Budget 2015: Osborne vs. the Economy

[dowie]

yeah it is OK for people to have kids... it is just that two should be enough and wanting others to subsidise more is greedy

this has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics

if you're taking precautions to not have kids and you have an accidental pregnancy then you can always go for a termination... I mean since you didn't want to be pregnant in the first place it would be the logical option... people don't 'accidentally' have multiple kids... a childless couple might accidentally have a kid and keep it... once you've actually had a family and don't want more then the other sensible option is to look at more robust methods of contraception - getting your tubes tied etc.. if you've got two kids and 'accidentally' have another because the condom fell off then you're a muppet...

 

[LordSplodge]

this has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics

if you're taking precautions to not have kids and you have an accidental pregnancy then you can always go for a termination... I mean since you didn't want to be pregnant in the first place it would be the logical option

Logical? I'm not anti-abortion but to suggest that worrying about finances is reason for termination is pretty harsh. It has been already said but peoples circumstances change.

Also; if saying you should have a termination because you can't afford the child isn't heading down the line of eugenics I don't know what is! We could start with saying only the affluent can have kids, then we could say only healthy kids with no faulty genes are allowed...

 

[dowie]

Logical? I'm not anti-abortion but to suggest that worrying about finances is reason for termination is pretty harsh. It has been already said but peoples circumstances change.

but I've not suggested that, I've stated that an unwanted pregnancy is a logical reason for a termination

Also; if saying you should have a termination because you can't afford the child isn't heading down the line of eugenics I don't know what is! We could start with saying only the affluent can have kids, then we could say only healthy kids with no faulty genes are allowed...

now you're going off on a tangent... and this still has nothing to do with eugenics

 

[Dr Jack]

Like I said originally, CO2 based VED bands were never about saving the environment, it was just an excuse, and this proposed change clearly shows they couldn't care less about continued environmental improvements (just like they couldn't care less in 2005 - but the shoes fit so they wore them).

The original 2005 bands did, quite successfully, help drive the market towards more efficient cars. It's a pity that - at the time - the negatives of diesel engines were poorly understood and so not sufficiently balanced against carbon emissions but that doesn't change the central fact the bands helped push carbon emissions onto the considerations for new and second hand cars and helped drive efficiency up alongside healthily high fuel prices. The bands needed updating, not abandoning, and fuel duty needs to rise now that fuel prices have fallen.

 

[Destination]

The original 2005 bands did, quite successfully, help drive the market towards more efficient cars. It's a pity that - at the time - the negatives of diesel engines were poorly understood and so not sufficiently balanced against carbon emissions but that doesn't change the central fact the bands helped push carbon emissions onto the considerations for new and second hand cars and helped drive efficiency up alongside healthily high fuel prices. The bands needed updating, not abandoning, and fuel duty needs to rise now that fuel prices have fallen.

Indeed, looks at objectively, this budget hits many in society.

Low hours and large family earners don't lose income, they lose some of the free money taxpayers gave them.
Disabled seem to have no direct change.
Low earners who work will be slightly better off by doing more hours, and getting more basic pay, eventually.
Banks get an additional surcharge.
Landlords take a massive hit regards what was previously being an expense being removed.
Middle earners get a little bit more.
Chaps who converted their sole trades into corporates and employed themselves and basically took the **** by drawing dividends now gets a healthier slash of their profits in dividend tax.
Pension diversions by the very high earners take a hit also, as was the previous plan.

I think overall it is a reasonably balanced budget, for paying out less money in free money for working a small amount, and also for taking more in tax from those with property and higher earners.

As for Mr jack and it hits the poorest the hardest. Bad luck, we're still running a massive deficit, if they convert to full time work, with a living wage, they'll be much better off, and that eventually is the goal.

 

[ChrisD.]

Chaps who converted their sole trades into corporates and employed themselves and basically took the **** by drawing dividends now gets a healthier slash of their profits in dividend tax.

Took the ****? Hahaha.

 

[Freakbro]

Yea, it was hardly taking the ****, it was using a legitimate mechanic and it was within the spirit of the law -not like one of those convoluted off shore loan arrangements.

It was taking the **** as much as using your ISA limit is

But fair enough, they reduced the benefit of doing this and you'll be paying an equivalency of NI, which is all you were avoiding really...though it will still probably be slightly cheaper to carry on using this system than taking all your wages through the PAYE system.

 

[Destination]

Aye it brings a bit more parity.
It was a legitimate mechanic yes, but now there is a bit more parity, and I think the tax system should have parity.

He hasn't really let any group get away free, bar disabled and pensioners who seem to be under the same criteria as before, unless they own rental property etc.

 

[Danthus]

i still don't see why people should subsides others decision to breed.

Quite. People arguing against cuts to child benefits are essentially saying "why should it be the responsibility of the parents to look after their own child"

Should children suffer because their parents make bad choices?

 

[ChrisD.]

I read the other day that for a contractor taking £50k a year out of his company (not including expenses) they'll be around £1300 worse off.

