As a fairly low earner (by STW standards) on a bit more than minimum wage it's not helped me one little bit. So much for helping 'working people'.
Assuming you have to get a new mortgage deal in the next few years, and have to pay to heat your home, I disagree. If you have kids at primary school, I disagree a bit more. If you'll need GP access and/or hospital based treatment soon, I disagree much more.
Assuming you have to get a new mortgage deal in the next few years, and have to pay to heat your home, I disagree. If you have kids at primary school, I disagree a bit more. If you'll need GP access and/or hospital based treatment soon, I disagree much more.
• We have no mortgage now - and I didn't see how they were helping people with mortgages?
• Heating costs keep rising - and where did they promise a reduction in this budget? They did that before the election and have failed.
• Daughter is 21 and is already consigned to never owning her own house this side of her mid thirties. We bought when were were 22 in 1989.
• GP Access - what difference has this budget made to that? More money is being chucked in but my GP surgeries service is getting worse.
So, bike to work not affected ?
Dear god, Kemi Badanoch is absolutely awful! It’s embarrassing to listen to.
Rachael Reeves is hardly a great speaker, but she sounds like a towering intellectual colossus compared to this smug, whiney drivel
Does she think she’s on some sort of American reality television show, or something? She sounds like it delivering this statement. I’ve never seen anyone look so pleased with themselves. God only knows why?
...which made me sit up a little, cos that's very different.
Can't imagine they'd scrap the income tax relief on pension contributions, defeats the point of making them.
If you go on this page and scroll down to the policy decisions spreadsheet you can see the detail:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-documents-for-budget-2025
The sal sac is a cap on the amount that escapes NI not a cap on sal sac full stop (tho your employer may well pay for it by reducing matched contributions etc).
Nothing on bike to work by the looks of things in this or the full budget document that I can find. Mamils rejoice.
what happened to parental responsibility when choosing how big a family to have? Are you suggesting parents should just have as many kids as they like and the taxpayer should pay for them?
Yes (although it's hardly paying for them). I think it's morally worse to punish the children even if you disagree with the parent for having the child - the child has had no say in the matter.
Looks like they noticed how EVs are impacting on fuel duty receipts. How are they going to work a per mile tax on EV's?
I have no idea, and that sounds sketch AF but I don't object to paying my fair share. EV motoring will still be at least 1/3 the cost of diesel for me. But this will put a lot of people off EVs so the prices should plummet, and I'll be happy about that.
yeah I agree it will take some working out. I agree that there needs to be some way for governments to recoup lost fuel duty with the switching to EVs but I think it’s too early to implement if they really want people to switch as this will no doubt put some people off buying one. Is it going to be self declared? What if you over or under declare? What if someone decides to under declare how will it be spotted? What if I buy a second hand EV that was under declared by previous owner, do I need to stump up the difference? How will it work here in Ireland, I know a colleague who has an EV and lives in the north but probably does 50%+ of their driving in the Republic, or what if you go to Europe for a summer and put loads of miles on, are you paying ££s to the UK for driving abroad? How much will it cost to bring in and monitor vs what it will raise?
If the average mileage is say 10,000 a year why not just add £300 to EV road tax?
If the average mileage is say 10,000 a year why not just add £300 to EV road tax?
Possibly a trial before rolling out pay-per-mile for everyone? I can see a fairly easy way of doing it because you just insist that the mileage is given to the DVLA during the V5 transfer. Anything outstanding will be billed then. Anything overpaid is returned as a refund.
It's insane, the whole thing will almost certainly cost more to administer than it would every bring in in tax receipts and they could have just waited until there was an automated system in place (or started mandating it in new vehicles from 2028). But few of the changes in this budget seem to be pragmatic or sensible.
Can't imagine they'd scrap the income tax relief on pension contributions, defeats the point of making them.
Same could be said of NI though?
This change will mean that 'middle' earners will pay 8% NI on their pension contributions. But 'high' earners still only pay 2%?
