The forthcoming budget

ukcarper

Wild_Rover wrote: »

The triple lock on pensions has to go. Maybe a double lock is OK, being inflation and average wage rises, but a guarantee to increase by a set figure regardless of these two factors is nonsense. (To be fair, if inflation continues to rise, and stays higher, it may be irrelevant anyway.)

WR

I'm a pensioner and That's sounds OK with me but I agree with Thrug

Thrugelmir

venison wrote: »

Basically he's a lame duck chancellor in a lame duck government with a you guessed it a lame duck PM.

Budgets are routine. Not what they are now made out to be. There's far more than the headlines in the finer detail.

GreatApe

A graduate tax replacing tuition fees would be quite a change, I can see people having to avoid university to avoid paying 45 years of higher taxes.

I would say just give 18 year olds £30k to be spent on an education or on buying a house or put into a pension. Given the choice of where to spend the money they would probably find better value in a pension or house than higher education.

Herzlos

copperclock wrote: »

I'd like to see changes in the higher income child benefit charge. Most preferably, basing the repay level on household income rather than individual income.

Not going to happen, though.

That sounds like a good, fair idea. So you're right, it's not going to happen.

Herzlos

I can see him making stamp duty a fee the seller pays.

I can't see it making a difference, it'd just be rolled into the sale price. Wouldn't have any impact on sale prices or deposit levels. It'd totally screw those forced to sell with less equity than the stamp duty.

PasturesNew

I don't know ... but I do know there won't be anything there to benefit me ... and there will be some extra taxes that I get to pay.

It's always the same....

I can't see stamp duty becoming something for sellers to pay - people in dire situations would be unable to afford to pay it, so would end up being bankrupted. Those buying can choose whether to buy or not .... those selling are not always doing it from choice.

westernpromise

Whatever is done the result will be that even more of the country's tax revenue will be collected from even fewer people. At the moment the top 1% pay 27% of it and the top 10% pay 59% of it. I can see those moving to 35% and 60%.

What is extraordinary is how unconcerned successive chancellors have been by this. They should be terrified. There are plenty of lower bids out there from places with better weather.

Fella

Nothing good would be my suggestion.

Hammond is uninspiring & May even more so. And they are being dragged to the left to boot.

Osborne did some great things as Chancellor (& some very questionable things). Hammond under May is like Osborne without the good stuff.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised but no sign of it yet.

ruperts

westernpromise wrote: »

Whatever is done the result will be that even more of the country's tax revenue will be collected from even fewer people. At the moment the top 1% pay 27% of it and the top 10% pay 59% of it. I can see those moving to 35% and 60%.

What is extraordinary is how unconcerned successive chancellors have been by this. They should be terrified. There are plenty of lower bids out there from places with better weather.

The top 1% might pay 27% of the tax but they also have about 27% of all the wealth so that seems fair to me.

Fella

ruperts wrote: »

The top 1% might pay 27% of the tax but they also have about 27% of all the wealth so that seems fair to me.

Really? I suspect you're infinitely better off than most people in Rwanda. How will you be sending them a fair share of your money, by cheque?