We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The budget - not quite live
Comments
-
By the end of labour's term it was 52% and with a lower tax free allowance.
Yes, introduced for a few months as a political stunt. Until they wanted a stick with which to beat the Conservatives, they felt that 40% was the right level. It's dishonest to imply that the 52% rate was ever about raiding revenue or about fairness.0 -
mystic_trev wrote: »I seem to remember one of the first things New Labour did in 1997 was to raid Pensions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/money/budget-97-pension-funds-in-uproar-over-abolition-of-tax-credit-1248706.html
And was a move that probably lost Labour my vote forever.0 -
The point is it is a lot more than the 47% figure now. Labour would never reduce it. Conservatives did and will eventually take it back to 40%. Labour didn't support the reduction to 45% despite it increasing revenue. 50% tax is political and appeals to people that don't quite understand the tax system and the effect on the economy. An attempt for votes. The reality is the 45% band won't be here for long. The next parliament I suspect it will be gone.Yes, introduced for a few months as a political stunt. Until they wanted a stick with which to beat the Conservatives, they felt that 40% was the right level. It's dishonest to imply that the 52% rate was ever about raiding revenue or about fairness.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »National Savings has to be seen to be acting fairly in the market place. Premium bond allowance was increased also.
The item that caught my eye. Was the charging and payment of VAT in the country of point of sale. So will hurt the American Corps such as Ebay, Amazon etc whose billing points are elsewhere in Europe. In countries whose VAT rates are lower.
this was already going to happen from 1st Jan 2015 and is a europe wide change0 -
mayonnaise wrote: »You are Ed Miliband's soundbite generator. Don't even try to deny it.
Would that ruin your soundbite?0 -
I think that it'd be fairer to say that you have lost touch with reality if you think that you get to make the same decisions that you have made, end up where you are, and then talk about swapping places with me. You had the choice to do what I do, you chose not to. You don't get to not out in the effort but then receive the benefits that accrue from them.
You make a lot of assumptions for someone with a capacious cranium.
I don't want or need to swap places with you. I have made the effort and take the rewards. I also paid (and continue to) the necessary taxes along the way.
Not everyone has the choice to do what you have done or currently do. Life plays many different hands."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
You forgot the 1p cut in beer duty which will also be popular with the pensioners who frequent Wetherspoons and similar large chain pubs.
I don't think the 1p beer duty cut is targeted at pensioners but it's not like other age groups won't benefit equally from it (very little). The measures I highlighted were ones that pensioners benefit from disproportionally.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
The point is it is a lot more than the 47% figure now. Labour would never reduce it. Conservatives did and will eventually take it back to 40%. Labour didn't support the reduction to 45% despite it increasing revenue.
No that's really not the point. It was a stunt as already mentioned, one of the most unpleasant pieces of politics of the last few years.
Labour kept the top rate at 40% whilst in power. They increased it to 50% on the way out of the door purely so that they could accuse the Tories of giving tax-breaks to high-earners when they reduced it again. And it's never been proven that it raises revenue because no-one knows how much revenue is lost by people & jobs that aren't in the UK because of the higher-rate tax.
Let's hope the Conservatives do take it back Labour's level of 40%. The sooner the better.0 -
Labour would never have reduced it back. They opposed the reduction to 45%. No assumptions about what might have happened with labour, they increased it to 50%.No that's really not the point. It was a stunt as already mentioned, one of the most unpleasant pieces of politics of the last few years.
Labour kept the top rate at 40% whilst in power. They increased it to 50% on the way out of the door purely so that they could accuse the Tories of giving tax-breaks to high-earners when they reduced it again. And it's never been proven that it raises revenue because no-one knows how much revenue is lost by people & jobs that aren't in the UK because of the higher-rate tax.
Let's hope the Conservatives do take it back Labour's level of 40%. The sooner the better.0 -
Labour would never have reduced it back. They opposed the reduction to 45%. No assumptions about what might have happened with labour, they increased it to 50%.
They were happy with the 40% rate for 13 years of their administration then raised it 1 month before they were due to lose power.
In opposition, they've opposed the government's actions because, well, they're the opposition.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards