Autumn Statement - Predictions and results

tibawo

I was looking for more hours to work but am hanging fire because if the things in the wind go through I will actually be better off keeping my hours at low. FSM will kick in reducing my food bill. Due to my zero hours contract I will get HB during school holidays, get a free NHS prescription card especially as I have a problem with a tooth.
My children will also get to see more of me, this means creating memories.

setmefree2

slowpoke_rodriguez wrote: »

They should be paying less!
Along with smokers and drinkers they're going to peg out earlier and relieve us of having to have them stored in an old folks home we can't afford to run.

Yes but before they peg out they will cost us a fortune - look at what's occurring with cost of managing type 2 diabetes.

The cost of diabetes to the NHS is over £1.5m an hour or 10% of the NHS budget for England and Wales. This equates to over £25,000 being spent on diabetes every minute.
In total, an estimated £14 billion pounds is spent a year on treating diabetes and its complications, with the cost of treating complications representing the much higher cost.
The prevalence of diabetes is estimated to rise to 4 million by 2025.

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/cost-of-diabetes.html

Some serious sin taxes needed to pay for this and to prevent people from getting fat.

chucknorris

From an entirely selfish point of view, and realising that the chancellor needs to collect more tax rather than give it away:

I am hoping for:
Reduction in the 40% pension tax relief (I am retiring next year so my 'relevant income' will disappear).
Some sort of sugar tax (I eat very healthily, if you ignore my wine consumption).
Hit benefits and or tax credits.
Hit salary sacrifice.
Introduce a new ISA type of pension, that doesn't have to be 'relevant income'.
Privatisation of assets.
Preventing contractors from paying themselves via dividends, but he seems to have addressed this issue already by changing the tax system for dividends.

What I am hoping to avoid is:
NI being payable from non employment income or the scrapping of NI and re-classifying it as tax (this was mentioned a while ago, but now seems to be off the agenda).
Increasing (again) the tax paid on dividend income.

michaels

chucknorris wrote: »

From an entirely selfish point of view, and realising that the chancellor needs to collect more tax rather than give it away:

I am hoping for:
Reduction in the 40% pension tax relief (I am retiring next year so my 'relevant income' will disappear).
Some sort of sugar tax (I eat very healthily, if you ignore my wine consumption).
Hit benefits and or tax credits.
Hit salary sacrifice.
Introduce a new ISA type of pension, that doesn't have to be 'relevant income'.
Privatisation of assets.
Preventing contractors from paying themselves via dividends, but he seems to have addressed this issue already by changing the tax system for dividends.

What I am hoping to avoid is:
NI being payable from non employment income or the scrapping of NI and re-classifying it as tax (this was mentioned a while ago, but now seems to be off the agenda).

Scores 10/10 for honesty but 0/10 for addressing the 'Boomers had all the cake and now want to eat it (again)' issue....

chucknorris

michaels wrote: »

Scores 10/10 for honesty but 0/10 for addressing the 'Boomers had all the cake and now want to eat it (again)' issue....

Turkeys don't vote for Xmas, gobble gobble (or whatever noise turkeys make). Money doesn't mean everything to me, I'd give it all up...........for just a little bit more.

michaels

chucknorris wrote: »

Turkeys don't vote for Xmas, gobble gobble (or whatever noise turkeys make). Money doesn't mean everything to me, I'd give it all up...........for just a little bit more.

Or boomers do vote against tax credits whereas tax credit recipients don't vote (for them)

chucknorris

happylucky wrote: »

Capital Gains Tax on all investment property back up to 40%, retrospective and taking immediate effect. Maybe on all other investments too.

Potential proceeds earmarked for more social housing.

The trouble with that is that it was reduced to replace the taper allowance (which replaced the indexation allowance), there needs to be some recognition/allowance for the effect of inflation when calculating CGT. Otherwise one can end up paying tax on a real term loss (when profit is calculated using nominal rather than real time values).

Also it is very unlikely that you would have two separate classes of asset (property and everything else), so it would almost certainly be applied to everything.

mwpt

michaels wrote: »

Scores 10/10 for honesty but 0/10 for addressing the 'Boomers had all the cake and now want to eat it (again)' issue....

Ha ha, agree with this. At least he was up front honest.

My view is somewhat pessimistic on what can be achieved.

With such a large proportion of the workforce now on tax credits, it's hard to see how cutting them won't have a detrimental impact in some form or other. Not least people closing shop on going full unemployment benefits. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps it will encourage small businesses to work harder, do more than the minimum hours required, and actually earn more. That would be nice.

I don't want my tax rates cut. It would be nice if they were maintained, but the reality is that we are never going to get to a surplus or even run a stable deficit (vs GDP growth) without increased taxation. I guess that is where the dividend and other stealth earnings taxes are fitting in, after his promise of no increased earnings taxation. This is unfortunate for me because I am planning on switching to contracting next year.

I would very much like to see reductions in housing benefit, with corresponding spending in relocation schemes. Assist people to move from high cost locations (central London), to lower cost locations. I believe there is a bunch of money that could be saved this way. It's a tough sell though, particularly because, well, who would want to move when they've won the postcode lottery and living for free/cheap? Also, if I were in that position, I'd be holding out for a possible RTB scheme so I could double up my lottery winnings. But if it is somehow possible, this is the biggest issue for me.

Spend on planning permission. Tax on land banking. Force builders to build or sell the land to those of us who would. In other countries I've lived in, people could realistically and affordably build there own houses, far far more easily than is possible in SE England.

SailorSam

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I'd support abolishing the BBC

The Bbc offer excellent value for money. Some of the programmes they produce are going to cost you a lot more to watch if left to the 'paid' channels.
Radio, particularly local radio can be the only company that many people have, without it would leave them alone with no contact to the outside world. To many the presenters are the only friends they have.

chris_m

chucknorris wrote: »

Some sort of sugar tax (I eat very healthily, if you ignore my wine consumption).

What's wrong with wine?
It's made from grapes so doesn't it count as one of your "five a day"?