The Budget

[The_Exile]

Quite looking forward to seeing what's up Osbourne's sleeve, I hear he's pledged to take millions out of taxation, and back industries such as science (utterly crucial IMO and long overdue), over to you George.........

[Gatecrasher]

i hope he leaves fuel as it is.

[Beefster]

Child benefit change - good
Personal allowance increase - good
Stamp duty rises - good
Corporation tax cut - good
Fuel duty freeze - good
Tobacco duty rise - good
Bank levy increase - good
Tax relief on video game industry - good

Higher rate tax cut - bad

[Hibbylad86]

Fiscally neutral budget by Georgie boy! He gives with one hand and takes with the other. Its all about balancing the books just now and cutting our cloth accordingly

Glad I am not a smoker, £2m householder or pensioners (changes to tax allowances). Gutted I am a motorist who will get skelped with the fuel duty and the fact I will get charged VAT on taking buying a hot chicken from tesco!

[CropleyWasGod]

Fiscally neutral budget by Georgie boy! He gives with one hand and takes with the other. Its all about balancing the books just now and cutting our cloth accordingly

Glad I am not a smoker, £2m householder or pensioners (changes to tax allowances). Gutted I am a motorist who will get skelped with the fuel duty and the fact I will get charged VAT on taking buying a hot chicken from tesco!

Well, you see, the fact that you avoided the VAT by buying from Tesco, as opposed to the local chippy, puts you in the same tax-dodging league as our friends from Govan. Your ass needs liquidated :greengrin

In other Budget news:-

"Consultation on simplifying the tax system for small firms"..... :rolleyes:.... those famous words "simplifying the tax system", in my experience, send tax advisers running for the hills in expectation of yet more red tape and complications.

[Beefster]

In other Budget news:-

"Consultation on simplifying the tax system for small firms"..... :rolleyes:.... those famous words "simplifying the tax system", in my experience, send tax advisers running for the hills in expectation of yet more red tape and complications.

I worked for about 3 years to help my employer at the time get ready for the last lot of 'simplification' (it was pensions that time). I think politicians fundamentally misunderstand the word tbh.

[CropleyWasGod]

I worked for about 3 years to my employer at the time get ready for the last lot of 'simplification' (it was pensions that time). I think politicians fundamentally misunderstand the word tbh.

It just rips my knitting every time I hear the word.:bitchy:

[RyeSloan]

Fiscally neutral budget by Georgie boy! He gives with one hand and takes with the other. Its all about balancing the books just now and cutting our cloth accordingly

Glad I am not a smoker, £2m householder or pensioners (changes to tax allowances). Gutted I am a motorist who will get skelped with the fuel duty and the fact I will get charged VAT on taking buying a hot chicken from tesco!

Didn't expect much else to be honest...he can't really squeeze any more tax out of the UK even if he wanted to and was never in a position to signficantly reduce taxation as it seems impossible to cut government spending.

[Sylar]

"Freeze on fuel duty" is all fair and well, but since the middle of Feb, prices have been creeping up to accommodate for such a move.

Fuel cost needs addressed rapidly - if folk aren't in a position where they need to decide between driving to work/supermarket etc (i.e., the essential places) and doing things in their leisure time, having some extra spending money which goes back into the economy will surely improve our current financial strains as a nation.

We pay more on tax on fuel than almost all other countries worldwide and nothing is ever done to address it. The freeze is nothing more than a token gesture.

[hibsbollah]

Three tasks of the budget a) economically sensible? - Fail. b) balancing the books?-Fail c) Fair?- Spectacular fail.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sVkgORJFixV_5iLRAfqL-dQ/view.m?id=15&gid=uk/2012/mar/21/budget-2012-shocking-unfair-chancellor&cat=business

[Beefster]

Three tasks of the budget a) economically sensible? - Fail. b) balancing the books?-Fail c) Fair?- Spectacular fail.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sVkgORJFixV_5iLRAfqL-dQ/view.m?id=15&gid=uk/2012/mar/21/budget-2012-shocking-unfair-chancellor&cat=business

I'm not even going to read that article but expecting the Guardian to support a Coalition budget is like expecting the Daily Mail to campaign for open borders.

