Couple of hours till the budget kicks off - any thoughts as to what will be in there? There have been a few things already leaked, I suspect there won't be any big giveaways given how long it is (meant to be) till the next election - is there enough political pressure to give more money to universal credit?
I just hope there's a new 50p to commemorate Brexit
- Nobody, ever.
It’s all a bit academic really, isn’t it?
like sitting making a list of all the holidays, activities and events you’re planning to attend over the next year, the on completing it going outside and throwing yourself down an old mine shaft?
is there enough political pressure to give more money to universal credit?
That was last weeks news, and the answer was yes but not enough, changing system too.
My suggestion is there will be quite a nice sweetener to middle classes, a token increase in amount to the NHS and a nominal increase to working tax credits. This will all be on basis of a good deal for brexit. If no deal / crash out then all the nice things are taken away.
I'm doing a budget, but if there's a no deal Brexit I'll have to do another one.
May i ask why bother, seeing as Government strategy on anything else to do with Brexit seems to be that there's no point wasting time on any sort of planning until we know what sort of deal we'll have going forward?
It's a sad day when Hammond is actually the cream of the crop.
[edit - and just seen that No 10 has said it won't change spending plans even if we do get no deal. So, it's more magic money tree then?]
He'll doubtless decide to make PSC's illegal, just as I'm about to go freelance again.
Universal Credit has got totally unworkable, bottomless moneypit written all over it.
Surprising for something devised by the towering intellect of Ian Duncan Smith then delivered by someone of the talent of Esther McVey
Universal Credit is actually a good system.
Well, it was til they messed with the tapers, made it really complicated to apply for/maintain and gave SFA support for the people on it.
Middle Class Sweetener
Business Incentives
Tax Cuts for special people
Hits for anyone who won't vote tory
Fake promise to ring fence tax rises for something or other
I like the narrative on the New 50p ....
“£1”
Only because I've been following it on the Beeb.
"The end of austerity" - followed by a few token gestures given as round figures rather than percentage increases in budgets to hide the fact they're only just ahead of inflation, if at all.
"£30bn to repair roads" - likely in the form of a nearly impossible to access fund for local governments, less than 10% will be spent before the next budget. Oh, and it's only for England, 'cause voter base.
£900m business rates relief for small businesses, sales of 5 Series, A6 and E-Series Mercedes to peak whilst wage inflation sits at near zero at the same time as the BOE use their powers to reduce our spending power in a time when family budgets are already strained to push down inflation caused by the weakened £
"Plans to cut the cost of Weddings" by allowing people to be married outdoors to save money.... possible the daftest idea I've ever heard. The venue you actually get married in in ludicrously cheap compared say, the flowers - truthfully people get married because they want to have a wedding, people who just want to stay together, stay together with or without getting married.
I've tried not being cynical, but as above, there's almost no point to it, he won't make any plans that Brexit won't affect, and it affects almost everything.
No new PFI’s
£1.7bn extra for Tax Credts (makes you want to start a family and live on benefits doesn’t it)
Now’t on Beer n Fags
No rise in fuel duty (cool, lets go rag our little Diesel engined SUVs)
£20bn more for the NHS
£7bn for Mays facelift and hair do..
£370m for Northern Ireland (more DUP bribes?)
Tax hike on basic rate taking lower paid workers out of the Tax bands.
Not a lot about Brexit other than he’s miraculously found the £1.7bn out of a hat for the Tax credit fiasco..
£860 (quick maths on my side, might be wrong?) extra cash in the pocket of anyone earning over £50k? otherwise seems quite small
Zero % imagination.
Usual then.
£860 (quick maths on my side, might be wrong?) extra cash in the pocket of anyone earning over £50k?
Well they do have it tough, 50k is close to poverty round here. I mean you probably can't even afford a second home on that.
Beer, cider and spirits duties to be frozen
Wine duty to rise in line with inflation
Thats it, the final straw I shall never vote Tory ever again!!
£860 (quick maths on my side, might be wrong?) extra cash in the pocket of anyone earning over £50k? otherwise seems quite small
Good news! thats...
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Beer, cider and spirits duties to be frozen</span>
... a couple of weeks at Ocado sorted.
£860 (quick maths on my side, might be wrong?) extra cash in the pocket of anyone earning over £50k?
