The Budget

antrobus

Wild_Rover wrote: »

...Instead of looking in disbelief at the 50% of CT that goes on pensions, if you look at the fact that CTax is only about 15% of the Falkirk Council's income, you could instead have said that 50% of 15% of the Council's income goes on pensions. For 2015-16, total net expenditure for the Council was estimated at just over 335m and of that "only" about 53m comes from Council Tax....

Indeed. I know the proportion varies from council to council but, roughly LA income is derived from; Central government 60%, Business rates 20%, and Council tax 20%. And roughly speaking, about 50% of local government expenditure is on staff. Therefore if staff pension contributions are some double digit percentage of salary then, arithmetically speaking, it would not be any great shock if the number was about 5% of total spend and thus one quarter or more of the CT income number.

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

The landlord tax changes seem to be bizarre, firstly taxing a business son turnover rather than profit is more than a little unusual

Tax is paid on taxable profit. Just like a Corporate entity where allowances are adjusted against declared profit to arrive at taxable profit.

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

What it does amply demonstrate to me is that you can have the rug pulled from under you e.g. sensibly base a BTL business on current tax rules and then discover it's not profitable because of budget changes.

It's not a business when the only reason for starting a venture is that it has tax advantages. The UK needs to invest in wealth and employment creating ventures. That have benefits rather than line an already wealthy individuals pockets. Which is where a lot of the new BTL monies are originating from.

[Deleted User]

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

What does this have to do with the discussion about council tax contributions and council wrkers pensions?



As we have agreed above, the discussion is about council tax paid by individual people and how much of it is used to pay pensions. Your information above is irrelevent in this context. We are not dicussing total council income - just the bit we as individuals pay with our council tax contributions each year.


I have merely stated that 50% of Falkirk council tax goes towards pensions. Despite typing so much, you seem unable to refute this other than introducing other payments that unrelated to council tax.



Ah, and so we get to the crux of it - self interest.

Do you not find it interesting the scenario that some council tax payers will be paying the pension of people who retired before the taxpayers themselves left school, indeed before some of them were even born? Is it fair that our children (and perhaps even their children) pay your pension despite never receiving any sort of service from you?

How long can this continue where more and more council workers retire on pensions provided by current taxpayers? There will come a point when 100% of council tax is collected to pay for pensions. It's just totally unsustainable.

Well, I tried to be helpful, and get abuse back. Who is this "we" who have agreed that this is about council tax? I think you are imagining that you have editorial responsibilities you do not have.

With the greatest amount of respect - that is to say none at all - this thread is not about council tax, it's about the national budget. You might want to check. As part of that national budget goes to the Scottish Government and in turn is passed to councils to fund over 80% their responsibilites, my comments are a hell of a lot more on topic than yours. You are, of course, free to start a thread on pensions if you like, and have a good kick at Council staff in the process. OR you can post off-topic stuff here. Your choice.

The pensions are part of the overall pay and conditions of the staff and they are as entitled to the pensions now as they were to their pay while working.

In both local and national taxation, I too am paying for things I will never use, and for the pensions of people who I have never at any time had any service from. I see no reason to refute what you say. It is arithmetically accurate but was I think intended to cause more of a reaction against former employees than the actual situation merits. I am paying for a guaranteed 2.5% increase p.a. for OAPs, most of whome have never has anything to do with me, or any services I've ever had. So what's your special point about Council Tax and pensions?

Your point may be "accurate" but it is equally accurate to say that significantly less than 10% of your Council's income goes on honouring the employment contracts of former staff. Staff salaries are not met solely from Council Tax, so there's no logical reason why their pensions should be.

For the avoidance of any doubt, if I see a post that I think is misleading - particularly if it is on a subject that I have some information about - I will post in
response.

WR

purch

antrobus wrote: »

Annual CGT allowance.

Individuals have one, corporates do not. Plus of course, if you hold a property in a company there is the prospect of double taxation.

Some people obviously need better Tax advice.

[Deleted User]

Just remember folks - we are all in this together -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864

WR

lvader

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Just remember folks - we are all in this together -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864

WR

George Osborne said anyone working full-time on the National Minimum Wage - taking into account taxation changes - would be better off.

Yes we are.

[Deleted User]

lvader wrote: »

Yes we are.

You did look at the graph, yes? You saw the cash losses for those who already have the least?

"Thirteen million UK families will lose an average of £260 a year due to the freeze in working-age benefits, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.

Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off," said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS."

Meanwhile pensioners are guaranteed a minimum of a 2.5% rise each year, public sector staff are told they'll be limited to 1% following years of a zero rise or 1% rises and the second highest decile income group "lose" virtually nothing. The ones with the second highest incomes available to them "sacrifice" the least. Even the wealthiest decile "lose" less in CASH terms than the lower 50% . These are IFS figures, not mine!

I don't think that we are talking about the same "all", although I certainly know what "it" the poorer FIVE income deciles are in!

WR

Thrugelmir

Wild_Rover wrote: »

"Thirteen million UK families will lose an average of £260 a year due to the freeze in working-age benefits, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

Sums up the folly of Brown's welfare state. How many people does that represent out of the entire UK population? Without bumper profits from the banking sector generating tax revenues. Who pays? Those without children? Fortunately the UK has taken a different track to Greece where self interest appears to rule. Yet in many ways the situation is exactly the same. A country can only spend what it earns. No one said the adjustment would be easy either.

gingerdad

The bit I don't get is why leave child benefit alone. for me it’s seems mad that as a couple with two incomes earning 57500 a year we get child benefit. we are already 400 better off a month than a single salary and have the child benefit to boot.

Any increase in our staff wages will only be passed onto our customers who combined with all their supplier increases and own staff wage increases will be passed on to joe public and thus no one really will be better off.

I do agree full with ridding the system of working tax credits and child tax credits, there is too much incentive to keep your own wages low and have them topped up.