Budget live

dori2o

With regards to the Child Benefit reduction, is anyone actually aware of how this will be done, because looking at how it is going to be managed many people are not going to be happy.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

The government need more money - why would they have a tax that you can decide whether to pay or not?

It's not a party political point but I'd like to refer my honourable friend to my previous answer which said the same thing.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The government need more money - why would they have a tax that you can decide whether to pay or not?

It's not a party political point but I'd like to refer my honourable friend to my previous answer which said the same thing.

Do you honestly think that if alcohol duties went up 5%, people would stop drinking!?

It's a party political point and it's making you look extremely naive.

stewil18

sunshinetours wrote: »

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

15% of 150k would be £22,500 ie 15% not 35%
15% of £10k would be £1,500 ie 15% not 5%

or am i missing something you're trying to get at?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do you honestly think that if alcohol duties went up 5%, people would stop drinking!?

No I don't but if you really need that tax income why take the chance?

FTBFun

stewil18 wrote: »

15% of 150k would be £22,500 ie 15% not 35%
15% of £10k would be £1,500 ie 15% not 5%

or am i missing something you're trying to get at?

There'd have to be a massive contraction in public spending with a 15% flat tax. I doubt that would happen.

chewmylegoff

thought it was an ok budget. tinkering around the edges really, as expected as he has no room to move around.

i don't think the stamp duty changes will have any impact at all. he was basically admitting there's nothing he can do about houses already owned by foreign corporate vehicles.

Pennywise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Not in the short term, but longer term, people will have to factor in their transport costs when deciding on accepting a job offer. There will undoubtedly be a trend towards working closer to home.

As for goods, the same applies, once the transport costs hit a tipping point, there'll be an economic case for fewer huge hubs and more local warehousing and sourcing more products locally.

Both these are good for the long term as they'll reduce travelling and thus be environmentally beneficial as well, not just in terms of fuel usage and pollution, but also reducing the need for constantly increasing the road and rail network capacity.

But, as I say, it will only happen long term as things never happen quickly. Long commutes and your pork pie travelling the length of the country are recent events anyway. Go back a generation or two and most people walked or cycled to work and most goods only travelled a few miles. We may well see a partial return to that kind of living in the not too distant future.

Mr_Mumble

lostinrates wrote: »

If you split the property up, you might avoid the stamp duty, but would not the seller incurr capital gains tax?

Good spot but it would depend on whether there's a capital gain to be had. For (horrible stereotypes ahead) the minor oligarch who bought in the past five years capital gains will not be a problem, the people it will impact are those upper-middle class Londoners who've got lucky over the past fifteen years with the property boom.

PaulF81 wrote: »

Pretty good for small and medium enterprise, not to mention industry research (aerospace industry in particular).

Unfortunately these changes don't make up for the big hikes in taxation elsewhere. The aerospace industry for example is being battered over the trade war between China and the EU that is seeing China cancel or put on hold Airbus orders because of the carbon emissions scheme.

Businesses still have to put up with higher NICs and huge increases in taxation on energy - especially problematic for manufacturers and heavy industry.

For a budget that was supposed to simplify taxation we've got yet more political lobbying allowing certain chosen industries to get tax breaks at the expense of everybody else. I look forward to all the companies who'll stretch their business scope to say they're just like Aardman - perhaps pottery firms featuring Ed Miliband on their mugs!

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

"Proposals" are not reality. The reality is the higher rate tax payer is going to see a higher tax bill and lower benefits next year compared to last year.

PS. this is how Labour and their acolytes got away with saying the tories were going to cut public services: the tories increasing spending by 5% per annum was "a cut" compared to the 7% per annum hikes Labour were proposing. It's all fairy-tale economics of course, if the growth rate is 1-2% you can't carry on increasing spending at 5-7% per-annum without serious economic consequences.

FTBFun

StevieJ wrote: »

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

A personal allowance increase will lead to a net income increase, that is correct.

But that's irrelevant as the income thresshold is that amount before the personal allowance so it doesn't make any difference? Unless you're arguing this threshhold should also go up.

Personally I think they should all be scrapped but that's a separate argument.