Well they do have it tough, 50k is close to poverty round here. I mean you probably can’t even afford a second home on that.
Second or third?
'Era of austerity <span style="text-decoration: underline;">coming to an end</span>' which means it ain't all over for a good while yet. The Brexit hurricane could put paid to a lot of this budget anyway. They're going to be passing a lot of debt on to Corbyn's administration and our assets have been stripped.
I really cannot believe how anyone who was not a multi-millionaire would vote for this lot. But they do. Christmas coming soon for the turkeys.
50k a year for each secondary school to spend on those "little extras"
What like teachers, buildings, SEN provision or TA's?
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN02625#fullreport
Average secondary school has 910 pupils so £54.95 per pupil
Is that per day or year?
Per year, going to make a massive difference of course. It might help people work out these are tiny amounts being used to bribe people.
Is that per day or year?
Per lifetime, its a one off!
I ****ing hate tories.
is there enough political pressure to give more money to universal credit?
Until March then once Johnny Foreigner has gone the mail will switch focus to benefit scum not contributing to society
Good to see the Tories true to colour giving 6x more to high earners than the low paid (£860 vs £130 tax cut by moving the bands a bit). Total waste of money IMO, the should have given the billion or two it will cost to adult social care.
🤣👏
‘Era of austerity coming to an end’
Not in my house. At least they’re releasing a commemorative fifty pence piece though. That’ll make everything better.
He’ll doubtless decide to make PSC’s illegal, just as I’m about to go freelance again.
That geoffj was on the money re IR35 in the private sector 😉
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/contractors-what-accountancy-company-do-you-use/
“Good to see the Tories true to colour giving 6x more to high earners than the low paid (£860 vs £130 tax cut by moving the bands a bit). Total waste of money IMO, the should have given the billion or two it will cost to adult social care.”
+1. I certainly don’t need this tax break while there are people in paid employment using food banks. Should be the other way round.
the LD’s got a lot of flack for being in coalition with the conservatives, but I don’t think they’d have allowed this giveaway to higher earners with so little for lower incomes.
You do realise it’s proportional don’t you? And that most of those higher earners are paying a shitload more tax than they’ll ever use via the State themselves, and supporting the lower earners?
Its funny how the lower earners never think of the fact that other people might be paying for the state services that they consume, because thier wage bill doesn’t cover it. There should be some people at least grateful that they dont have to fork out for private care/dental/education on a lower salary because we actually do have state services to support them, whilst they are actually about to pay even less of as contribution.
Sure, the higher earners might not “need” it quite so much but why should they give away thier achievements or be punished for thier success in life - which seems to be the opinion of some people.
£860 (quick maths on my side, might be wrong?) extra cash in the pocket of anyone earning over £50k?
More or less, but offset by increased NI which *everyone* has to pay. So the "lifting people out of tax entirely" is a load of bollocks.
Sure, the higher earners might not “need” it quite so much but why should they give away thier achievements or be punished for thier success in life – which seems to be the opinion of some people.
Every time there is the mention of money or earnings you bring up success, achievement or something similar. You do realise that there are low earners who have chosen to work in fields that may not pay much and high earners who haven’t worked particularly hard to get where they are? Not having a dig, just an observation from other posts I’ve seen you make.
thier wage bill doesn’t cover it. There should be some people at least grateful that they dont have to fork out for private care/dental/education on a lower salary because we actually do have state services to support them, whilst they are actually about to pay even less of as contribution.
Nice list of essentials there kryton. When did you last have to decide which bill to pay or if it was food or heating
but why should they give away their achievements or be punished for their success in life
Of course, the luck of birth doesn't enter into things in this glorious meritocracy of ours, which as we all know is a model for social mobility the envy of the world.
Is this where we get the standard "I didn't get where I am today....." bit?
You do realise it’s proportional don’t you? And that most of those higher earners are paying a shitload more tax than they’ll ever use via the State themselves, and supporting the lower earners?
This argument always amuses me. The benefit of public services is too society as a whole not individuals. Just think it through - state education provides an educated workforce, police, armed forces, infrastructure, enrimonenal and food protection etc directly benefit all.
The biggest element of welfare is state pensions which is not means tested ( and wealthy people live longer). The next biggest is benefit s paid to working oeippe because the minimum wage is too low - so additional benefits are required to give people a standard of living that keeps them in work and society functioning.
