Budget live

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I think you've answered your own question. Why have a tax that people can avoid?

Eh?

That makes no sense. The tax is already there.

While I realise you are making a party political point as a labour supporter, it doesn't make sense.

StevieJ

Itismehonest wrote: »

No, child benefit stays the same for them as it would have been. They just don't lose it until the highest earner earns over £50K & then it's incremental.

I thought that is what I wrote? higher rate tax payers (as a group) in total will receive more in the budget compared to previous proposals

He has just increased the removal level to £50k graduated to £60k,

Itismehonest

StevieJ wrote: »

Maybe but they are not gaining out of the allowance rise, BTW who is in more need than those paid less than 13k or 17k? certainly not many of those living on benefits, unless of course you are suggesting those earning between £50k and £60k

Tax credit is a benefit.

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought that is what I wrote? higher rate tax payers (as a group) in total will receive more in the budget compared to previous proposals

What you actually said was ....

StevieJ wrote: »

He has just increased the removal level to £50k graduated to £60k, so this budget has increased child benefits to higher earners compared to previous proposals

......

I was just pointing out that it isn't increased it's just not taken away so quickly.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Eh?

That makes no sense. The tax is already there.

While I realise you are making a party political point as a labour supporter, it doesn't make sense.

Want to avoid an increase in fuel duty - drive less, get a more fuel efficient car etc.

Easy to say; hard to do - welcome to the real world where the government needs to raise money. Why tax alcohol more - there's a better chance that it can be avoided and therefore no extra taxed raised.

I've got it sussed - I now walk to the offy instead of driving; I save petrol money, the planet and don 't need to wait until I've driven home to start drinking.

StevieJ

Itismehonest wrote: »

Tax credit is a benefit.

I meant those living solely on benefits.

stewil18

FTBFun wrote: »

I'm confused - so you think dumb and lazy people should be taxed more now? Which one is it?

i didn't say they should be taxed one way or the other, it was that other posters assertions that educated and hard working should get all the breaks and my response to that.

I know plenty of hard working educated people who get held back, i know not so educated and lazy so and so's who move onwards and upwards, i know plenty of people in the middle of all that......there is no right or wrong way to tax people, whether lazy or hard working, educated or otherwise you will upset some who deserve better and help others who don't deserve it.

My solution to it, who knows, a 15% flat rate on everything and no tax loopholes, what you earn you pay on.

FTBFun

StevieJ wrote: »

Presumably working tax credits are effectively means tested, an above inflation rise will increase net income so reduce the working tax credit benefit entitlement (assumption on my part).

The WTC thresshold isn't the same as the personal allowance, it's done separately.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Want to avoid an increase in fuel duty - drive less, get a more fuel efficient car etc.

You are spectacularly missing the point. I can't believe you are quite as naive as you wish to make out on this one.

Fuel duty increases the price of all goods. You can't cut down on your commute.

You can decide whether to buy a bottle of wine or not.

StevieJ

FTBFun wrote: »

The WTC thresshold isn't the same as the personal allowance, it's done separately.

I know, that is the problem, if WTC thresholds were raised to take account of the allowance rise then the full increase could be passed on, do you think that is going to happen

sunshinetours

stewil18 wrote: »

....there is no right or wrong way to tax people, whether lazy or hard working, educated or otherwise you will upset some who deserve better and help others who don't deserve it.

My solution to it, who knows, a 15% flat rate on everything and no tax loopholes, what you earn you pay on.

With respect you have just proved that first statement wrong - there certainly are plenty of wrong ways to tax a society - a 15% flat rate for everyone would be close to the top of that list!

Currently someone earning about £150k and ignoring NI, would pay about 35% effective rate and someone earning £10k pa about 5%.
I think even the most die hard Tory would struggle to justify changing to a 15% flat rate for all in a fair tax system