Poll: The Budget

[deuse]

Is it right we have to 20% tax on food that is hotter then the ambient air temperature now or is this a joke going around?

"The price of a £5 hot rotisserie chicken at a supermarket will rise by a £1"

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3864897

 

[scorza]

Is it right we have to 20% tax on food that is hotter then the ambient air temperature now or is this a joke going around?

"The price of a £5 hot rotisserie chicken at a supermarket will rise by a £1"

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3864897

Yes and it's annoying me because I've been thinking about Gregg's pasties all day as a result

 

[antijoke]

Is it right we have to 20% tax on food that is hotter then the ambient air temperature now or is this a joke going around?

"The price of a £5 hot rotisserie chicken at a supermarket will rise by a £1"

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3864897

It really is stupid.

 

[Gangster]

However I cannot help but be completely incensed with the current proposals. On one hand they will try and save money by paying public sector workers in the regions less because it costs less to live, so essentially you will do the same job in Liverpool as someone in London and get paid less for your troubles. Complete disgrace....

Disgrace? No its not. A disgrace is expecting to have a house 100k cheaper and receive the same salary... thats a disgrace.

You get London weightings for all sorts of jobs, because the living costs are that much higher.

So currently you can live in London and be less well off but benefit from living in a great city. Or you can live in a crap city but benefit financially..

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Why should anyone up north (where the houses are a good 100k less on average) receive the same salary as someone in London/South East?

Costs more to live in london = higher salary.

Lol @ wanting the equally paid salaries when house prices are so different.

 

[Amp34]

What short sighted thinking.

The fact the rich pay most of the tax is a result of gross income inequality, not the hard work of the top 1%.

What ******** tbh...

The reason most people are at the top is because they worked very hard to get there. Discounting the few that were essentially born into that position all will have worked significantly long hours for a large portion of their life or spent a significant part improving themselves in education and other ways... Many directors (as an example) probably work longer hours than most and are also unlikely to switch off when they get home. Compare that to the person that sits on a checkout for 8 hours a day, doesn't have to think and then goes home and forgets everything about work until the next morning...

But wait! I forgot, all well paid individuals were given their jobs by rich parents and sit around at desks doing nothing all day...:roll eyes:

If you're bitter about a low paid job then get a higher paid one. It's "easy", just learn a skill that is in demand, get a job with that skill and work hard. You'll get promoted and get to a point where you get a nice pay packet... Or just stick to doing something you know you can do and don't further yourself...

 

[Amp34]

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.

The bold word is the important one. We don't live in the Victorian Era... A significant amount of well of people now are people that have got there from the very bottom, that is only increasing as time goes on.

Anyway almost all of the people you mentioned in that post probably wouldn't be affected by the 50% tax rate anyway so ah well...

 

[Amp34]

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.

Wait? The traders were paid bonuses for their failure??

Ah! Wait, you're lumping all bankers in together! I see now...

 

[Amp34]

And you know that....how?

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



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.

I have to ask because maybe I'm confused...

So this personal allowance that pensioners have, is that a tax free allowance on earnings for over 65's?

If so why have pensioners got a larger tax free allowance than those of working age?

I can only assume I'm wrong there or it's just inherently unfair on those of working age.

 

[Amp34]

but if only uni kids can get highly paid jobs, is that fair?

uni will just be back to the rich and everyone else will be back to scraping a living. i cant see that happening. people would rather revolt. look at the riots. people are ****ed off enough already. MP steals £30k gets found out and gives it back. no consequence. guy steals some trainers and gets 4 years.

how can you blame people who would work all week for £20 in their back pocket deciding not to bother?

Did you go to uni? You have a rather warped view of it all. For starters some of the richest people in the world didn't go to uni... Then there is the fact you can earn far more with a trade than a degree. For example a carpenter can earn more than a graduate working at a local council or in admin.

If they push yourself and better yourself the carpenter can earn a healthy sum if you're willing to put the hours in and provide a high quality good, much like a graduate who is prepared to spend long hours learning after university.