Taxation - or more accurately the services paid for by tax, keeps society functioning. Rich people by definition benefit most from functioning societies
And that most of those higher earners are paying a shitload more tax
Not as a proportion of their income.
Kryton has a point to some degree, counter that by Tax being a revenue stream to provide services to All.
Granted once you get over an income threshold those same services are taken away, and have to be paid for separately.
But by then higher income earners have the means to pay for it.
I support Vince Cables proposal of 1p in the £ increase in Tax for all.
I’m of the opinion the only way to satisfy the deficit the low income earners and in work low income can get out of that trap the better for all.
I am a higher rate income earner, I can afford it.
My support does however have a caviat, and that is anyone who voted for Brexit can **** off.
As a proportion of there income, higher rate tax payers t\do pay more as a proportion of their income. Unless they are BBC media types etc who make themselves a company etc.
if everyone who voted foe Brexit f***s off, where do you replace the 52% reduction in revenue stream ....
This argument always amuses me. The benefit of public services is too society as a whole not individuals. Just think it through – state education provides an educated workforce, police, armed forces, infrastructure, enrimonenal and food protection etc directly benefit all.
Which also amuses me. The original argument stands against higher earners as being unfair, but actually the greatest majority of users of the above is the lower earning populous. Higher earners get no more of those services based on their tax contribution than lower earners. If you want to talk about unfair, perhaps have a think on that.
Typical of the "lower earner" argument, is that it would appear higher earners are privileged for their success. As far as the state is concerned that isn't true at all - they contribute more and generically speaking receive the same level of state services as their lower earning neighbours. Where their privilege comes is the higher proportion of disposable income which they (in the main) <i>earned </i>via their working salary, and have every right to spend as they wish. If they then choose to use that income to enhance a level of service - private education, private healthcare - thats their choice, its not handed to them by UK Gov.
if everyone who voted foe Brexit f***s off, where do you replace the 52% reduction in revenue stream ….
We’d benefit from a stable social cohesion... and those Brexiteers can go play in Argentina.
if everyone who voted foe Brexit f***s off, where do you replace the 52% reduction in revenue stream ….
Nah, just think of the net benefit of not paying all those pensions and concomitant NHS bills ( 😉 )
You do realise it’s proportional don’t you?
No, really, thats a shock!
No, really, thats a shock!
Lol, we'll he conveniently forgot that when he wrote his post....
Typical of the “lower earner” argument, is that it would appear higher earners are privileged for their success.
You keep using the word success, like you're referring to achievements. Would you not agree that you could just as easily, in a lot of cases, replace 'success' with the word 'luck'?
You keep using the word success, like you’re referring to achievements. Would you not agree that you could just as easily, in a lot of cases, replace ‘success’ with the word ‘luck’?
Yes sure. Some people are more successful, luckier, generally on a higher rung of the ladder than others. So what? You can be bitter about it all your life, or you can crack on with what you have and enjoy yourself the best you can. For some that will be harder than others, some will get/deserve help, some won't, but thats life. Ranting on the internet in a jealous rage waving our willies' over factoids who's right/wrong won't change it.
Kryton - my point is that taxation and the services it supports allows society to function. This benefits everyone - not least more wealthy people who wouldn't be in that position without a functioning society.
Just take education ( which you mentioned a couple of times). Without state education you would not have a modern workforce - even the most basic work requires literacy and numeracy and most requires much more sophisticated skillset. Without good state education society is doomed to a low skill, low productivity, low wealth economy.
The fact that some people, who have benefited most from an educated society, choose to privately educate their kids doesn't diminish the much wider benefits they receive from an educated (and wider functioning) society.
Sure, old dog, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just stating that the services you describe are the same for higher earners and lower earners. Yet the higher earners contribute more, and the knives come out when they' get a little more - £700 approx - back.
It'd be more of a understandable argument if a person paying £40k in tax to the revenue vs a person who pays £20k in tax got double the amount/standard of services and then got a bigger let off. But they don't.
Would you not agree that you could just as easily, in a lot of cases, replace ‘success’ with the word ‘luck’?
its worth noting that, however fair, a headline giveaway to 40% earners (who are likely tory voters anyway) is 7x cheaper than a giveaway to the 20% earners (source : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40117521 - 29.3m vs 4.2m on the 40%) - so if the whole value of the giveaway had been at the 20% level, it'd have put the base rate up to approx £13k (+/- £25 or so) and saved everyone £104, or spot on £2/week (apologies if my maths are wrong).