It makes sense that it's only taxed once, I absolutely agree. But then NI shouldn't be effectively capped* once you're earning £50k. Make it a flat 8% for all earning and reduce the higher rate to 32% so everyone's paying proportionally the same.
*you pay £3.2k on the first 50k, then only £1k on the next £50k.
As a fairly low earner (by STW standards) on a bit more than minimum wage it's not helped me one little bit. So much for helping 'working people'.
The simple answer is that everyone else paying more tax should lead to improved public services. And 11%/£1.35 rise on the minimum wage will inevitably filter through similarly to other low wages .
Looking at the pension change. 2029, the next GE is in 2029. Does this indicate they will run the election late 2028, and thus assuming they lose, it won't be there fault when people take the hit?
If the average mileage is say 10,000 a year why not just add £300 to EV road tax?
And how do you encourage people not to drive? Which surely is a more sensible approach. With the tech in modern cars i am sure it wouldn't be that hard to record mileage offload to a gov server and be billed accordingly. You drive under licence anyway, so if you are worried about big brother then stop driving.
what happened to parental responsibility when choosing how big a family to have? Are you suggesting parents should just have as many kids as they like and the taxpayer should pay for them?
Punishing parents and the kids after the fact is a pretty appalling way to approach this issue. This isn't Victorian times, thankfully.
i am sure it wouldn't be that hard to record mileage offload to a gov server and be billed accordingly
It would actually be extremely difficult without putting mandates in place for how it might work now and giving manufacturers years to implement. Who pays for the data connection? Do you track journeys or just total distance. Why aren’t short journeys penalised more?
There is an attitude from the general public that major changes to how things worked are a simple software change and the reality is that it’s the opposite.
Every time a car is MOTd the mileage is recorded in the system, so that dataset generally exists
ok theres the first 3 years and ownership changes to account for, but nothing impossible to overcome.
The simple answer is that everyone else paying more tax should lead to improved public services. And 11%/£1.35 rise on the minimum wage will inevitably filter through similarly to other low wages .
That's all right then - I'll wait a couple of years for it to filter through. Or increasingly the minimum wage just becomes the default wage for companies to pay.
Or they could increase the tax thresholds, put money directly in peoples pockets. Let people spend it and collect the tax revenue through increased high street and service industry spend.
...but we've got a black hole to fill first!
I really don’t understand why you should get a state handout for choosing to have more than 2 kids. Why should your lifestyle choice be subsidised by the rest of the population.
If you look at the data most of these instances happen when families join together (eg. divorced families remarrying, creating bigger families) or when a family had the means to support 3+ children but their situations have changed (eg. redundancy)
Very little of the benefit is paid to people popping out babies for another £100 per month
Looking at the pension change. 2029, the next GE is in 2029. Does this indicate they will run the election late 2028, and thus assuming they lose, it won't be there fault when people take the hit?
or they are gambling on an improved economic outlook so they can magnanimously scrap the plans just b4 the election, whilst still keeping the bond markets happy in the now to spare us from higher inflation
That's all right then - I'll wait a couple of years for it to filter through. Or increasingly the minimum wage just becomes the default wage for companies to pay.
Well in principle it doesn't work like that.
Lots of things factor into the supply and demand for labour but broadly you can look at them as a variety of costs.
If a job requires no skills or physicality, no anti social hours, isn't morally or otherwise objectionable, etc then it becomes the benchmark for the minimum. You add something to that, like night shifts, physical labour, objectionable work, etc then fewer people want to do it and it maintains a premium over the baseline. People generally don't want to work night shifts in an abattoir (anti social, physical, morally objectionable), so it has to pay more otherwise they'd go do something far easier.
Raising the min wage will inflate all those wages that are £minimum+ otherwise people tend to just move jobs. By the time it's upto mid £30,000's (the UK average) it probably doesn't have much impact.
So "those with the broadest shoulders" means everyone who pays income tax, workers contributing more than £2k to a pension via salary sacrifice, and people driving EV's.
Yet there's money in the pot for a giveaway on some benefits and for pensioners to keep their ISA perks.
Weird optics for a labour government that came into power on the promise of helping working people. If there is a political strategy here I don't understand it.
