The Budget

lisyloo

That will hurt many across the country.

If that's in the context of single mothers then I have every sympathy for those widowed or abandoned, but the rest should wait until they can afford it before they have children, not moan when others don't pick up the bill.

Working people want to be compassinate and support those in need, but not the !!!!less.
Why so many in that position?

f e c k l e s s is a proper word.

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All, as far as I can see.

Hence why the example earlier of the single mother working minimum wage in school hours loses £860 in tax credits, but gains £400 from the increase to the living wage.

I personally believe calling it a living wage instead of a rise to the minimum wage was a masterstroke. All the papers are now reporting it as their main item - "george osbourne introduces living wage".

However, as I wrote earlier, it's not that big a deal. I missed the point earlier that they had already planned to increase the minimum wage by 30p in 2016. So the "living wage" is an increase of just 40p above what the minimum wage would have been.

Simply genius to call it a living wage as it makes it sound so much more than it actually is. As I say, caught me out. I literally couldn't believe Osbourne was introducing a living wage. Now I realise it's pretty much all gloss and little substance.

I think minimum wage increases come in in October each year so 6.80 will happen on October 1st.

The withdrawal rate is also up to 48% from 41% so (6420-3850) * 48% = 1234 quid loss for me.

Plus the NLW means less salary sacrifice is possible and instead personal pension contributions so I lose the employees NI and 66% of employers NI on the extra 40p/hour ie approx 21.2% of 40p * 35 hours * 52 weeks = 152 loss.

Against this there is a small gain on an additional 500 of personal allowance = 100

Total worse off by 1286 quid net

Plus the kids uni maintenance grants as mentioned already.

mystic_trev

vivatifosi Can I just add my thanks (to the others) for your hard work in posting updates. Much appreciated!

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong, I'd prefer employers to be paying wages over tax credits.

But whichever way you cut it, the single mother has lost out to the tune of £460.

That will hurt many across the country. Those it will hurt are not the idle. They are the ones doing what they can to earn a crust.

Perhaps reducing financial incentives around childbirth will help reduce the number of children born to those who can't afford to raise them ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26338540

"The number of teenage pregnancies in England and Wales has continued to drop, latest figures show.

Office for National Statistics data show the under-18 conception rate is the lowest since 1969 at 27.9 conceptions per 1,000 women aged 15-17.
This is a drop of 10% on the previous year, but experts say it is not enough to bring the UK in line with other western European countries. "

There seems to be an inexplicable (at least to the Leftwingers) reduction in the number of teen pregnancies at a time when we are reducing handouts and being a benefit sponger is now being looked down upon as a lifestyle choice.

vivatifosi

The devil is in the detail....

I've just spotted something in the Red Book that I don't think was announced and relates to Buy to Let, so copying below as it may affect some on here:

1.192 The government will also reform how landlords of residential property can account for the costs they incur in improving and maintaining rental property. Currently, landlords of furnished properties can deduct 10% of their rent from their profit to account for wear and tear, irrespective of their expenditure. This means landlords can reduce their tax liability even when they have not improved the property. From April 2016, the government will replace this allowance with a new system that enables all landlords of residential property to only deduct costs they actually incur.

Graham_Devon

vivatifosi wrote: »

The devil is in the detail....

I've just spotted something in the Red Book that I don't think was announced and relates to Buy to Let, so copying below as it may affect some on here:

1.192 The government will also reform how landlords of residential property can account for the costs they incur in improving and maintaining rental property. Currently, landlords of furnished properties can deduct 10% of their rent from their profit to account for wear and tear, irrespective of their expenditure. This means landlords can reduce their tax liability even when they have not improved the property. From April 2016, the government will replace this allowance with a new system that enables all landlords of residential property to only deduct costs they actually incur.

about time too!

MFW_ASAP

The government should give BTL landlords a tax rebate if they make their properties A or B energy rated.

Graham_Devon

However, having said that, the various vested interests, such as Emoov, PWC, Knight Frank etc are all stating these costs will be passed onto tenants through increased rents.

My gut feeling is that if landlords could all just increase rents, they already would have done.

Deloite go as far as suggesting landslords could now struggle to turn a profit. I would say in response they shouldn't have been lent the money if this tax change see's them struggling to turn a profit.

gagahouse

cells wrote: »

Someone already posted but....

Currently

£1000 Rent - £400 Interest = £600 Gross on which to pay income tax. Post income tax at 40% = £360 in your pocket

New

£1000 Rent - £400 Interest - £80 tax differential = £520 Gross on which you pay income tax. Post income tax at 40% = £312


So it goes from £360 to £312 in your pocket

Ok I see thanks, then not so bad as I thought.

michaels

RE BTL - it is pretty unusual for a business to be taxed on turnover ratehr than profit - I imagine if this was applied more generally then most businesses would shut down. For BTL hopefully it will mean that it makes more sense for it to be run as a proper business with company accounts.

However I thought the 10% depreciation allowance for furnishing wear and tear was designed to make things simpler for both landlords and the tax workers - stuff does need replacing, 10% seemed a reasonable value for most landlords expenditure and it avoids creating an industry of milliions of receipts that need to be submitted and then checked. It also means that landlords can spend more than 10% and claim it all back which they couldn't previously.