FWIW the 'high earners pay less proportional tax' thing is (IMO) a load of b******s. its based on the idea that higher rate earners don't spend all their money, and therefore don't spend as much vat as a proportion of income, however the money gets spent at some point, by someone, and surely attracts VAT at that point in time..
Higher earners have more to lose if the country goes tits up.
Perhaps they should be investing more to ensure that doesn't happen.
Typical of the “lower earner” argument, is that it would appear higher earners are privileged for their success.
What about a teacher, nurse, healthcare worker or such like who are very successful in a field that is vital to our society but not rewarded.
Yet the higher earners contribute more, and the knives come out when they’ get a little more – £700 approx – back.
Personally I'm happy for that to be spent on Education, Health or social care. They need it more than I do at the moment.
What about a teacher, nurse, healthcare worker or such like who are very successful in a field that is vital to our society but not rewarded.
Er, they have pay grades? A Head teacher earns more than I do, and is certainly in the higher tax bracket... senior level Doctors? Same. My MIL a local government social worker, also in the higher tax bracket.... And that's be the same for my own private sector job.
Sorry your argument was what exactly... invalid?
Personally I’m happy for that to be spent on Education, Health or social care. They need it more than I do at the moment.
Then donate it. You don't have to keep it.
Come on Mike. Don't be naive. Your worth is measured in how much you earn and how many shiny things you own. Healthcare workers and teachers are all just losers who clearly lack ambition
As a proportion of there income, higher rate tax payers t\do pay more as a proportion of their income.
No they don't.
Sorry your argument was what exactly… invalid?
Walk into A&E and tell them about your tax break and how you are worth it. You have picked on the minority examples there, wonder why....
Then donate it. You don’t have to keep it.
How do I pay more into the state?
If you can't spot the government are bribing you then you need to look a little closer and question how you earned your success.
A Head teacher earns more than I do
By definition, the vast majority of teachers cannot become headteachers.
My MIL a local government social worker, also in the higher tax bracket
If she's higher tax bracket, then she will be the head of service, responsible for a significant number of staff and a large budget.
Right, time for the next cherry pick.
By definition, the vast majority of teachers cannot become headteachers.
By definition, not all Sales people (my job) get to be higher earners...
As a proportion of there income, higher rate tax payers t\do pay more as a proportion of their income.
No they don’t.
got a source? I'd love to have a poke to see if its actually true once spending in old age and benefits (which effectively reverse tax burden) are taken into account
By definition, the vast majority of teachers cannot become headteachers.
true, however they can (and should, if they are best in their field) become leading practitioners, for which the pay scale is £40-68k before TLR payments (an optional, additional £500-13000)
https://neu.org.uk/advice-and-resources/pay/pay-scales-2018-9
then she will be the head of service, responsible for a significant number of staff and a large budget.
She isn't.
Its funny how the lower earners never think of the fact that other people might be paying for the state services that they consume, because thier wage bill doesn’t cover it.
For the record I'm a higher rate tax payer...
How do I pay more into the state?
make a patriotic gift. not many do...
https://www.ft.com/content/4b3e6db0-e57a-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec
true, however they can (and should, if they are best in their field) become leading practitioners, for which the pay scale is £40-68k before TLR payments (an optional, additional £500-13000)
and seriously
WTF does that have to do with equality in the tax system. If those teachers get to that pay grade do they feel they need a bung from the government or would they think it better spent on education and lower paid teachers?
Of course at 50k you could have saved yourself some tax by paying alittle more into your pension, another tax benefit which yields significantly more to higher earners.
For the record I’m a higher rate tax payer…
Tsk... 😉
By definition, the vast majority of teachers cannot become headteachers.
Do you honestly think the vast majority of say bank workers for example are in the higher tax bracket? Trust me, they aren't... They'll earn less than a teacher.. By quite a bit.
Some people's seem to think that in the public sector there is no way to earn a good wage, whilst in the private sector everyone just turns up to work and gets paid 40k a year. Utterly clueless.