I wish she would stop lying about “everyone making a contribution”. They’re not. The lazy and ****less are getting big rises at the expense of the hard working and prudent. That’s hardly fair.
Yet there's money in the pot for a giveaway on some benefits and for pensioners to keep their ISA perks.
Weird optics for a labour government that came into power on the promise of helping working people. If there is a political strategy here I don't understand it.
We all have ISA perks still. Well, in theory... I have nothing to put in one myself. What looks to be happening is a push from cash to shares ISAs for those of working age. This push isn't happening for retired folk for lots of reasons... the most obvious being the length of term of ISAs for older folk often needs to be shorter.
As for working people... I'm glad that the young are slowly being treated more as working adults, rather than fobbing them off with "wages for kids" with a low pocket money level of minimum wage. I hope this is a long term move towards equalising minimum wage levels for young adults.
Oh, and remember two things... many people in receipt of benefits are either in work, or are carers, or have worked and are now either old or broken. Excluding all of those groups from "working people" is very selective. Imagine the life of a carer, or a worker with a disability, before discounting them.
I wish she would stop lying about “everyone making a contribution”. They’re not. The lazy and ****less are getting big rises at the expense of the hard working and prudent. That’s hardly fair.
Yup they should've definitely gone further on the wealth tax & things like 2nd homes.
I wish she would stop lying about “everyone making a contribution”. They’re not. The lazy and ****less are getting big rises at the expense of the hard working and prudent. That’s hardly fair.
surely your kind of nonsense sells well in the daily mail, but posters on here are grown up enough to see through it?
scarpping the 2 child benefit cap is about a ridiculously cruel policy that ends up pushing kids even further into society and costing us much more in the long run as their life prospects never recover
weve had a tory experiment to see what happens when it was cut its not been shown to increase the humber of kids people have on benefits , but it has been shown to be damaging and pointless
and a below inflation rise in disability benefits and halving the limited capability for work and work-related activity top up is going to hit some hard
Well I'm surprised no end by the good people of STW, well at least some of their bile and anger at the "lazy" "disabled" et all because they might have to pay a bit more tax than they'd like, it's like PH NP&E in here!
As always... wait for the details... but this, so far, looks like a Labour budget. And it needed to be.
As in 'current' Labour being particularly economically clueless? I'd agree.
The EV charge will almost certainly kill any green credentials Labour may have had - 3ppm might not be much but it will be another nail in the coffin for the take up of those.
I like the removal of the 2CBc - (wouldn't have happened without pressure from the greens.) And the reduction on energy bills - but that's going up early next year.
It's a tinkering 'typical' lack of ambition and investment budget that will not save them from Reform
Medium term growth forecasts down from the absolutely right-on OBR. Good christ they need to be sent packing.
Labour are the party of growth right?
This budget is damage limitation for the chaos that they've caused. It's not anything like the scale that is needed to put the country on good footing.
But agree might keep Reeves in a job until May.
I absolutely am never on the same page as Ian Dunt.
But he's managed to hit the sweet spot here.
https://bsky.app/profile/iandunt.bsky.social/post/3m6k7pjejks25
Yes Rich. Agree.
3ppm might not be much but it will be another nail in the coffin for the take up of those
“Nail in the coffin”… how dramatic. While running costs, including tax on fuel, remains higher for fossil fuel cars, the financial benefits of buying electric (if you’re fortunate enough to be in a position to be buying new) remains. The choice and availability of electric cars has matured, and car buying will soon become a matter of needing a very good reason not to go electric. 3ppm isn’t that reason… if cost per a mile is your priority, and you can charge at home, electric remains attractive.
Maturing energy generation and distribution is where the government needs to do more to prepare for more electric vehicles. Tax breaks for car owners need to be tapered off.
Yes Rich. Agree.
Short version… tax the asset rich at much higher rates… agreed.
Plenty of his other words there are just media messaging fluff.
I wish she would stop lying about “everyone making a contribution”. They’re not. The lazy and ****less are getting big rises at the expense of the hard working and prudent. That’s hardly fair.