[hibsbollah]

I'm not even going to read that article but expecting the Guardian to support a Coalition budget is like expecting the Daily Mail to campaign for open borders.
...a 'coalition' budget? seriously? if you can see any lib dem fingerprintson the red box today id be grateful if you could point them out. This is the bluest old tory budget imaginable. At least they've stopped pretending that we're all in it together.

[Jack]

I smoke almost 20 a day. In the last 5 years I've bought around 200 cigarettes in this country. I have never broken the customs guidelines of bringing cigs back into this country. I know a few other folk have done the same.

What we have done is probably chicken feed in comparison with the numbers brought in illegally.

I can only see more people doing the same as me and more people taking the chance with illegal cigarettes.

Apart from that its the same old, as has been said he's looking generous with one hand and thieving it back with the other.

[WeAreHibs]

I smoke almost 20 a day. In the last 5 years I've bought around 200 cigarettes in this country. I have never broken the customs guidelines of bringing cigs back into this country. I know a few other folk have done the same.

What we have done is probably chicken feed in comparison with the numbers brought in illegally.

I can only see more people doing the same as me and more people taking the chance with illegal cigarettes.

Apart from that its the same old, as has been said he's looking generous with one hand and thieving it back with the other.

Any tips on this?


Sent from my HTC Sensation using TapAtalk

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Child benefit change - good
Personal allowance increase - good
Stamp duty rises - good
Corporation tax cut - good
Fuel duty freeze - good
Tobacco duty rise - good
Bank levy increase - good
Tax relief on video game industry - good

Higher rate tax cut - bad


Agree with most of this except the first and last.

I'm not against child benefit change but the way it's been implemented is lazy, illogical and, in some cases, unfair. It should be based on combined income, surely common sense should dictate this?

IMO 50% tax is far too high. They should prioritise cutting tax avoidance, not punishing success. They'd get more money that way as well.

The stamp duty change was ok but the law itself is stupid. We need to get rid of the steps, which you can dodge anyway, and bring in a system where you pay on everything over a certain amount, not on the total. Not only would it be fairer, but it would mean that houses were bought/sold for what they're worth and not a price distrorted by stamp duty thresholds.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Child benefit change - good
Personal allowance increase - good
Stamp duty rises - good
Corporation tax cut - good
Fuel duty freeze - good
Tobacco duty rise - good
Bank levy increase - good
Tax relief on video game industry - good

Higher rate tax cut - bad

nice list, you forgot the pensioners ofcourse, but hey why not.

I'm actually not unhappy with the budget overall however I think encouraging more greed in the top earners goes against everything this government has preached for the last few years, a very dangerous move indeed.

[Speedy]

Agree with most of this except the first and last.

I'm not against child benefit change but the way it's been implemented is lazy, illogical and, in some cases, unfair. It should be based on combined income, surely common sense should dictate this?

IMO 50% tax is far too high. They should prioritise cutting tax avoidance, not punishing success. They'd get more money that way as well.

The stamp duty change was ok but the law itself is stupid. We need to get rid of the steps, which you can dodge anyway, and bring in a system where you pay on everything over a certain amount, not on the total. Not only would it be fairer, but it would mean that houses were bought/sold for what they're worth and not a price distrorted by stamp duty thresholds.

The thing with a combined child benefit thing is that it could discourage one partner to progress their career/work full time/work at all. It may seem unfair but discouraging people from earning more money doesn't do anyone any favours.

[Beefster]

Agree with most of this except the first and last.

I'm not against child benefit change but the way it's been implemented is lazy, illogical and, in some cases, unfair. It should be based on combined income, surely common sense should dictate this?

IMO 50% tax is far too high. They should prioritise cutting tax avoidance, not punishing success. They'd get more money that way as well.

