General Election 2015 – Tax Implications?

Thrugelmir

Cyberman60 wrote: »

5 Billion is a drop in the ocean when we consider that the annual deficit is 100 Billion.

A tax rise of some description is the way to bridge the gap. £5 billion is not insignificant.

singhini

Increase VAT to 25% and scrap the NHS - double whammy


An extra £25billion raised and £140billion saved


I should be made chancellor

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

But only higher rate taxpayers would be affected which is still only a small proportion.

Which is simply another reason why your Plan B is questionable.

As only some public sector employees are affected, targetting them for a specific increase in salary would be (a) tricky, because of the formalised pay structures etc that exist , and (b) likely to p1ss off all those basic rate public sector employees who will wonder why their bosses are getting a whacking great 20% pay rise when they're getting SFA.

michaels wrote: »

... There wasn't much sympathy for those on 50k who lost their child benefit.

Everybody on 50k+ lost their child benefit.

You (for some strange reason) are arguing that only some people should do so.

Let us not forget that you proposal is to end higher rate tax relief on pensions purely in order to "bring in a lot of tax short term that could be used to reward ones own supporters in the unions". Presumably because you believe that the rewards offered would be sufficient to buy enough votes to make the offer worthwhile.

I am simply pointing out that your proposal involves p1ssing off a great number of people to one degree or another, and therefore seems just as likely to lose more votes than you gain.

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A tax rise of some description is the way to bridge the gap. £5 billion is not insignificant.

£5 billion is a penny on the basic rate. That's what I would call real money.:)

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

But only higher rate taxpayers would be affected which is still only a small proportion. There wasn't much sympathy for those on 50k who lost their child benefit.

The 80% percentile for all employees is £37,233, for full time employees it is £41,734. So 40% tax relief does not effect majority of people I think sometimes people on here forget that.

coastline

Looking at the original link theres a bit of committed and a bit of hinted...so basically its unclear.

http://www.thefrygroup.co.uk/general-election-2015-party-tax-policy/#.VOceWXysVA1

If its the Tories I think they will plough ahead with a reduction in public spending until it is near or under a 30% of GDP.
Both Labour and LibDem will make cuts but at a slower pace.

Todays news should give a boost to the goverment as taxes are beginning to flow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31548170

The election is still months away and as the TV throws it in our faces people will get bored with it.

antrobus

coastline wrote: »

Looking at the original link theres a bit of committed and a bit of hinted...so basically its unclear.

http://www.thefrygroup.co.uk/general-election-2015-party-tax-policy/#.VOceWXysVA1

.....

There is a conference speech that Ed Balls gave in 2013 in which he talks of "restricting pension tax relief for the very highest earners to the same rate as the average taxpayer".

What you think that means would depend on what you think Balls meant by the "very highest earners", or what an "average tax payer" was, and what form the 'restriction' would take.

Interestingly, in the very same speech Balls promises that Labour will re-introduce the lower 10% tax rate and pay for it by introducing a "mansion tax on properties worth over £2m". A year later, another conference, another speech, and we find the other Ed promising that the proceeds of this very same mansion tax will be used to pay for the NHS time to care fund.

Make of that what you will.:)

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/62052732090/ed-balls-mps-speech-to-labour-party-annual

coastline

antrobus wrote: »

There is a conference speech that Ed Balls gave in 2013 in which he talks of "restricting pension tax relief for the very highest earners to the same rate as the average taxpayer".

What you think that means would depend on what you think Balls meant by the "very highest earners", or what an "average tax payer" was, and what form the 'restriction' would take.

Interestingly, in the very same speech Balls promises that Labour will re-introduce the lower 10% tax rate and pay for it by introducing a "mansion tax on properties worth over £2m". A year later, another conference, another speech, and we find the other Ed promising that the proceeds of this very same mansion tax will be used to pay for the NHS time to care fund.

Make of that what you will.:)

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/62052732090/ed-balls-mps-speech-to-labour-party-annual

found this with a quick google...

http://citywire.co.uk/money/higher-rate-pension-tax-relief-for-the-axe-after-election-warns-webb/a790935

Looking at the link below it normally takes more than one parliament to eliminate a budget deficit...even worse with a banking crisis.
Given that I would expect some large cuts by any party who is elected so cuts in Welfare and other areas look certain.
A few billion on mansion tax won't make much of a dent in £50bn..

https://nickthornsby.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/deficit.png

antrobus

coastline wrote: »

...A few billion on mansion tax won't make much of a dent in £50bn.......

It won't make any dent at all. The two Eds have already spent that money twice over.

Cyberman60

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A tax rise of some description is the way to bridge the gap. £5 billion is not insignificant.

Indeed, but VAT hits people in the pocket every day and adds to inflation, whereas welfare is out of control at 200 Billion a year and there are many other sensible measures available in that area if there is the political will.