****ING right on, those work shy landed wealth billionaires need to actually get grafting proper and paying taxes instead of buying out media and drip feeding hate so they cop as little blame as possible for their poisonous divisive bile.
Tax breaks for car owners need to be tapered off
I've not seen what on offer yet, but I'd be perfectly happy with big electric cars losing most of the government incentives and small and "affordable" EVs retaining, or getting boosted incentives.
I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon in the UK admittedly.
No mention of a crackdown on the Royal benefit fraudsters either.The leper colony rolls on
I agree, taxes had to rise for ordinary folks.With FTSE 100 companies only managing 39 Billion of share buybacks last year savings have to be made
Here we go again. Reeves is claiming freezing the thresholds doesn't break the manifesto pledge not to raise income tax. Does she think voters are ****ing idiots? by 2031 I'll be paying approx £1300 more per year (assuming inflation linked pay rises) than I would if she hadn't frozen them. That looks and feels like an income tax rise to me, despite her semantic gymnastics. TBH I don't really care much about the tax rise, I can afford it just like many other high-rate taxpayers can, but she should at least be honest and stop taking the voters for fools and idiots.
Just NI paid after the first £2K I believe, income tax relief still applies for the full amount.
Yeah, that's what I thought initially (after reading the OBR leak), but then she said this
"I am introducing a £2,000 cap on salary sacrifice into a pension with contributions above that taxed in the same way as other employee pension contributions,"
...which made me sit up a little, cos that's very different.
BBC reporting on this was terrible - but it is changing to the same way others are taxed, because, if you pay into a private pension from your net pay, the government only refunds the income tax you paid on the gross, it doesn't refund NI.
The way the BBX was reporting it, they were going to tax anything above the £2k as normal income which would have been a disaster for pension contributions everywhere!
I'd be perfectly happy with big electric cars losing most of the government incentives and small and "affordable" EVs retaining, or getting boosted incentives.
We need people out of ICEs and into EVs for a fair few reasons. I mean really, we need them out of cars altogether, but that's not going to happen for a long time if ever.
Agreed, but people who own cars should be taxed more than people who don’t. And, pertinent to today’s announcement, people who use their cars more should pay more tax than those who use them less. That needs to happen in the EV car future. Advantages for going EV are still needed… but you should receive still more advantage if you manage (or have to) either live car free, or use you car rarely. This all points to taxes on owning and using EVs, but with higher taxes still on fossil fuel car use.
what happened to parental responsibility when choosing how big a family to have? Are you suggesting parents should just have as many kids as they like and the taxpayer should pay for them?
Probably lost in the same corner as my crystal ball which can tell me that I will be free from relationship breakdown, redundancy, ill health etc for the next 20 years.
Had I a family, it would have been a responsible choice in 1990 - 2003. 2004 however I would have been dirt poor and struggling.
I find the as many kids as they like argument pretty disgusting and the stupidity of predicating a policy on the responsibility of a citizen to be clairvoyant breathtaking. And that's before punishing children.
Forget 2 child cap or no cap, the basis of the threshold needs to change surely.
Seems madness to have the policy based on the highest earner in the household, not the joint income. So a couple both earning £55k each get the full allowance, yet a single earner household of £80k has to repay some of the allowance.
Not sure how you'd police that though - you'd have to financially link the couple 🤔
Agreed, but people who own cars should be taxed more than people who don’t. And, pertinent to today’s announcement, people who use their cars more should pay more tax than those who use them less. That needs to happen in the EV car future. Advantages for going EV are still needed… but you should receive still more advantage if you manage (or have to) either live car free, or use you car rarely. This all points to taxes on owning and using EVs, but with higher taxes still on fossil fuel car use.
You a city dweller? A lot of rural folk are poor and a car is essential not a luxury. What’s your plan for more rural public transport so they can enjoy all this advantage you speak of, I’m all ears?
Or move to an area where you can afford travel costs.
Or move to an area where you can afford travel costs.
All the serfs should live in the towns. It keeps them in their place.
