Poll: The Budget

[Glaucus]

And you know that....how?


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

Was it ever on the table? Did they ever say this would happen? As far as I know they never said that allowence would go from ~8k to ~13k in 3-4 years for pensioners.

In absolute terms or relative terms they are better off and will remain better off. What other way is there to look at it? Other than suggesting something that was never on the table and would be equal to a ridiculous rise. The next personal allowence rise, is allready the largest rise.

 

[Ahleckz]

People go on holiday and hand out money to the locals? Who said imperialism was no more.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Stuff.

Freakbow has explained it far more eloquently than I would have.

 

[do_ron_ron]

People go on holiday and hand out money to the locals? Who said imperialism was no more.

Or maybe we just see people having a much harder time than they would in the UK and we help in a small way.

 

[Glaucus]

Freakbow has explained it far more eloquently than I would have.

But it's starting from a position that never existed and you might as well make up some totally random number and say they are worse off.

 

[Freakbro]

Was it ever on the table? Did they ever say this would happen? As far as I know they never said that allowence would go from ~8k to ~13k in 3-4 years for pensioners.

Your being totally disengenuous with that comparison.

That's like saying you get paid £2 / hr more than minimum wage but over the next few years minimum wage keeps rising, but you get no pay rise and you end up on min wage, but you haven.t lost anything.

In absolute terms or relative terms they are better off and will remain better off.

Apart from the HMRC saying they will be worse off of course.

 

[Glaucus]

That's like saying you get paid £2 / hr more than minimum wage but over the next few years minimum wage keeps rising, but you get no pay rise and you end up on min wage, but you haven.t lost anything.



.

in that scenario I haven't lost out at all. The only thing that would make me lose out in that scenario would be inflation.

It's very simple. Is their allowence growing? Yes it is. Just becuase everyone else's allowence is growing as well. Does not make it more expensive to live.
The personal allowence is to help anyone who is struggling.
Why are pensioners special? Why are they more special than very low income workers?

Worse off from what? Something that never existed in the first place, again might as well make up random figures.

 

[realBabelfish]

This is why it makes no sense, it doesn't affect the super rich. It massively afffects the successful people in ordinary jobs, who get a payslip just like us and can't do anything about avoiding it.

how many 'ordinary' jobs get into the 50% bracket though?

i would love to hear what some people do for a living to think they justify >6x the national average wage.

 

[Glaucus]

how many 'ordinary' jobs get into the 50% bracket though?
.

A lot. It's not as if it's rare to be paid 6figures by paye system.

Justify it by adding millions of pounds of worth to the company personally.
Where most of us don't add anywhere near those sorts of value to a company and as such aren't rewarded with such figures.

 

[Sui]

Glad to have seen tobacco duty raised, I despise the stuff and hopefully it will decrease the amount people smoke a slight amount, either that or it will increase crime. Yey.

 

[Freakbro]

in that scenario I haven't lost out at all. The only thing that would make me lose out in that scenario would be inflation.

I would love to see how many people would think that by not keeping their relative wage above minimum wage was not losing out just because their absolute value didn't change.

It's very simple. Is their allowence growing? Yes it is. Just becuase everyone else's allowence is growing as well. Does not make it more expensive to live.
The personal allowence is to help anyone who is struggling.
Why are pensioners special? Why are they more special than very low income workers?

Worse off from what? Something that never existed in the first place, again might as well make up random figures.

I don't understand your insistence on 'something that never existed in the first place'. The age related tax allowance exists, in the future it won't. That's a loss, no matter how you try and dress it up.

Unless your trying to say any projected budgets/cash flows 'never existed in the first place' when extrapolating current legislation vs changed legislation.

Budget documents show that, taking inflation into account, this will leave 4.41 million people worse off, by an average of £83 a year in 2013-14. People due to turn 65 after 5 April 2013 could lose up to £322 annually.

Seems they will be worse off to me with the changes being made, than if they weren't.

 

[Glaucus]

And if it held fast as of yesterday, they would be even worse of due to inflation.

Again which ever way you slice it, not only are they thousands of pounds better off than under last government, they're still better off now. With a higher personal allowence.

Only when you start saying 10k + pension allowence + inflation are they worse off and that was never on the table.

 

[George Hincapie]

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

Because wanting to keep what you've earned is such a bad thing? Wise up.

 

[realBabelfish]

Or maybe we just see people having a much harder time than they would in the UK and we help in a small way.

i think our lack of greed shocks some people. funny how when i was there the richest people never had any money available to help people and would mock them, yet the less well off people we met up with were also generous.

many rich people get that way as they are selfish and greedy.

 

[George Hincapie]

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.

I don't think they should help at all. If you can't make your way in life then die. There are too many humans on the planet as it is any way, and certainly far too many with a sense of entitlement.

 

[George Hincapie]

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.

There are far too many people with degrees, and especially too many people with worthless 'soft' degrees. The Government should encourage school leavers into worthwhile trades, and dispel the notion that a degree is a passport to an easy life.

 

[Glaucus]

There are far too many people with degrees, and especially too many people with worthless 'soft' degrees. The Government should encourage school leavers into worthwhile trades, and dispel the notion that a degree is a passport to an easy life.

I agree with this, I shouldn't of gone to uni.

It's a big issue though and it's not just the uni = easy life.

Schools are now academic and only push academia. It shouldn't. There of course should be core subjects. But bring back the decent "trade" teaching. They've tried many things over the years to try and have a mix of academic and "trade" but it hasn't worked so far.

 

[elmarko]

I agree with this, I shouldn't of gone to uni.

It's a big issue though and it's not just the uni = easy life.

Schools are now academic and only push academia. It shouldn't. There of course should be core subjects. But bring back the decent "trade" teaching. They've tried many things over the years to try and have a mix of academic and "trade" but it hasn't worked so far.

I can't argue with the main point,

Schools spend far too much time on Academia - some kids just are not meant to be academics, they should be encouraged to spend more time on crafting, designing, the arts, woodwork, metalwork, electronics, invention - all these things the average non-academic kid could be brilliant at.

We should also be teaching them how to handle money, emotional loss, jealousy, balance a budget, how not to get into debt & loads of other important things.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I'm trying to work out the pension thing, and I'll be the first to admit I'm not 100% about this, so let me know if I've made a mistake:

In 2011/12 the standard allowance for under 65s was £7,475.
For over 65s it was £9,940 (an extra £2,465).

In 2012/13 the standard rate will be going up to £8,105 and over 65s will be frozen at £9,940 (not increasing to £10,570 as it would have done).

In 2013/14 the standard rate will increase to £9,205 and the over 65s rate will stop, brining them in line with the £9,205 rate. (not increasing to £11,670 as it would have done).

By those figures, even in 2014 they would have less allowance than they do now (excluding the additional £2,465 they would have had).

How are they better off?

*EDIT* I missed it before but there IS an increase in 2012/13 from £9,940 to £10,500 so they will technically be be better off by £560 but would have had this anyway if the rules hadn't changed... Then it's unclear whether this £10,500 is fixed for 2013/14 and beyond.

Either way, it's going to make as little-as-makes-no-odds in 2012/13 and then start to have an impact in 2013/14.

I think the point Glaucus was trying to make was that there was no guarantee that the over 65 rate would have continued to track at ~33% above the standard rate but then there's equally nothing to suggest that it wouldn't have.

 

[Freakbro]

Stuff that shows they aren't better off...

How are they better off?

Glaucus?

Edit: @ Panzer - also there is the fact that anyone turning 65 after 5th Apr 2013 doesn't get the age allowance at all, so only the standard amount.