The stamp duty change was ok but the law itself is stupid. We need to get rid of the steps, which you can dodge anyway, and bring in a system where you pay on everything over a certain amount, not on the total. Not only would it be fairer, but it would mean that houses were bought/sold for what they're worth and not a price distrorted by stamp duty thresholds.

I agree with you almost entirely.

The child benefit change is better than the ill-thought out mince that went before it. You're right though - in an ideal world, it would be based on total household income.

I agree that 50% tax is too high but, under the current circumstances, I just think that cutting it has been a political own goal. Especially by admitting that it's been lowered because folk are currently taking steps to avoid it. They should have clamped down on the avoidance rather than lowering the rate at the moment.

I hate stamp duty but politically, if they're going to have it, it makes sense to have higher rates for the very wealthy.


nice list, you forgot the pensioners ofcourse, but hey why not.

I'm actually not unhappy with the budget overall however I think encouraging more greed in the top earners goes against everything this government has preached for the last few years, a very dangerous move indeed.

Not sure how I feel about future pensioners losing their extra personal allowance tbh. On one hand, it seems pretty horrible and unnecessary but, on the other hand, I can see that with the increased proportion of over 65s, it will cost more and more and is it really justified?

[Part/Time Supporter]

I agree that 50% tax is too high but, under the current circumstances, I just think that cutting it has been a political own goal. Especially by admitting that it's been lowered because folk are currently taking steps to avoid it. They should have clamped down on the avoidance rather than lowering the rate at the moment.

The increased take from the 50p rate was always going to be lower in the first year, purely due to legitimate tax planning.

eg you own your company, which makes a profit each year of £1M. You want to take a dividend each year of £600K. Darling announces in 2009 that from 6 April 2010 the top rate of tax will be increased by 10%. If you've then got any sense, you will declare the dividend before 6 April 2010 (even a day or two early will do). You have to pay the tax due a year earlier, but you pay £66K less in tax (10% of the grossed up £600K dividend).

Of course you can do that in the first year of the additional rate, but you couldn't do that the next year. Long and short of it - the Tories are making a big deal of the first year's estimated figures to justify their policy, but it's misleading. The 2011/12 (second year) figures would show more accurately how much 50% rate was raising.

[easty]

IMO 50% tax is far too high. They should prioritise cutting tax avoidance, not punishing success. They'd get more money that way as well.


I don't think it is too high, I also don't see why these two keep being spoken about in an "either or" sort of way. We'll lower the 50p tax rate but prioritise cutting tax avoidance....Why couldn't we keep the 50p tax rate and clamp down on those who avoid tax?

[GlesgaeHibby]

IMO 50% tax is far too high. They should prioritise cutting tax avoidance, not punishing success. They'd get more money that way as well.



50% tax isn't too high, and doesn't punish success as it is only on earnings in excess of around £150k. Anyone lucky enough to be in that tax bracket is still going to be very wealthy regardless of the top rate being 45% or 50%.

Do you mean tax evasion? Tax avoidance is perfectly legal, evasion isn't. I do agree we should crack down on tax evasion.

[HKhibby]

...a 'coalition' budget? seriously? if you can see any lib dem fingerprintson the red box today id be grateful if you could point them out. This is the bluest old tory budget imaginable. At least they've stopped pretending that we're all in it together.

You are all in it together, unfortunatly!, for years Labour bankrupted the country! and people earing ridiculas low salaries topped up by good old labour! and easy credit and loans which could have been regulated but wasnt!...that could have been remied by the last Labour Government! but wasnt! you were all led to believe that the party was permanent! awash with government money, for the ones that get all the hanouts...and thats alot in the UK not to mention all you good old eastern europeans coming scrounging for handouts!...that Labour could have stopped!....why go on? when all the answers are there and 100s more! oh one last one! all the ridiculas levels of money thrown at white elephant projects etc.. and more and more thrown into civil service nothing jobs all in the hope that people think they help creat jobs! thats why there isnt any money! thats why there will not be a good budget for along time! and thats why they might manage to keep Labour out for years with any luck!!!

