budget

[dirtychinchilla]

I'm more interested in their alcohol policy coming out shortly. I do hope they wise up and don't go down the route of minimum pricing. All it does it punish those who commit the awful crime of being young or poor.

Surely it's important to minimise people's access to alcohol? In quantities over about a glass, it's consistently damaging to your health. The drinking culture in this country is out of control, as I expect you well know.

 

[Glaucus]

I was severely disappointed to see that the only increase in tax on alcohol is inflation. I can't find the article now but if I find it I'll post it, but on the BBC earlier I read that this year deaths due to alcohol have increased by 25%. Surely this would suggest to the government that they should be increasing the price of alcohol to attempt to coutner the mass use of what is, essentially, poison.
...?

Isn't there some review/policy being discussed ATM, if so that probably why they didn't do anything.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Isn't there some review/policy being discussed ATM, if so that probably why they didn't do anything.

I think that might be the case. I hope that's true because humans are terrible at self-regulating (particularly where alcohol is concerned) and as a consequence the government SHOULD be stepping in.

 

[elmarko]

"1. prestonpans
21ST MARCH 2012 - 16:17
Lets actually look at the facts - The richest 10% stump up the majority (53%) of tax collected in Britain. And the richest 1% stump up a staggering 22% of the tax collected.

Instead of demonizing the rich maybe we should thank them for their extremely large contribution to the welfare state?!

Personal responsibility not politics of envy please!"

OK, this is from BBC news but I've seen this utterly retarded style argument repeated here.

Firstly.

People can only make that kind of money BECAUSE of the state we live in, the rich benefit greatly from living in a semi-socialist society.

Secondly.

All high tax receipts from a minority shows is that our income distribution is so unbalanced that 1% of the population can pay such a large amount of tax on incomes grossly high.

All those figures show is that we pay the bottom 99% too little & the top 1% too much.

 

[Beasty]

£200 better off for me.

 

[Freakbro]

, with the increase in personal allowence, then they haven't even lost out on that. What pensioner allowence 10k? Which is wwewhat the new personal free allowence will be and ontop of that they want the 10k personal allowence to increase yearly, but that expends what the next government does. So they lost out a ightly increase for two years. After that it's back to normal.

Sometimes it's really hard to understand what your saying.

Currently the age related allowance is worth an extra £2465 tax free on top of the standard tax allowance. If they lose this, by it not being kept at the same level above the standard level of allowance, then they will be worse off.

 

[Glaucus]

Sometimes it's really hard to understand what your saying.

Currently the age related allowance is worth an extra £2465 tax free on top of the standard tax allowance. If they lose this, by it not being kept at the same level above the standard level of allowance, then they will be worse off.

They aren't losing it, also that's on top of personal allowence? If that's the case they've had massive increase under coalition.
7475+2465 = 9940
Which is lower than the 10k personal allowence they will switch to in two years time.

Becuase personal allowence has risen so fast and so high, they no longer need the extra allowence and so they are scrapping it and get the same personal allowence as everyone else, and which will also be more than they currently get. So simplified system and they don't lose anything.
The state pension is also what 140 a week?
Which is well under the tax threshold.

 

[realBabelfish]

Wrong. I have no issue with the wealth distribution as it sits currently. There is no problem to resolve in my view.



Who cares? It's helping the 1%. I really couldn't care less about the other 99%, they aren't my problem or responsibility.

you do sound like a lovely human being.

i have always worked and helped my mates who didnt earn as much as me.

i guess some people are greedy. what job do you do that makes you feel hard done to by earning over £150k? do you work harder than a removal man, labourer etc? you must also be either self employed or a company owner as you know if all tax was 25% you wouldnt be earning what you do now as your employer takes into account tax rates when setting wages. its a fallacy that all high earners would be better off with lower tax rates. you wouldnt get that wage in the first place

plenty of hard working people are struggling to make ends meet. hell, even in victorian times some rich people had a heart.

if i paid 50% tax i would find myself thankful i was able to help people less fortunate than myself. but i guess greed breeds greed.

we went to kenya on honeymoon the other year. paid for by my father in law. we gave by far the most away to the locals but were by far the least well off.

its odd how ordinary people are so much more generous than the wealthy.

 

[realBabelfish]

I'll benefit from the 45p top band - but not huge amounts, I think I just clear it at the moment. Still, perhaps as it's not huge wads of cash for me, but I don't care one way or another - I would have been happy with the 50p rate.

I still view tax as pay back for the privileged free/cheap education I got in a first world country with safe streets and a stable upbringing that enabled me to be in the profession I am now. As such, I really don't begrudge it!

nice to see not all high earners are greedy ********. i still have some hope!

 

[Freakbro]

They aren't losing it, also that's on top of personal allowence? If that's the case they've had massive increase under coalition.
7475+2465 = 9940
Which is lower than the 10k personal allowence they will switch to in two years time.

But it's not as much as the 10k allowance plus the 2465..hence they will be worse off than if this change was not made.

Becuase personal allowence has risen so fast and so high, they no longer need the extra allowence

I would expect that most pensioners would disagree with you there.

and so they are scrapping it and get the same personal allowence as everyone else, and which will also be more than they currently get.

More than they currently get yes, which is irrelevant, as it will be less than they would have got if the system was not changed.

So simplified system and they don't lose anything.
The state pension is also what 140 a week?
Which is well under the tax threshold.

Yes they do lose, they lose the extra allowance over and above the standard threshhold. So what the threshhold has been increased by more than it usually does, that's irrelevant.