Again, the majority of it is skill and dedication. If you have that you can go far in any skill. Or you can do your 9-5, breeze along during the day and go home in the evening and watch Coronation street and drink yourself into oblivion wondering where it all went wrong...


EDIT: 5 post combo! Hmmm that's embarrassing...

 

[semi-pro waster]

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.

I'm not arguing about whether the pensioners are better or worse off here but it's not necessarily the case that a saving to an organisation means that someone else is worse off e.g. if they simplify the tax structure then the money saved from administering it may make up the vast proportion of the amount saved but it doesn't imply that anyone is worse off (apart from the people who potentially lose their jobs due to the simplified system...).

I don't know if you've done the calculation but by my reckoning the average of £83*4,400,000 comes out as £365,200,000.00 so that cannot constitute the £1bn saving by itself.

//edit I'm just saving Amp34 from making 6 posts in a row without realising that he could multiquote.

 

[Freakbro]

I have to ask because maybe I'm confused...

So this personal allowance that pensioners have, is that a tax free allowance on earnings for over 65's?

Yes, it's an aged based extra tax free allowance you get when you become 65, a little more when you become 75.

If so why have pensioners got a larger tax free allowance than those of working age?

I do not know why it was introduced in 1975, when personal allowance was 675 and pensioners 950, but it has been there ever since.

But I certainly don't begrudge people at that age getting slightly more tax free earnings...you do?

I can only assume I'm wrong there or it's just inherently unfair on those of working age.

unfair?

So you probably begrudge the elderly getting a winter fuel payment too, or free prescriptions,or free bus passes or many of the other things with give the elderly of our society....since, well, because they're elderly and we need to look after them.

 

[Freakbro]

I'm not arguing about whether the pensioners are better or worse off here but it's not necessarily the case that a saving to an organisation means that someone else is worse off e.g. if they simplify the tax structure then the money saved from administering it may make up the vast proportion of the amount saved but it doesn't imply that anyone is worse off (apart from the people who potentially lose their jobs due to the simplified system...).

I don't know if you've done the calculation but by my reckoning the average of £83*4,400,000 comes out as £365,200,000.00 so that cannot constitute the £1bn saving by itself.

That's true of course and in this case the two scenarios are not mutually exclusive either.

We would have to pick apart their figures to see if any is attributed to admin saving, which due to the simple nature of this I would be surprised, but I can't discount it.

 

[RDM]

But I certainly don't begrudge people at that age getting slightly more tax free earnings...you do?

I don't begrudge it, but I don't really see the need for it. A single tax free allowance for everyone at the same amount seems a reasonably sensible idea. It isn't like pensioners are being charged extra tax and it won't even impact those pensioners in most need as they aren't earning anywhere near the limit anyway.

 

[Freakbro]

I don't begrudge it, but I don't really see the need for it. A single tax free allowance for everyone at the same amount seems a reasonably sensible idea. It isn't like pensioners are being charged extra tax and it won't even impact those pensioners in most need as they aren't earning anywhere near the limit anyway.

Well, they automatically pay 12% less tax since they don't pay any NI, so lets charge them that as well then, we can't let the old buggers get away with anything!

 

[scorza]

Then there is the fact you can earn far more with a trade than a degree.

But you generally won't. I'm not sure what this has to do with the budget though.

 

[Energize]

I see little evidence around me that people live where they do because of how nice a place it is to live, if that were the case no one would live in Rochdale, Hull or Morecambe. The fact that many private hospitals and doctors operate in the North clearly disproves the idea that public sector workers are going to flood to more expensive areas just because the pay is higher.

More taxes on essentials like food and petrol is disgraceful though.

Can't believe child benefit limit is further increasing! How many xbox 360's does a family earning twice the national average need? Meanwhile patients with life threatening illnesses are waiting months for medical treatment due to staff shortages.

 

[Amp34]

I

//edit I'm just saving Amp34 from making 6 posts in a row without realising that he could multiquote.

Oh I know about multi quote! In my defence they were replies to posts over multiple pages!

Yes, it's an aged based extra tax free allowance you get when you become 65, a little more when you become 75.