[easty]

You are all in it together, unfortunatly!, for years Labour bankrupted the country! and people earing ridiculas low salaries topped up by good old labour! and easy credit and loans which could have been regulated but wasnt!...that could have been remied by the last Labour Government! but wasnt! you were all led to believe that the party was permanent! awash with government money, for the ones that get all the hanouts...and thats alot in the UK not to mention all you good old eastern europeans coming scrounging for handouts!...that Labour could have stopped!....why go on? when all the answers are there and 100s more! oh one last one! all the ridiculas levels of money thrown at white elephant projects etc.. and more and more thrown into civil service nothing jobs all in the hope that people think they help creat jobs! thats why there isnt any money! thats why there will not be a good budget for along time! and thats why they might manage to keep Labour out for years with any luck!!!

...........and breathe.:rolleyes:

[bighairyfaeleith]

...........and breathe.:rolleyes:

not sure that should be encouraged

[Future17]

not sure that should be encouraged

:greengrin

[Holmesdale Hibs]

I don't think it is too high, I also don't see why these two keep being spoken about in an "either or" sort of way. We'll lower the 50p tax rate but prioritise cutting tax avoidance....Why couldn't we keep the 50p tax rate and clamp down on those who avoid tax?

I agree it's not an either/or and the 2 are certainly not mutually exclusive. However, there is a choice in the sense that the coalition will claim the it needs £xbn in tax receipts and can legitamitely claim one source is a substiitue for another.

I'm not in favour of a 50p tax rate and clamping down on tax avoidance seems the fairest way to fund cutting it - if indeed it 'needs funding' at all, but that's a different argument.

IMO, taking half of everything people earn over 150k is excessive and a lot more unreasonable than asking people not to avoid tax.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

The thing with a combined child benefit thing is that it could discourage one partner to progress their career/work full time/work at all. It may seem unfair but discouraging people from earning more money doesn't do anyone any favours.

Regardless of whether what you say is true, it applies to both a single and combined measurement.

This is probably one of the reasons the benefit is lost in steps between 50 & 60k, otherwise what you said could have applied and potentially discouraged people from taking higher paid jobs.

IMO, there won't be many people who would turn down an improved contract on the basis of tax relief, especially with the phasing in between 50-60k I mentioned earlier.

[Speedy]

Regardless of whether what you say is true, it applies to both a single and combined measurement.

This is probably one of the reasons the benefit is lost in steps between 50 & 60k, otherwise what you said could have applied and potentially discouraged people from taking higher paid jobs.

IMO, there won't be many people who would turn down an improved contract on the basis of tax relief, especially with the phasing in between 50-60k I mentioned earlier.

Agreed (I think).

When I said it could discourage people I was thinking, for example, where one partner earning £16k would take the couple over the limit so that person may decide to work part time. Or if working part time takes them over the limit then they may not work at all and instead become a 'full time mum/dad'.

As you say it's far less likely to happen with someone who would be moving from £50k to £60k as they are likely to be career driven and keen to progress further on to even higher salaries.

OK it seems unfair but for society in general I think it is better to have a couple earning £50k and £16k while receiving £x benefits than having that same couple decide not to earn as much, say maybe £50k and £8k, in order to receive the same level of benefits.

The benefits being that more tax is paid, more money is spent(which means more tax paid) so others receive the money which they then spend(meaning more tax paid) and so on.

Disclaimer: Actual figures are plucked out of nowhere but I think the point still stands :greengrin

[greenlex]

Child benefit change - good
Personal allowance increase - good
Stamp duty rises - good
Corporation tax cut - good
Fuel duty freeze - good
Tobacco duty rise - good
Bank levy increase - good
Tax relief on video game industry - good

Higher rate tax cut - bad

Unless I'm mistaken fuel duty is going up by 3p per litre in August of this year. How is that classed as a freeze? Add the vat and its a 4p per litre increase at the pumps!! This at a time when fuel prices are at an all time high. Whatever happened to the fuel leveller thingy the Tories were going to be looking at at election time? Have they forgotten or have they just not bothered their erses?
I can hardly wait to get my hands on my extra £2.50 per week next Month with the tax allowance increase due. I will be positively creaming myself with another £3.80 on top of that next again April. I wonder what the price of fuel (and the governments share of that) will be by then? Thank **** I don't smoke or drink.