Well if as some here have argued that the benefits should be capped to 2 kids, I am not sure why I should be too bothered that those living in the nicest places can't afford cars.
Or move to an area where you can afford travel costs.
Damn right brother....keep the countryside and rural areas clear of plebs so that Tarquin, Farquin and Forbes can run around in tweeds whilst shooting the reared peasants pheasants
Tory backbenchers and Nigel Farage are supporting the lifting of the two child cap.Famous socialists them guys.
Not a fan of those pension changes.
If you retired 5 years ago you are probably laughing, you have your state pension and most probably a very nice public or private one to boot
Meanwhile anyone aged under 55 is destined to be skint in retirement, unless they are lucky enough to inherit a vast amount of cash to live off
Strikes me that yet again those folks in the middle, folks not getting minimum wage but still struggling to get by, get reemed, whilst the uber wealthy and large corporations barely get touched
2 child benefit cap is going?
The mouth breathers aren't going to like that.
I better start breathing through my mouth then. I really don’t understand why you should get a state handout for choosing to have more than 2 kids. Why should your lifestyle choice be subsidised by the rest of the population.
As someone who breathes through both nose and mouth (try riding up Winnats Pass on a normal bike without opening yer gob !!) Id prefer if the £££ found down the sofa to pay for this was instead directed ... ahem... directly... into primary and secondary school education. Part of the long term answer to child poverty is in education - give them a decent education and in turn to be able to actually doing something useful and productive in society. Hand outs to some are needed. To other families though its spaffed away and not used to better feed and clothe the kids.
Or move to an area where you can afford travel costs.
...only if we can shoot peasants instead of pheasants!
Well if as some here have argued that the benefits should be capped to 2 kids, I am not sure why I should be too bothered that those living in the nicest places can't afford cars
The nicest places aren’t necessarily those with the worst public transport.
I had better access to public transport in a posh Berkshire village, than a suburb of a nearby town, which incidentally was cheap enough for me to afford to live in.
So those here in favour of the 2-child cap are also anti-immigration if my memory serves me right. With a birth rate of 1.41. Does not compute. 🙃
We had decades and decades of no limit on child benefit (old "family allowance") and society didn't collapse. Reversing the cap is one of the few good things to come out of this budget.
Did I miss something!? A few grand a year on £2m+ properties isn't targeting the UK's wealthiest!... 🤬 🤬
You a city dweller? A lot of rural folk are poor and a car is essential not a luxury.
I grew up in Herefordshire, and didn’t drive while I was there. It’s where my love of cycling started. I learnt to drive when my first kid was on the way years later. I am fully aware that for some people driving is not a luxury. The taxation system still needs the be used to discourage driving and incentivise other options. Even if you can only get to the shops by car, then pricing per a mile will encourage fewer shopping trips (the big shop) rather than regular smaller ones. For example.
I read today that over 55% of the population recieve more in benefits than they pay in tax, which I find astonishing.
Conversely, 59% of the population managed to go abroad on holiday last year.
As someone who recieves zero benefits, pays a wack load of tax, and can't afford to go on a holiday anywhere, let alone abroad, I find that kind of galling.
I'm all for benefits for those that need them, but if folks can afford overseas holidays I'm struggling to see why they need government handouts. I'm happy to pay as much tax as i do, but it shoukd be going to public services and those that need it, not for folks to spend on luxuries.
Only two things affect/annoy me in the budget
First is the NI having to be paid on anything over 2k a year that goes into my pension, I try to pay as much as I can each month into my pension so I can have a half decent retirement and wont need to rely on government handouts (there may not be a state pension when I retire in 20 years) so it annoys me they are taxing people who are actively saving for their future and not claiming anything from the government
2nd is the two child benefit cap being lifted, I have no problem with people wanting more than 2 kids and I'm happy to help pay for this but what annoys me is some people (including some of my own family members) have kept having more and more kids even though they have never worked in their life (one of them are in their mid 30's and are up to 7 kids!) and now they will be getting extra money for the extra 5 kids (5 kids at £80 a month child benefit means an extra £400 a month) they wont spend the majority of that money on the kids as they have managed so far without it and will instead spend it on themselves on booze, fags, gambling and wasting it which is a shame and wont lift the kids out of poverty
My wife and I have worked for 30 years so far and the only benefit we have ever claimed is child benefit for one child and that money was always spent on him, if we needed something but didn't have the money we went without, we made sure he had everything he needed
55% of the population recieve more in benefits than they pay in tax
It is important to remember that figure (it appears to be accurate) includes benefits in kind. What counts as benefit in kind varies by report but as a minimum includes use of NHS and education. It obviously also includes households that draws a state pension.
…what annoys me is some people (including some of my own family members) have kept having more and more kids even though they have never worked in their life…
I don’t think we should design the benefit system to specifically deal with ****less family members. Looking at who needs and gets help across the population should be the way forward. A few choosing to play the system shouldn’t result in the dismantling or defunding of the system that is supporting so many that need it.
It is important to remember that figure (it appears to be accurate) includes benefits in kind. What counts as benefit in kind varies by report but as a minimum includes use of NHS and education.
Fair enough..I personally wouldn't count 'services' as ' benefits' so that 53% numner is basically just nonsense !
Either way, that budget helps me in no way whatsoever! It leaves me in a conundrum when it comes to the next general election for sure..basically voting Labour makes me poorer, but voting tory or reform will make me hate myself..I think I'd rather be poorer than a xxxt.
Think next time I'll just abstain...
Most of us receive more from the state than we pay into it. The rest of should feel lucky that isn’t us.
After the attack on immigrants will come the attack on people who receive benefits. It was always going to be the case. Let’s try not to fall for it.
I think I'd rather be poorer than a xxxt.
Think next time I'll just abstain...
maybe vote to make the country a better place, rather than worrying about making yourself richer?
Thankfully in 3 and a bit years when that sal sac limit comes in should be my last at this company where I've been using this option to top up my pension. Its not quite clear what the details are on that yet, so will wait a few days to see what happens.
It's been a useful way of saving money for me these last 7-8 years, I got to that stage when I started earning money and had fewer bills and could put more away.
try to pay as much as I can each month into my pension so I can have a half decent retirement
that puts you in a very privileged position, wish i had extra cash at the end of the month to top up my pension
EV motoring will still be at least 1/3 the cost of diesel
That's only true if you own a home with a driveway and can afford £1k+ for a charger. For the majority who don't, they are forced to pay for public charging which is considerably more expensive than petrol or diesel.
I think Kelvin has a good point here, no matter the budget does to you personally the media will spin it according to their needs......'Its not hard enough on benefit scroungers' and its 'far to hard on millionaires who will now need to consider leaving the country'.
The actual facts will be forgotten and the culture war will continue, be it migrants, pensioners or young people. Not falling for this stuff requires individuals to think for themselves, something we seem to struggle with as a nation these days.
Reactionaries always punch down over.Strange how they never hit out at the corrupt 1% or the Royal parasites
That puts you in a very privileged position, wish I had extra cash at the end of the month to top up my pension
It doesn't feel like a privileged position, to get that extra money to put in my pension means I have to work harder, take on more responsibility, push myself to learn new things, take on first aid and fire warden roles, spend less on the nicer day to day things just to put a bit more in to my pension pot, if and when I get any kind of pay rise that extra goes straight in to the pension pot, I do everything I can possibly can do at work to earn more money
maybe vote to make the country a better place, rather than worrying about making yourself richer?
Yawn..
A very typical virtue signalling stw response. Back in the real world I'm 50, have zero savings, an extremely modest pension and zero cash to pay for anything due to various personal circumstances beyond my control
I know I am not as well off as many here but I have never really noticed any budget make any serious difference to me or my family, they all seem to just piss about at the edges. I guess if I was on minimum wage I'd notice or if I had a 2million pound house...but other than that....
I know I am not as well off as many here but I have never really noticed any budget make any serious difference to me or my family, they all seem to just piss about at the edges.