I do not know why it was introduced in 1975, when personal allowance was 675 and pensioners 950, but it has been there ever since.

But I certainly don't begrudge people at that age getting slightly more tax free earnings...you do?



unfair?

So you probably begrudge the elderly getting a winter fuel payment too, or free prescriptions,or free bus passes or many of the other things with give the elderly of our society....since, well, because they're elderly and we need to look after them.

If you put it like that it doesn't seem as bad, however at least the ones you pointed out are basically directly related to helping poorer pensioners get by on just the state pension. Helping look after them, just like we give single mothers child benefit and other financial aids. A higher tax free allowance is just odd, it doesn't relate to someone not being able to pay, it's directly linked to their earning potential, just like everyone else. If the suggestion is a pensioner can't get by on the standard tax free allowance then there are several questions to be asked. Firstly, do things cost more for pensioners? Now AFAIK the winter fuel allowance is meant to help for heating costs which may be higher, but what else costs more for a pensioner than everyone else? Secondly, is it because the basic tax free allowance does not cover the basics? If that's the case then why do everyone else have to "suffer" with a lower tax free allowance? In extreme (well not that extreme) cases why is the single person on minimum wage paying for a pensioner to have a higher tax free allowance? As has already been pointed out, it's not to stop the state pension being taxed as it's below that threshold..?

It's fine laying the guilt trip on me, however the state already pays everyone a state pension so why should the poorer under 65s in society have a different tax free allowance? What makes pensioners better than the poor under 65's (and I don't class myself in them).

But you generally won't. I'm not sure what this has to do with the budget though.

However you can quite easily. You could also argue that those that go to uni are also those with more drive to succeed. As I basically said, those with an actual trade (rather than non skilled job in a shop) can quite easily earn on a par with those that have a degree. Both are obviously furthering themselves in different ways.

I'm not entirely sure either, however I think it has something to do with a more idealogical view related to a reduction in the 50% tax rate.

EDIT:

I don't begrudge it, but I don't really see the need for it. A single tax free allowance for everyone at the same amount seems a reasonably sensible idea. It isn't like pensioners are being charged extra tax and it won't even impact those pensioners in most need as they aren't earning anywhere near the limit anyway.

Far more succinctly put.

 

[RDM]

Well, they automatically pay 12% less tax since they don't pay any NI, so lets charge them that as well then, we can't let the old buggers get away with anything!

Surely that would depend on where they are getting their income from? A working pensioner could be paying NI contributions.

It isn't about people "getting away" with things, it just seems to be sensible that the tax free allowance is not based on seemingly arbitary values such as age when there is no real reason to differentiate on it. Can you offer a sensible reason as to why pensioners should have a higher tax allowance than someone working?

 

[Freakbro]

Surely that would depend on where they are getting their income from? A working pensioner could be paying NI contributions.

No, when you hit pensionable age you don't pay NI on your income, working or not, so why shouldn't they pay it?

It isn't about people "getting away" with things, it just seems to be sensible that the tax free allowance is not based on seemingly arbitary values such as age when there is no real reason to differentiate on it. Can you offer a sensible reason as to why pensioners should have a higher tax allowance than someone working?

We have had allowances based on such arbitrary things as marriage.

I said earlier I don't know why this was introduced 25+ years ago, but as an offer, it could partly be because you have far less, if any, earning potential at that age and have to live on a pretty fixed income that is easily inflated away.

When your younger you have far more options to improve yourself and get a better job, more income.

 

[UK-AL05]

However you can quite easily. You could also argue that those that go to uni are also those with more drive to succeed. As I basically said, those with an actual trade (rather than non skilled job in a shop) can quite easily earn on a par with those that have a degree. Both are obviously furthering themselves in different ways.

Trust me, it's much easier to earn 50k as accountant as it's the normal rate of pay for a 30 year old graduate accountant. Then to get 50k as a trade, as it's the exception which is why it gets highlighted in the tabloid press.

Nobody thinks earning 50k as an engineer, accountant, or any other professional job is anything special, in fact it's considered normal. But for a tradesmen it is special.