Poll: The Budget

[StonedPenguin]

Cons - Make the Rich, Richer and the Poor, Poorer. Always have been and always will be.

**** the lot of them.

 

[kitch9]

Cons - Make the Rich, Richer and the Poor, Poorer. Always have been and always will be.

**** the lot of them.

No they haven't, lemme guess you heard your dad say that once when he disembarked the lift from the mine shaft?

Labour introduced the 50p tax rate (One of the highest in the developed world.) saying it was only temporary a month before an election they knew they were going to lose...... For 13 years of their reign before they never even mentioned touching the top rate of tax.

Read into that what you will.

They knew the tax was political point scoring and wouldn't earn anything in a time when the country was drowning in the massive crap pool they created.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Council tax needs to be scrapped. You're taxing people on nothing essentially, not earning, not purchasing, not even using any services, they are being charged for just sitting there minding their own business. The band system makes it even worse because you're charging different amounts based on nothing but wealth essentially.

UK governments love non means-tested and regressive taxes like VAT and council tax, that hit the poorest the hardest and put pensioners out of their homes. While at the same time loving non means-tested and superfluous benefits like child benefit and the now scrapped EMA.

EMA was means tested and far from superfluous.

 

[milgo]

Council tax needs to be scrapped. You're taxing people on nothing essentially, not earning, not purchasing, not even using any services, they are being charged for just sitting there minding their own business. The band system makes it even worse because you're charging different amounts based on nothing but wealth essentially.

UK governments love non means-tested and regressive taxes like VAT and council tax, that hit the poorest the hardest and put pensioners out of their homes. While at the same time loving non means-tested and superfluous benefits like child benefit and the now scrapped EMA.

But you will be using services provided by the local government at some point. Pavement maintenance, refuse collection, libraries, parks, education and museums etc.

Banding based on wealth seems fair to me too. It would probably turn that way more so if house holds were assessed individually surely? You choose where you live to a degree.

 

[Amp34]

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.

Really? Do you work as an accountant? You've just described a massive range in jobs there and I'm certain a large proportion of Civil Engineers (for example) are certainly not on £50k after 10 years. In fact looking at mysalary* it appears the average wage for both civ engs and accountants is significantly below £50k...

http://www.mysalary.co.uk/average-salary/Chartered_Accountant_491

http://www.mysalary.co.uk/average-salary/Civil_Engineer_526

Those on £50k will be the skilled workers who have taken several extra exams and courses after leaving university and starting training, perhaps getting chartered and all that that entails. A tradesman that does the same, lots of courses and registered with recognised bodies will also earn significantly more than those that just breeze through after they take their initial training.

Then there is the fact most university grads are not in the areas you just mentioned, a large proportion go into what could essentially be done by those without a degree and will probably never get near £50k.

*Obviously the figures do need to be taken with a pinch of salt, proper industry salary surveys would be better but I can't be bothered to find them...

So the end result was just a pure tax cut for the rich...great.

How about the Personal allowance increase for everyone? Is that not nice for a lot of people? Basically all the LibCons have done is reduce an ideological tax that Labour put in in the first place. If the removal of half of the extra was ideological (and it almost certainly was in part) is it any worse than Labour putting it in for their own ideological reasons?

 

[Amp34]

Vince Cable was asked this on Question Time last night, he looked very uncomfortable justifying Lib Dem support for the budget on most issues but especially on this.

BTW, isn't the highest Council Tax bill in the country only something like 35% higher than the lowest? It's a real scandal that this regressive tax has been ignored for so long.

I agree... Because families should pay more per year in council tax than wealthy couples!

Oh wait...

Council tax is a stupid idea and personally I think Poll tax was a much better idea. 1. Only pay for what you use (2 people use less than 3+) and 2. would not penalise families that have to have bigger/more expensive houses to live in (with under 18s not included in the poll tax count)...

 

[quickshot89]

EMA was means tested and far from superfluous.

EMA was useless and a joke, i couldnt even qualify for the basic pay as my parents earned too much, yet i received very little of their income as direct support

Either give basic EMA to everyone, or dont give it out

 

[Freakbro]

How about the Personal allowance increase for everyone? Is that not nice for a lot of people?