A few years more and I will be a pensioner. A good number of years of austerity yet too and it will be a real time too look forward too.

[Speedy]

Unless I'm mistaken fuel duty is going up by 3p per litre in August of this year. How is that classed as a freeze? Add the vat and its a 4p per litre increase at the pumps!! This at a time when fuel prices are at an all time high. Whatever happened to the fuel leveller thingy the Tories were going to be looking at at election time? Have they forgotten or have they just not bothered their erses?
I can hardly wait to get my hands on my extra £2.50 per week next Month with the tax allowance increase due. I will be positively creaming myself with another £3.80 on top of that next again April. I wonder what the price of fuel (and the governments share of that) will be by then? Thank **** I don't smoke or drink.

A few years more and I will be a pensioner. A good number of years of austerity yet too and it will be a real time too look forward too.

I didn't pay much attention to fuel duty as I don't have a car but I would assume a 'freeze' means there was nothing additional added on top of the already scheduled rises.

I may be wrong but that would be my guess.

[Hibrandenburg]

not sure that should be encouraged

Not sure if I should laugh at that because the guy was only expressing his opinion but I couldn't help myself.

[RyeSloan]

I didn't pay much attention to fuel duty as I don't have a car but I would assume a 'freeze' means there was nothing additional added on top of the already scheduled rises.

I may be wrong but that would be my guess.

As ever though once the government gets hooked on the revenue from a tax it finds it almost impossible to reverse hence the delayed introduction of the fuel price stabiliser...which is actually a complete misnomer. It really only promises to not increase duty by more than the rate of inflation not to actually reduce taxation to counter act the impact of rising oil prices. There is some sort of $75 pb threshold where it will turn back into an escalator so in effect it will ensure prices stay high.

So the duty escalator has one final escalation in August. The stabiliser then comes in which effectively ensures that taxation levels stay the same when oil price is high or makes up for lower oil prices by raising taxation faster.

In summary then a 'freeze' it certainly isn't, a confidence trick it sure is and it's a million miles away from even the slightest suggestion that in the medium term the government has any desire to freeze or reduce the level of duty on fuel.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Not sure if I should laugh at that because the guy was only expressing his opinion but I couldn't help myself.

wasn't really meant to be that serious, I just couldn't resist it

[Sylar]

As ever though once the government gets hooked on the revenue from a tax it finds it almost impossible to reverse hence the delayed introduction of the fuel price stabiliser...which is actually a complete misnomer. It really only promises to not increase duty by more than the rate of inflation not to actually reduce taxation to counter act the impact of rising oil prices. There is some sort of $75 pb threshold where it will turn back into an escalator so in effect it will ensure prices stay high.

So the duty escalator has one final escalation in August. The stabiliser then comes in which effectively ensures that taxation levels stay the same when oil price is high or makes up for lower oil prices by raising taxation faster.

In summary then a 'freeze' it certainly isn't, a confidence trick it sure is and it's a million miles away from even the slightest suggestion that in the medium term the government has any desire to freeze or reduce the level of duty on fuel.

And the biggest kick in the slacks regarding it all is that there is absolutely nothing, NOTHING we can do about it.

I've no option but to drive to Uni - I have to frequently transfer large pieces of equipment which cannot be taken onto public transport - that's 3 days a week making a commute to Aberdeen/Edinburgh, depending on where I need to be. It adds up, and this continued rise is making it incredibly unsustainable for me on a piddly PhD stipend.

I already find myself having to get rid of things to make sure I can get to Uni and back - Golf membership for the year was first to go, followed soon after by Sky Sports and ESPN.

The government, quite simply, do not care about the financial impact - so long as it bails them out of the financial mire they (collectively) have placed us in.

The increase in fuel wouldn't bother me as much if the increased costs were being used to actively secure a future alternative, but quite clearly, they're not.