I find this outrage about what is a pretty minor amount on a headline very funny.
the man delivering the budget is known as mr spreadsheet for his attention to the numbers. Personally I think this is a good thing
now he is expecting the treasury revenue to increase despite the collapse of the high street and many other factors. If he can potentially give out this cash and all the other money he is stinging us somewhere else. I can’t see the trend yet but have not reviewed the full package. We gonna get screwed it is always the case
of course he could just be throwing numbers out there to look good knowing that in March there will be an emergency budget unless we are still in the full status quo with the EU...
She isn’t
If she's earning enough to pay higher rate tax, then she isn't a social worker. Local authorities don't even pay that much to team leaders.
Do you honestly think the vast majority of say bank workers for example are in the higher tax bracket? Trust me, they aren’t… They’ll earn less than a teacher.. By quite a bit.
Where did I say that they are? My comment was a response to Kryton's tedious cherry picking.
Some people’s seem to think that in the public sector there is no way to earn a good wage
I'm in the public sector and earn a good wage. HTH.
It certainly seems a budget to try and buy a few votes with the change in tax breaks. Especially the increase in the higher rate starting point. I've got to say that it seems odd given that the Scottish tax break points are remaining the same. It's funny how tax rates are not decreased these days but the tax break points are used to give tax payers money back.
The "one-off £400m "bonus" to help schools buy "the little extras they need" is offensive in all sorts of ways. It sounds like giving a tip or something instead of addressing the real funding shortages in schools.
Finally tightening up the IR35 rules seems like a good thing.
Kryton’s tedious cherry picking.
Of what exactly? I genuinely thought my posts this morning where quite generic to the subject...
got a source? I’d love to have a poke to see if its actually true once spending in old age and benefits (which effectively reverse tax burden) are taken into account
I can't find it right now, but the government releases an annual report of household income and expenditure, broken down by income decile. IIRC only the poorest and wealthiest deciles see a significant shift in total taxation, with everyone else about the same.
Of what exactly? I genuinely thought my posts this morning where quite generic to the subject…
Seriously? It was suggested that nurses and teachers perform a rather important role in society, while not earning a fortune, and you decided to talk about head teachers and your mother in law.
For the record, I earn pretty well, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that it's all down to my own endeavours, or that I'm more successful than someone who earns less, or that I shouldn't pay some more towards the common good from which I've benefitted.
If she’s earning enough to pay higher rate tax, then she isn’t a social worker. Local authorities don’t even pay that much to team leaders.
Depends on location and speciality. I knew social workers paying higher rate tax in that London 15 years ago... is probably not the norm but market forces made them jack up salaries as everyone was quitting.
As above if you are in the middle nothing much changes. Everyone has a different perception of low middle and high though...
The “one-off £400m “bonus” to help schools buy “the little extras they need” is offensive in all sorts of ways. It sounds like giving a tip or something instead of addressing the real funding shortages in schools
I think it really demonstrates the disconnect in government (and the Westminster Bubble generally) in how they perceive things, and how things actually are. I don't think that in their world of private healthcare and education, they've any real concept of how a decade of cuts has impacted on education and so many other areas in public life.
Or if they do perceive it and just don't care? In which case its just like beating your wife consistently for a decade then one day bunging her twenty quid an telling her to go and buy herself something nice
For those trotting out the same old "high earners always get more nonsense" Have a read of this, it is a few years old and written by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For the record, I earn pretty well, but I’m not arrogant enough to believe that it’s all down to my own endeavours, or that I’m more successful than someone who earns less, or that I shouldn’t pay some more towards the common good from which I’ve benefitted
Neither i am. You’ve clearly judged me on one piece of internet text. There was another thread a week ok about peoples savings within which I posted my employment life story to date, maybe you should read that. I’m doing alright now but very aware it could come crashing down at any minute, I’m very much “the middle” in the main.
It wasn’t me that mentioned Head Teachers, and I used my MIL as an example of a public sector employee in the higher tax bracket where it was alluded by Mike that such a thing might not be possible - since vindicated by others.
@hooli - very good!
Depends on location and speciality. I knew social workers paying higher rate tax in that London 15 years ago… is probably not the norm but market forces made them jack up salaries as everyone was quitting.
I just had a quick look on Guardian jobs for social care in London, over £50k. The adverts were mostly for service leads and directors, with a couple of team managers.
Neither i am. You’ve clearly judged me on one piece of internet text.
It's how you come across, to me and others here.