 

[dowie]

Should children suffer because their parents make bad choices?

it isn't a question of should they, it is just reality - children do suffer when their parents make bad choices

bad choices surrounding diet, whether they go to school, how much TV they watch, whether they participate in sport, whether they're brought up in a violent or abusive household etc..

there is only so much we can do

you can take away kids in extreme circumstances, but the general deadbeat chav parents, well there isn't too much you can do about them

 

[V F]

There are lots that don't fit into the categorised boxes.

 

[mid_gen]

Yea, it was hardly taking the ****, it was using a legitimate mechanic and it was within the spirit of the law -not like one of those convoluted off shore loan arrangements.

It was taking the **** as much as using your ISA limit is

But fair enough, they reduced the benefit of doing this and you'll be paying an equivalency of NI, which is all you were avoiding really...though it will still probably be slightly cheaper to carry on using this system than taking all your wages through the PAYE system.

Missed this part? Been a long time since I was contracting through a LTD in the UK. What have they changed? Is IR35 still about?

 

[Slam62]

Should children suffer because their parents make bad choices?

Do you really think that parents who make bad choices spend child benefit on the child.

 

[Dr Jack]

Indeed, looks at objectively, this budget hits many in society.

Did you reply to the wrong post here, this doesn't seem to

Low hours and large family earners don't lose income, they lose some of the free money taxpayers gave them.

Income from tax credits is still income

Disabled seem to have no direct change.

People on Employment Support Allowance are getting their weekly rate slashed to match JSA.

Low earners who work will be slightly better off by doing more hours, and getting more basic pay, eventually.

This is less true than it was. The reduction in tax credits means that low earners will actually get less money for their extra work even if they benefit from the hike in the minimum wage.

Banks get an additional surcharge.

The money banks pay in is being re-jigged, some will pay more, others less. It's a move designed to keep HSBC from moving out of the UK.

Landlords take a massive hit regards what was previously being an expense being removed.

Landlords who are higher income tax rate payers take a bit of a hit on the income above that rate.

Middle earners get a little bit more.

Middle and upper earners get a little bit more.

I think overall it is a reasonably balanced budget, for paying out less money in free money for working a small amount, and also for taking more in tax from those with property and higher earners.

I think it's a cruel and unnecessary budget that does nothing to deal with any of the underlying problems of our country and is environmentally negligent. The only bright side is that Osborne is already rolling back on the austerity a bit.

As for Mr jack and it hits the poorest the hardest. Bad luck, we're still running a massive deficit, if they convert to full time work, with a living wage, they'll be much better off, and that eventually is the goal.

Here's how the budget hits people by income decile:

And those are cash amounts, the percentile changes would look even worse. There is absolutely no doubt this is a very, very regressive budget.

Meanwhile the growth crushing effects of austerity will continue to apply downwards pressure on our ability to balance the books.

 

[robfosters]

If a parent has a third child that unfortunately has a disability, would they be exempt from the cut?

 

[dowie]

Cut to child benefit? I'm not sure why they would or should be? Presumably there would be some disability benefits they'd be entitled to though.

 

[wildest_jjk]

Here's how the budget hits people by income decile:

And those are cash amounts, the percentile changes would look even worse. There is absolutely no doubt this is a very, very regressive budget.

Can I ask where you found that?

 

[Destination]

Child benefit isn't being changed at all.
Child tax credit is.
This doesn't apply to most.

Mr Jack, what are the two colour shades on your graph?

 

[Jokester]

Yea, it was hardly taking the ****, it was using a legitimate mechanic and it was within the spirit of the law -not like one of those convoluted off shore loan arrangements.

It was taking the **** as much as using your ISA limit is

But fair enough, they reduced the benefit of doing this and you'll be paying an equivalency of NI, which is all you were avoiding really...though it will still probably be slightly cheaper to carry on using this system than taking all your wages through the PAYE system.

Aye, a higher rate tax payer will be paying 46% tax now (with corp tax at 20% so that will drop slightly in the next 5 years). This I think, if you ignore employer's NI contributions, is actually more than what someone staff would pay on their higher rate income - which looking at the HMRC site suggests that NI on higher rate is only 2%? Doesn't seem right? NI is something else they should get shot of as well and just lump it all in with income tax.

Thing is, going staff means a real pre-tax income drop for me, even when you include pensions, paid time off. employers NIC and benefits into a typical staff package. I know companies try and argue there's an administration burden handling pensions and benefits for their employees but I handle all that for myself and it's a peice of ****. The cost to the business is next to nothing, either that or they're hopelessly inefficient.

Plus going staff would reduce my financial flexibility, would limit my ability to pick and choose projects to work on (not that there's much choice at the moment!).

And talking about available work - I know someone early mentioned it was taking the **** taking income as dividends rather than direct income. It's all well and good if you're fully employed 100% of the time - but the big big risk of contracting is that you find yourself out of work. These changes make contracting less attractive and as a result will likely impact the labour market flexibility. Companies only provide staff positions for long term assignments where they can be sure there is ongoing work for the foreseable future. Contractors have always filled the gap on short term work and projects that will come to an end.