Way to take my quote out of context. I was not talking about the budget as a whole but the situation around the pre-leaked information that the 50p tax band would be cut and other tax and anti-avoidance measures put in place.

But all we got was the tax cut and some anti-avoidance measure, which will only affect a minority of transactions.

 

[Freakbro]

EMA was useless and a joke, i couldnt even qualify for the basic pay as my parents earned too much,

That's what means tested means, yes.

yet i received very little of their income as direct support

Sorry to hear your parents didn't choose to fully support you financially.

Either give basic EMA to everyone, or dont give it out

So, your saying "Since I didn't get it, no-one should get it" ... nice.

 

[RDM]

Way to take my quote out of context. I was not talking about the budget as a whole but the situation around the pre-leaked information that the 50p tax band would be cut and other tax and anti-avoidance measures put in place.

But all we got was the tax cut and some anti-avoidance measure, which will only affect a minority of transactions.

The new band of stamp duty is an additional tax. The measures around buying houses was a tax avoidance measure. Having not read the full details in the budget I couldn't tell you what other taxes and measures have been put in place.

As far as pensioners go they are not being made to pay any additional tax, the majority will still be better off after the buget, the last figures I saw suggested that you would have to have an income of over £100,000 to actually be worse off as a pensioner with this budget.

The so called "Granny Tax" is actually a tax cut they will no longer get rather than a tax raise. I am still waiting for a decent reason as to why pensioners should have a different level of income tax allowance than any other group.

 

[Freakbro]

The so called "Granny Tax" is actually a tax cut they will no longer get rather than a tax raise.

That's just semantics

I am still waiting for a decent reason as to why pensioners should have a different level of income tax allowance than any other group.

So you don't think the offering I gave was a decent reason? You didn't reply.

 

[RDM]

That's just semantics

No it isn't. They are not going to get less money than they currently have. If I say "I will give you £10" and don't give you £10 you have not suddenly lost £10. no one is going to be paying any more tax because of the measure.

So you don't think the offering I gave was a decent reason? You didn't reply.

Was it this one?

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

Is that really the best you can come up with? Considering the high levels of youth unemployment I am not really sure that is the case and it would be somewhat balanced out by the fact that they will also most likely be getting some sort of pension and have less in the way of expenditure (mortgages paid off, most of the things you need to buy in your life bought, etc)

There is really no solid reason for the difference, so why not simplify the tax system and have one allowance?

 

[Freakbro]

No it isn't. They are not going to get less money than they currently have. If I say "I will give you £10" and don't give you £10 you have not suddenly lost £10. no one is going to be paying any more tax because of the measure.

But if you were giving me £10 every week for the last 25 years I would be under every expectation that I would still be receiving the £10 in the future and it would be part of my normal income. Then if you suddenly stopped giving it to me I would be £10 worse off.

I really cannot understand how people can argue against the fact that less tax free allowance than what would have been if nothing had changed is not a loss...

Was it this one?

That was part of it, you missed out the more pertinent part...

"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."

And younger does not necessarily mean youth...20's 30's 40's all have more potential.

Is that really the best you can come up with?

Woah, woah....All you asked for was a sensible offer....which that is. I have said I do not know why the age allowance has been around for as long as there has been a personal allowance anyway, but it was obviously introduced for a reason. We would have to go back in the history books and try and find out why.

I have also not once defended it, I have just been pointing out that its removal is a loss.

I could actually come up with a far better reasoned argument against the age allowance than you have put forward so far, come on it's an easy one...you should have thought of it

There is really no solid reason for the difference, so why not simplify the tax system and have one allowance?

So why give them all the other benefits too?

Lets start charging them the 12% NI - which is a far bigger tax break than the allowance. Lets charge them for bus passes, perscriptions and every other tax subsidised benefit they get.

Why not?

 

[RDM]

But if you were giving me £10 every week for the last 25 years I would be under every expectation that I would still be receiving the £10 in the future and it would be part of my normal income. Then if you suddenly stopped giving it to me I would be £10 worse off.

