The Budget 2014 - 12:30

bloodiedathame said:
I thought it was proven that 35pc tax rate was far more valuable to the Government than 40/45/50pc?
Click to expand...

Nope it wasn't proven at all. I read a great book recently and this subject came up. The tories even know it was crap but it suited the headline.

An excellent book by the Economist Noreena Hertz. All the information was there they just chose to ignore it. All that happened was before the rate change to 50p people exercised the right to pay tax early. So the year before the figures where inflated as people got in before the rate change and the year after the figures where artificially low.

They then clung to this as a headline grabber despite knowing the real reasons behind the stats.
 
dannyjo22 said:
Nope it wasn't proven at all. I read a great book recently and this subject came up. The tories even know it was crap but it suited the headline.

An excellent book by the Economist Noreena Hertz. All the information was there they just chose to ignore it. All that happened was before the rate change to 50p people exercised the right to pay tax early. So the year before the figures where inflated as people got in before the rate change and the year after the figures where artificially low.

They then clung to this as a headline grabber despite knowing the real reasons behind the stats.
Click to expand...

Good to know, thanks!

PS Book title?
 
Yay for paying tax for people to have sprogs and then dump them in childcare.

I jest, partially, something needs to be done about childcare but this stinks of a vote winning sticking plaster. I'd expect the budget to have a focus on winning votes. Goddess knows the Tories need all the help gaining votes for nest year.
 
@dl8860

You're kidding, right? Remove the lowest end of the pay/salary spectrum from a punitive tax net. Leave them with more disposable income a greater incentive to work and thus boost the economy which, in turn, helps reduce a deficit. Taxing the hell out of people does not remedy a deficit.

As to the Lifetime Allowance, it's an active discouragement for people to save for their retirement that runs contrary to long term inflationary pressures when people are living longer. It's absolutely idiotic, especially given that all pensionable income is taxed anyway. It's shamefully underhanded and not understood by a broadly financially incompetent population.
 
As mentioned by others in this thread. The main thing i've got my fingers crossed for is some kind of revision to stamp duty.

I'm struggling to get together 10% of a £250k house/ flat where I live and thats for a property that is too small for what I need and too beat up. Ideally I'd like to save a little longer and be able to buy somewhere between the £260k-£300k mark but having to save up potentially £9,000 purely to hand over to the government for nothing, on top of the potentially rubbish 10% deposit of £30,000is just beyond my reach.....just pure BS.

I know its unlikely they will change anything, however all thats necessary (for now) is to increase the thresholds to get with the times..... up the 3% rate from £250k to at least £300k.....in reality it should be 3% at about £400k-£500k.
:mad: brah...
 
Judgeneo said:
Eh?

Surely most of a poor families income is spent VAT free or reduced VAT? Food, baby/kids stuff, hello magazine - a poor family won't be running a car, or will be putting very few miles into it anyway. Even energy is reduced VAT.

Compare that to all the VAT-able luxaries a middle income+ familly will buy, and VAT looks to me to be progressive.
Click to expand...

VAT is highly regressive because poor people spend a greater proportion of their income than rich people, so are hit harder by it. It's a rather patronising view that "the poor" are people who only spend on non-VAT attracting items - they are people like everyone else and will spend money on so called luxury items from time to time.
 
scorza said:
VAT is highly regressive because poor people spend a greater proportion of their income than rich people, so are hit harder by it. It's a rather patronising view that "the poor" are people who only spend on non-VAT attracting items - they are people like everyone else and will spend money on so called luxury items from time to time.
Click to expand...

The truly poor won't. But anyway, only the rich will be in a position where they are saving for savings sake, rather than saving to spend on expensive taxable goods such as a car or house, or to pass on to others like living costs for their kids at uni (alcohol tax), holidays (air travel tax, and VAT on items to use for holidays) or to relatives on death (inheritance tax).

Those with highest income in the country will be hit by VAT less hard you are right - but removing or even reforming VAT is much less of a solution than introducing new taxes that they will be hit by. VAT is among the fairest of taxes imo.
 
Couple of hours of jeering and heckling, Miliband and Balls chewing on George's half assed attempts at making the Tories look like they care about the lower, middle and upper middles no doubt.

I live to be proven wrong but this will be more of the same.

Wonder if VED will go up to offset the "cost" of moving to a paperless system? Who am I kidding... :)
 
No use in even trying to give a ****, we know what we will happen.

The people who should be paying tax aren't, and the rest of us are about to get shafted in order to make up for it.

Evidence is a waste of time these days, most policy research is done to fit the policy, the research rarely informs it. They'll make sure the outcome says what they want it to and then use it to screw us over a bit more.
 
Remind me what was the point* of stamp duty when introduced/significantly changed?

*justification
 
Last edited:
bloodiedathame said:
Good to know, thanks!

PS Book title?
Click to expand...

Eyes wide open, facinating book on stats and stuff we are fed that when you dig deeper and look into the research/funding and who was on the payroll you find a completely different tale.

I got it on audiobook :)

Loads of interesting stuff on the mind, brain, thinking and decision making methods.
 
The point of stamp duty is to keep plebs in line. Just imagine if houses cost 50% less that means people work 50% less, employ 50% less of the army of babysitters to inflate part time employment figures. And god forbid people might actually spend time with thier kids and not have them grow up to be ferals with no future and enslaved to the upper classes.


Thats the kind of scenario that gives Toffs like Cameron and George nightmares. More stamp duty and more increases on whatever poor people spend thier money on so Booze and Cigs will go up too.
 
Lima said:
I know its unlikely they will change anything, however all thats necessary (for now) is to increase the thresholds to get with the times..... up the 3% rate from £250k to at least £300k.....in reality it should be 3% at about £400k-£500k.
:mad: brah...
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here, but what are you basing what the thresholds should be on? It sounds like you're basing them on what suits you. If they upped the threshold by that much then the tax revenue from stamp duty would reduce, what's going to cover that?
 
pitchfork said:
The people who should be paying tax aren't, and the rest of us are about to get shafted in order to make up for it.and those who shouldn't be breeding are, and the rest of us are getting shafted by only having the children we can pay for and lets not forget the old people who should be dying, aren't, and the rest of us are having to pay for their continued free life support
Click to expand...

Adapted. ;)
 
  • 100% increase in State Benefits
  • Abolition of duty on cider and cigarettes
  • Subsidised Sky TV for all JSA claimants
  • Free PS4 for all benefit claimants
  • Abolition of the actively seeking work requirement to be entitled to JSA
  • Lower State Pension age to 50
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom