Budget – I'm actually better off – blimey!

It wasnt ever free. Its just that someone else used to pay for it.

But you could say that about anything the state pays. The police isn’t free but you’d agree it’s acceptable for the state to fund it. Education should be the same.

And don’t even get me started on the OAPs whingeing on about their so-called ‘granny tax’. They’re always whining on about something – I suppose they’ll also be going on about the NHS now. And after all, they are the ones who have left Britain in such a mess.

Blame pensioners!

And the NHS!

And – erm – oh yes – Labour!

😆

Rubbish. It’s a tax – comes straight out of the pay packet, I can’t change the payment terms or decide them, it was enacted by parliament, and it’s for something that used to be free. Seems like a tax to me.

No, it’s money that you borrowed (as did I, I should add) from the government and now you pay have to pay it back. It’s a loan like any other where you agree to the terms up front. The fact that it was enacted by parliament and comes out of your pay packet is irrelevant. Once the loan is paid off then you stop paying it. Name another “tax” that is like that?

You’ll be saying NI is to pay for the NHS next.

Well it does, in as much as it goes into the government coffers from where the NHS buget is allocated.

Education should be the same.

That sounds like an argument about tuition fees rather than student loans. Loans came in long before fees did.

Supposedly im better off as well, however as we will be paying for our health care (and roads) very shortly i see no reason for joy at present.
Anyone know when we get a chance to vote this party of p****s out?

however as we will be paying for our health care

Where did you get that from ?

instant hit – Member
Supposedly im better off as well, however as we will be paying for our health care (and roads) very shortly i see no reason for joy at present.
Anyone know when we get a chance to vote this party of p****s out?

It’s a fixed term parliament, so if you care that much it would be easy to find out. The chances of them being voted out next time – slim and none at all.

No, it’s money that you borrowed (as did I, I should add) from the government and now you pay have to pay it back. It’s a loan like any other where you agree to the terms up front. The fact that it was enacted by parliament and comes out of your pay packet is irrelevant. Once the loan is paid off then you stop paying it. Name another “tax” that is like that?

My point is more that the government should fund this out of general taxation rather than force students to go into debt. As for a tax that is similar – how about VAT – an entirely optional tax. If you don’t want to pay it don’t buy stuff (and there where would the country be…).

That sounds like an argument about tuition fees rather than student loans. Loans came in long before fees did.

What do you think a lot of people spend their loan on?!

What do you think a lot of people spend their loan on?!

Accomodation, food, and any other general living expenses. Like I said student loans were a fact long before tuition fees were introduced.

My point is more that the government should fund this out of general taxation rather than force students to go into debt

Firstly that’s not what you said originally and not the point that I was criticising and secondly I agree completely. It’s one of the reasons that I don’t begrudge paying a high rate of tax. Your comparison with VAT isn’t very good as you are always liable for it when you buy something whereas with a loan, once it is paid off you are a no longer liable.

Sod the poor
unfair. Gregg’s pasties and Lottery scratchcards untouched by the budget.

allthepies- have you not noticed that the NHS is being ripped apart and sold off?
The trust i work for is already up for purchase, we have three bidders, all out to make profit.
Wont be long before you have to check you have your health insurance before you attempt that next big drop off.
druidh- i do care thats why i was asking. If anybody votes for this lot again…well…words fail me.

If anybody votes for this lot again…well…words fail me

So, the big question. Does everyone just vote for nobody next time?

Accomodation, food, and any other general living expenses. Like I said student loans were a fact long before tuition fees were introduced.

Indeed, but you used to get a grant as well. When my dad went to uni everything was state funded.

Your comparison with VAT isn’t very good as you are always liable for it when you buy something

No you’re not – it’s a choice. Lots of things at 0 rated for VAT – e.g. food. You just pay it off in one installment.

AndyP – Member
So, the big question. Does everyone just vote for nobody next time?

Yeah good point. I have no answer, but they have to go!!

allthepies- have you not noticed that the NHS is being ripped apart and sold off?

No.

So about this paying for medical care thing (apart from general taxation), tell us more. How much for say, a GP appointment or fixing a broken leg ?

instant hit – Member
Supposedly im better off as well, however as we will be paying for our health care

Sorry I didnt see this in the NHS bill that just went through Parliament. Maaaaaaybe you made it up.

You are just going to have to accept that those Evil Tories and their LibDem capitalist running dog lackies have put some money in the pocket of the working man.

The NHS will be broken up and sold of in small chunks to the “best” provider, (private companys out to make a profit). Over a period of time you will end up paying for your healthcare, more so in specialist care, so you might still go to your GP but he will purchase your treatment from the “best” provider (who maybe 50 miles away). And not always the best but the cheapest.
As a mental health nurse we are already being told to cut our sessions down and we have to be “cost effective”!!!!!
So i forsee a future where you will have personal healthcare insurance and if you can’t afford it you will not get treatment.

So i forsee a future where you will have personal healthcare insurance and if you can’t afford it you will not get treatment.

Ah, so your opinion then not government policy ?

Excuse the ignorant questions but:

1. How does tax avoidance happen? Does the complexity of the system contribute? If so who is most at fault for complicating it?

2. If you raise the tax free allowance and keep everything the same does that make the tax system more/less progressive or the same?

3. To avoid any ambiguity over the theoretical question above, was the gimmick of the 50p tax rate effective at increasing taxation revenue or did Darling (was it him) merely play a clever political finesse?

The Sky News calculator is better, it lets you look at 2013/14 when the income tax cuts kick in. I’m better off.

http://news.sky.com/home/interactive-graphics/budgetcalculator

So i forsee a future where you will have personal healthcare insurance and if you can’t afford it you will not get treatment.

I dont doubt that 30-40yrs from now we will have a insurance based system, and like Obamacare it will be provided free for those who cannot pay. Sooner the better too.

The Sky News calculator is better, it lets you look at 2013/14 when the income tax cuts kick in. I’m better off.

Yep, still a few hundred better off.

Yep, still a few hundred better off.

B4stards I tell you…..

1. How does tax avoidance happen? Does the complexity of the system contribute? If so who is most at fault for complicating it?

That is difficult to answer because everyone actually means slightly different things by ‘avoidance’. The government, I believe, bean going out of your way to pay very little tax; but not e.g. using their government set up schemes to encourage e.g. the investment in SME’s which are extremely tax efficient but also designed for economic growth. The man on the street might think that this is tax avoidance, and biased towards higher rate tax payers so not entirely fair. Undoubtedly the complexity of the system makes it possible, but if we simplified the system there would be a lot of unemployed people from HMRC and accountants – and who is going to want them!

2. If you raise the tax free allowance and keep everything the same does that make the tax system more/less progressive or the same?

I don’t like the word “progressive” – but yes that would, proportionally help the poorer more than the well off.

3. To avoid any ambiguity over the theoretical question above, was the gimmick of the 50p tax rate effective at increasing taxation revenue or did Darling (was it him) merely play a clever political finesse?

I am nowhere near paying 50p tax, but I can clearly see it is a totally stupid tax, targeted at the people who are most likely to have an accountant help them carefully manage their tax bill etc. I have an issue with huge taxes on the “wealthy” anyway, as generally, their activities are economically positive (they employ people, spend money, invest in stuff etc). I think its reasonable to say that most people are happy for people who earn more than them, and certainly those who earn more than they ever expect to to pay more tax. I’m not sure that is actually fair or sensible, but it seems to be human nature. Personally I think 20p is probably too low for the standard rate of tax, and there is probably a justification for a “middle” band of 25-30p for something like the 35-45k earners too. But i’d also get rid of the weird NI system which not only taxes you twice (you pay income tax AND NI on the same earnings) but also doesn’t really fit with what anyone considers “progressive” these days. Of course none of this would be popular with “mondeo man” so could never get through parliament even if it were a fair and reasonable approach.

I do like this idea of sending everyone a tax statement showing them how much tax they pay and what it goes on.

Who could object to that?

Hmm will be better of by a £100 or so although on paper worse off by around £400. mainly because i wont get tax credits for the kids but as i dont claim them it makes no impact in that way, I dont drink enough for it to register and i dont smoke so no impact there i suppose the main ones will be fuel and road tax but hey ho i aint rich (by STW measures) but i aint poor either so there you go…

mcboo – Member

I do like this idea of sending everyone a tax statement showing them how much tax they pay and what it goes on.

Who could object to that?

I do like it too. Lovely to agree with McBoo on something on the chat forum. I think the sun is peeping out as I type too. 😀

It would be genuinely helpful to people to have an idea of this, also it would be nice to remind the common mayn (maybe with some kind of ‘appendix’ on the end of each statement) what ‘optional’ taxes go where. For example Road Fund Licence/fuel duty and roads/public transport, alcohol and tobacco duty and healthcare/smoking cessation/drug and alcohol rehab services and so on….

I also wonder how much it will cost to implement, and which private enterprise is already lined up to make a pig’s ear of err, implement it. 😆

I am nowhere near paying 50p tax, but I can clearly see it is a totally stupid tax, targeted at the people who are most likely to have an accountant help them carefully manage their tax bill etc. I

Yes and now they have their tax reduced for any they might pay they’ll not use these accountants.

mcboo – Member

I dont think anyone is going to say 45% is an unreasonable top rate of tax …….

Well actually someone does say that, in fact apparently the majority of voters do – they want the top rate of tax to be 50% not 45%.

Voters Want To Keep 50p Top Rate Of Tax

“The majority of voters are against scrapping the 50p tax rate for top earners – including half of Tory supporters, a new opinion poll shows.”

And interestingly :

“Most hostile are Liberal Democrat supporters, 70% of whom said they wanted the 50p tax rate to stay”.

So out of the approximately 10% of the electorate who still bizarrely support the LibDems, nearly three quarters of them are hostile towards the Tory/LibDem government’s policy of reducing the the top rate of taxation.

Oh how Nick Clegg is going to pay the price for selling LibDem principles, which he once purported to support, as the price for a nice ministerial car and handsome salary.

Still, I dare say that he will land himself a nice cushty job with plenty of ‘paid for by the taxpayer expenses’ with big fat pay cheques as an EU Commissionaire, or something simular – that appears to be the path generally followed by failed politicians who have been rejected by their electorate.

‘Reward for failure’ is generally accepted as the correct culture for people at the top these days.

And the beauty of the job of EU Commissionaire is that no one needs to like you or want to vote for you.

So I guess the smug **** will have the last laugh. They always do.

E_L : and how many of these people have actually read the economics/behavioural analysis behind marginal rates of tax? If you said, we are going to change the tax system to get less money in or we are going to change it to get more money – that’s the easy bit. I wonder what the results would have been if the pools asked, would you support the reduction in the top rate of tax if it can be shown to produce less revenue? [edit accepting that this is not actually what happened exactly!]

So actually, I say chapeau to GO in this case (but not in others) because he has taken on the naive headliner writers (and Darlings last pathetic bit of party mischief making) and used a bit of grey matter even though politically it would look bad as your polls suggest. [Still a big gamble because the data is very hard to draw accurate analysis from on and a lot is being placed on one years worth of data.]

E_L : and how many of these people have actually read the economics/behavioural analysis behind marginal rates of tax?

I’ve no idea mate. Mcboo said, “I dont think anyone is going to say 45% is an unreasonable top rate of tax” and apparently he’s wrong.

Did I mention that 70% of people who still support the Liberal Democrats were hostile to a change in the top rate of tax ?

Teamhurtmore – your unthinking acceptance of right wing dogma is showing again.

reducing taxes reduces tax take. this is not Wonderland and you are not Alice

TJ – dont start that rubbish again (it might be a precursor to ‘your are being nasty and personal again’ with the obvious irony.) Leave it on the nuclear thread FFS. 👿 Go and read both the OBR report and the HRMC to see the “facts” and “analysis”. Then come back when you can explain TIE properly.

Its a genuine point and as I said yesterday and A level student better mug up on the OBR conclusions before this summer. E-L thanks for the sensible reply. I read your post and wasn’t looking for an argument. Its an interesting area for economists because (apart from one apparent genius) the evidence makes policy decisions in this area very difficult. The TIE does seem to vary even between 40, 45 and 50p

You do make me laugh – despite all your protestations to have a rounded view you show in your posts a slavish unquestioning adherence to tory dogma.

This particular piece is known and proven nonsense. Of course cutting taxs raises more money and of course thats why Osbourne has done it 🙄

So TJ – if the price of a good goes down what happens to the revenue earned? Ditto, if the price of the good goes up what happens to the revenue earned.

This is not Wonderland but you may well be Alice.

(TJ – given the deficit, the non-dogmatic view is to adopt the tax rate that maximises revenue earned.)

p.s. you dont make me laugh. Your self parody used to. But like JY and others recently I find it merely tiresome now.

[nice edit BTW]

EDIT 😉 TIE????

TJ – given the deficit, the non-dogmatic view is to adopt the tax rate that maximises revenue earned

Indeed – which is why this tax cut that will reduce tax receipts by billions is wrong.

There is lots of evidence to show that cutting corporation tax increases the overall tax receipts as it attracts inward investment, increases employment and thus makes more taxpayers.

I therefore find it hard to immediately dismiss a similar effect for personal taxes at the very highest rates.

E-L thanks for the sensible reply. I read your post and wasn’t looking for an argument.

You’re welcome. And you’ll only get an argument out of me if I feel up to it – so don’t fret. Although tbh I often do. Despite my recent bans for allegedly “arguing again”.

Its a genuine point and as I said yesterday and A level student better mug up on the OBR conclusions before this summer.

What A level student did you tell that they had “better mug up on the OBR conclusions before this summer” ? You recently denied ever having taught economics and attempted to ridicule me for suggesting that you had.

Have you started teaching economics in the last few weeks ? Or do you loiter around schools/colleges so that you can give useful tips to economics students ?

Ha, ha,. Comes down to definition of “taught'” !!! I have not taught it as such (that is 100% true), but that is not to say that I am not involved in preparing candidates!!

I hadn’t noticed your ban – pity they haven’t been given elsewhere 😉

Edit – But I wish they would phrase the tax questions correctly, because it is a difficult subject to get your head around. So my first questions were genuine!

TandemJeremy – Member
TJ – given the deficit, the non-dogmatic view is to adopt the tax rate that maximises revenue earned
Indeed – which is why this tax cut that will reduce tax receipts by billions is wrong.

A little clue – E stands for elasticity. But dont worry about it as you know everything on this topic already. It should be you teaching economics.