Also, not all pensioners are only on the state pension, so will be paying tax.

 

[Glaucus]

But it's not as much as the 10k allowance plus the 2465..hence they will be worse off than if this change was not made.


.

And? The personal allowence would never of risen like that under a different parliament. So again they've lost nothing, not in money, real terms or anything else.

One is joined to the other.

More than they currently get yes, which is irrelevant, as it will be less than they would have got if the system was not changed.



.

I think it's far more than ~5.5k+2.5k+ inflation. It's much higher than it otherwise would be.

It's like saying they're worse of than a 100k perosnoal allowence, but it was never on the table. Nore was 10k and extra allowence. You can't separate them and go what if. They are better off and will remain better off.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Anyway, who cares about the coffin dodgers....

You may even be a 'coffin dodger' one day and looking forward to retirement on a miserly amount. The people who are retired had a tougher life than the young of today and deserve their retirement on an amount that gives a reasonable life.

 

[realBabelfish]

Because the left-wing stubbornly refuse to see the big picture so much so it almost makes me think that they are collectively intellectively inferior. People who earn 150K and above tend to be extremely clever and have sussed out life for themselves.

Either by being smart enough to get to the jobs that pay these amounts or business owners who know how to run business, but the likes of realBabelfish and Xmoon will have you believe the money just fell onto their laps.

because all high earners are super intelligent? how many are given jobs from their dads (or dad's mates), or have inherited companies, or inherited wealthy, or are actors or sports stars. some of these guys are smart because their parents paid for Eton educations and free entry to the old boy's network.

i just think that in a collapsing society where everyone is struggling that the wealthy should help out a little more than some of them do.

 

[Freakbro]

You may even be a 'coffin dodger' one day and looking forward to retirement on a miserly amount. The people who are retired had a tougher life than the young of today and deserve their retirement on an amount that gives a reasonable life.

Another one who missed the sarcasm, I will have to be more obvious next time...

I'm glad people are reading my posts though

 

[realBabelfish]

Blimey,the traders you are so proud of that nearly bankrupted themselves,way to go,and lots of people work 12 hour days/nights for a pittance

yup, those traders cost me £10k a year when the recession hit. yet MY tax money was used to bail them out so they get another million £ bonus yet failed to pay back any money to the government.

 

[Ahleckz]

Surely it's important to minimise people's access to alcohol? In quantities over about a glass, it's consistently damaging to your health. The drinking culture in this country is out of control, as I expect you well know.

The problem is the availability of alcohol, not the price. We need to be far stricter on providing licenses to off sales. There is no point in upping the price a bit because it won't stop anyone from drinking. All it'll do is punish those who are already struggling to pay the bills.
Education is what is needed, and to curb the glamorisation of alcohol in the media. Yes, all other countries have alcohol problems but not to the extent that we do here. European countries have alcohol as part of their lifestyle but instead it is brought up at home and people are taught to respect it. Whereas over here alcohol is a taboo and children aren't taught the dangers of it.

Isn't there some review/policy being discussed ATM, if so that probably why they didn't do anything.

I think that might be the case. I hope that's true because humans are terrible at self-regulating (particularly where alcohol is concerned) and as a consequence the government SHOULD be stepping in.

As I said, the government are doing a review at the minute and it is likely that they'll recommend a minimum unit price. This will be foolish and won't tackle the problem at all.

Though, if such legislation is seriously considered then it'll definitely be challenged at the European Courts and I highly suspect that it'll be deemed illegal.

The government should step in in terms of furthering education at school level and punishing those who buy alcohol for children in a proper and severe manner.

 

[Glaucus]

Just give us license to drink, how come 95% of us can go have a good time and not cause issues. Then there's the minority who cause trouble week in week out.

 

[Freakbro]

And? The personal allowence would never of risen like that under a different parliament.

And you know that....how?

But I agree in a way, if this was a Conservative only government, this would never have happened.

So again they've lost nothing, not in money, real terms or anything else.

One is joined to the other.

I think it's far more than ~5.5k+2.5k+ inflation. It's much higher than it otherwise would be.

I just don't agree Just because you seem to see it in absolute terms and I see it in relative terms.

And since they have budgeted this will save £1Bn to the treasury, then that's obviously £1Bn less the pensioners will have in their pocket....that's a loss no?

And the HMRC saying on avg 4.4M pensioners will be £83 worse off than they would have been.

 

[do_ron_ron]

we went to kenya on honeymoon the other year. paid for by my father in law. we gave by far the most away to the locals but were by far the least well off.

Went last year to Keyna and did the same and they are really grateful. It is a thing I do when on holiday. Nice to hear others do the same.

 

[realBabelfish]

This is just nonsense. In the UK anyone can go to university if they have the ability, anyone can get good grades at university if they have the ability, and anyone can apply for well paying jobs if they have the ability.

Higher education is incredibly cheap in the UK and the student loans system means that cost is simply not a factor for doing a worthwhile degree. Actually the poorest do the best and get grants or bursaries. It is the children of rich parents that are most disadvantaged here.

You don't have to be rich to go to a top 10 university. You don't have to be rich to be awarded internships. You don't have to be rich to get a First in Maths from Ox-bridge.

not really. rich parent can afford to pay more to help their kids out.

when i went to uni i got £200/yr to help from a grant. my father was earning £30k.

he couldnt afford to help me out much so i had to either take a part time job or quit the course. as i was studying architecture (top 3 in courses with high workload) i couldnt keep going to uni and had to drop out.

a rich person can afford to send their kids to uni and easily cover the costs.

so, its the middle income that suffers.