Exactly what I posted before the budget, it makes such a small difference to most people I am not sure why people get so excited about it. Any differences are minor and relatively well off people moaning about a small loss to sal sac or people with 2 million pound plus houses paying more council tax is hardly life changing.
Of course more dramatic things could be done like raising income tax and NI so it is only paid at £30k per year, offset against higher earners/wealthy but that sounds like someone trying to do something about inequality...
You a city dweller? A lot of rural folk are poor and a car is essential not a luxury.
I grew up in Herefordshire, and didn’t drive while I was there. It’s where my love of cycling started. I learnt to drive when my first kid was on the way years later. I am fully aware that for some people driving is not a luxury. The taxation system still needs the be used to discourage driving and incentivise other options. Even if you can only get to the shops by car, then pricing per a mile will encourage fewer shopping trips (the big shop) rather than regular smaller ones. For example.
So get on your bike (not the first with that policy) and fewer shopping trips is your policy for rural transport? What about getting to work and school or doctors et al. Good the taxation didn’t discourage you enough not to get a car when it became a luxury / essential when you had a child.
This might seem like I’m having a pop at you but some (and god knows I’m one!) live with massive levels of privilege over a lot of people so we should stop the ‘if only we discouraged driving or some other tiny change’ all will be well.
BTW it’s the fuel duty increase that the issue here not the pence per mile as the rural poor aren’t buying EV’s.
if only we discouraged driving or some other tiny change’ all will be well
A gross misinterpretation of my point, but carry on.
the rural poor aren’t buying EV’s
Absolutely.
Prediction: This budget will, like every other budget in my lifetime, create a few days of headlines for the poor overworked tabloid headline writers, and you tube creators (will no one spare them a thought!) and then it will never be mentioned again by anyone, and everyone will get on with their lives. The whole thing repeated next year.
try to pay as much as I can each month into my pension so I can have a half decent retirement
that puts you in a very privileged position, wish i had extra cash at the end of the month to top up my pension
Putting more than £2k per year into a DC pension does not make somebody "very privileged". It's more of a necessity for people in those schemes.
If you paid £2k per year for 40 years into a typical DC pension fund you'd expect it to be worth about £170k in today's money, allowing you to buy an annuity of about £600/month.
Even that isn't guaranteed because it's wholly reliant on stock market returns. If returns were just 2% lower, then the eventual annuity drops to around £400/month.
That is poverty, not privilege.
For the sake of comparison, somebody in a typical modern DB scheme, say a 1/57th career average scheme, who earned a career average of £45k, would get a pension of around £2.7k per month after the same 40yr career, about five times as much as our friend in the DC scheme.
To put it another way, the person in the DC scheme would have to contribute over £9k per year and again would still be reliant on stock market growth to get anywhere near to the value of the DB scheme. Yet apparently the Gov thinks £2k per year is a reasonable cap. The mind boggles.
I pointed out ages ago the government could simply remove the green levy if the wanted to on energy bills.
They did.
Makes total sense although this budget is defined by optics - they know Reform keep going on about 'net zero' tax etc.
That's why they've done it.
Probably the only rational well thought out fiscal move here.
More proof they simply can do something when political will is strong enough.
I pointed out ages ago the government could simply remove the green levy if the wanted to on energy bills.
They did.
Makes total sense although this budget is defined by optics - they know Reform keep going on about 'net zero' tax etc.
That's why they've done it.
Probably the only rational well thought out fiscal move here.
More proof they simply can do something when political will is strong enough.
They keep using the term " The Working Person" Are we becoming a novelty....?! Grrrr
I’ve just heard the Chancellor on Breakfast telly claiming “The only people paying to fill the potholes at the moment are the drivers of petrol and diesel cars”! Gaaaah! Of course, nobody challenged that.
I'm finding the pensions bit a tad confusing as to whether it affects me. Let's say I contributed 10% £3500 of my salary to my work's scheme, and work match up to a certain % (let's say 7%) £2450; does this affect me. I'm looking at the 2k cap and thinking it must. TIA