I really cannot understand how people can argue against the fact that less tax free allowance than what would have been if nothing had changed is not a loss...

But that isn't what is happening. They will pay no additional tax. They will not have their "£10" stopped. Do you actually understand what changes are being made because it doesn't sound like it.

 

[Amp34]

But if you were giving me £10 every week for the last 25 years I would be under every expectation that I would still be receiving the £10 in the future and it would be part of my normal income. Then if you suddenly stopped giving it to me I would be £10 worse off.

I really cannot understand how people can argue against the fact that less tax free allowance than what would have been if nothing had changed is not a loss...

But that's not the case is it... What is actually happening is I am still giving you £10 a week, however not increasing it to £11 this year, whilst I'm giving an extra pound a week to the person I used to be giving £8 a week.

That was part of it, you missed out the more pertinent part...

"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."

Easily inflated away? How? State pensions are increased ~yearly to take into account the inflation. The Personal Allowance is also generally increased each year, just not this year for pensioners to align it with the rest of the population.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Combined with the budget and Winsor, I will be financially worse off.

My pension increases from 11% to 12.25% as of April.

 

[robgmun]

The so called "Granny Tax" is actually a tax cut they will no longer get rather than a tax raise.

It's not even that! It's a freeze on the tax allowance, but from the way the papers are going on about it the Tories might have kicked all pensioners in the balls and removed all their money out there bank accounts!

 

[Freakbro]

But that isn't what is happening. They will pay no additional tax. They will not have their "£10" stopped. Do you actually understand what changes are being made because it doesn't sound like it.

Ok let's look at figures...

Currently a 65y/o pensioner on £12k a year will get £7475 + £2465 = £9940 tax free pay. They pay no NI (you still haven't answered that one) so will pay 20% tax on £2060 = £412 tax.

If the rules had not changed then in 2013/14 a 65y/o pensioner would get £9205 + £2465 (not even accounting for any increase in the age allowance) = £11670 tax free pay. So they will pay 20% on £330 = £66 tax

But the rules have been changed. Now any new pensioner in 2013/14 will just get the £9205 tax free pay. So they will pay 20% tax on £2795 = £559 tax.

Oh look, thats more tax than they are even paying currently...still insisting they will pay no more tax and that you understand it fully?

It's not even that! It's a freeze on the tax allowance, but from the way the papers are going on about it the Tories might have kicked all pensioners in the balls and removed all their money out there bank accounts!

Actually, its even more stupid than that. The allowance is frozen for current pensioners but removed for all new pensioners from Apr 2013. So we have a two tier system of pensioners now

 

[do_ron_ron]

It's not even that! It's a freeze on the tax allowance, but from the way the papers are going on about it the Tories might have kicked all pensioners in the balls and removed all their money out there bank accounts!

The Treasury figures show that 350,000 extra pensioners, according to the BBC, will be taxed in the future.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Ok let's look at figures...

Currently a 65y/o pensioner on £12k a year will get £7475 + £2465 = £9940 tax free pay. They pay no NI (you still haven't answered that one) so will pay 20% tax on £2060 = £412 tax.

If the rules had not changed then in 2013/14 a 65y/o pensioner would get £9205 + £2465 (not even accounting for any increase in the age allowance) = £11670 tax free pay. So they will pay 20% on £330 = £66 tax

But the rules have been changed. Now any new pensioner in 2013/14 will just get the £9205 tax free pay. So they will pay 20% tax on £2795 = £559 tax.

Oh look, thats more tax than they are even paying currently...still insisting they will pay no more tax and that you understand it fully?



Actually, its even more stupid than that. The allowance is frozen for current pensioners but removed for all new pensioners from Apr 2013. So we have a two tier system of pensioners now

I think your wrong
I say this beacause of this statement "This means that from 6 April 2013 existing age-related allowances will be frozen at their 2012/2013 levels of £10,500"

So they dont get a drop as you are saying they get frozen allowances until the normal personal allowance catches up to what they have been getting