I really wouldn't be surprised to see desperate measures become more common as prices go up again in August.

[RyeSloan]

And the biggest kick in the slacks regarding it all is that there is absolutely nothing, NOTHING we can do about it.

I've no option but to drive to Uni - I have to frequently transfer large pieces of equipment which cannot be taken onto public transport - that's 3 days a week making a commute to Aberdeen/Edinburgh, depending on where I need to be. It adds up, and this continued rise is making it incredibly unsustainable for me on a piddly PhD stipend.

I already find myself having to get rid of things to make sure I can get to Uni and back - Golf membership for the year was first to go, followed soon after by Sky Sports and ESPN.

The government, quite simply, do not care about the financial impact - so long as it bails them out of the financial mire they (collectively) have placed us in.

The increase in fuel wouldn't bother me as much if the increased costs were being used to actively secure a future alternative, but quite clearly, they're not.

I really wouldn't be surprised to see desperate measures become more common as prices go up again in August.


Sadly this is becoming a bit of a normal occurance and it’s purely down to taxation levels. If it was simply the fact that oil was scare and expensive and therefore 140p a litre to consume then I would never suggest the government should introduce a subsidy to help as oil at those prices would be driving huge innovation across the globe and massive re-alignment of energy uses. However when the situaiton is being caused locally (in global terms) simply by the fact that the taxation is staggeringly high then questions need to be asked. It costs me almost £70 a month to fill my car which I use largely only at weekends and even that seems steep, god knows how much of disposable income you and others like you must be having to allocate simply to get from A to B. All because of punative taxation.

It would seem impossible to think anything other than the fact that high fuel costs that contine to rise above inflation can be only be doing significant harm to the economy. It must be limiting peoples available cash to spend elsewhere, causing journies not to be taken and therefore lowering their economic activity and seriously impacting peoples ability to be ‘mobile’ in terms of jobs….sure there are a myriad of other negative impacts as well, all of them hurting the economy as a whole. And for what? Continued support of unsustainable levels of government spending.

As I read recently:

No one has yet explained why the British state must spend £700 billion today, having managed perfectly well on £450 billion, at today’s values, 10 years ago.

Quite.

[Gatecrasher]

I had enough of the vehicle and feul taxation so i downsized my car so i could minimize the tax they were collecting from me. I could afford my old car but was getting annoyed at them.

Before i had:

Honda Civic 2.2 CTDI
Tax: £140 (IIRC)
Fuel: around 30 per week

Now i have:

Vauxhall Corsa 1.3 Eco
Tax: £30
Fuel: around 20 per week

I had the Civic before the bigger rise in fuel duty happened i think it was around the £1.10 per litre at the time so i shudder to think what it would be like now. more recently I also liked to put my foot down but now i drve with as little rev as reasonable possible. I am saving myself a fortune moving to a smaller car, though i appreciate this might not be an option for all.

[easty]

I had enough of the vehicle and feul taxation so i downsized my car so i could minimize the tax they were collecting from me. I could afford my old car but was getting annoyed at them.

Before i had:

Honda Civic 2.2 CTDI
Tax: £140 (IIRC)
Fuel: around 30 per week

Now i have:

Vauxhall Corsa 1.3 Eco
Tax: £30
Fuel: around 20 per week

I had the Civic before the bigger rise in fuel duty happened i think it was around the £1.10 per litre at the time so i shudder to think what it would be like now. more recently I also liked to put my foot down but now i drve with as little rev as reasonable possible. I am saving myself a fortune moving to a smaller car, though i appreciate this might not be an option for all.

But how many more birds were you impressing with the Civic, leaning back in the chair, windows open, stereo blasting out the latest clubland offering? Exponentionally more, I'd guess.....and how do you put a financial value on that?

[Gatecrasher]

But how many more birds were you impressing with the Civic, leaning back in the chair, windows open, stereo blasting out the latest clubland offering? Exponentionally more, I'd guess.....and how do you put a financial value on that?
It's a pretty sweet looking corsa to be honest :greengrin