Budget 2025

ClashCityRocker1

Surely the easiest solution would be to adjust the threshold to match the value of the full flat rate pension? you could even just do that for people of pension age but that might well invite criticism. would invalidate the gains of freezing the threshold and you either have to adjust other thresholds too or the 20% band would start to shrink quite fast! If you leave the threshold as is, then you would have to use the tax code to take tax back from other sources of income which means that some people on just the flat rate pension would not pay as much tax as somebody who had exactly the same amount in private pension but no state pension.

ClashCityRocker1

Alexland said:

Albermarle said:

I'm wondering if she will still be in the job next week .

The markets and her own party were happy enough with the budget, so the realpolitik is that most likely she will be in her job for some time to come.

I've never seen the media directly tear into anyone as harshly as during today's interview rounds. Even those outlets that I would expect to have given an easy ride chewed up both the chancellor and chief secretary to the treasury. It was humiliating for them as the evidence of what they had previously said was so strong and their prepared line of response was so weak.

Smart and influential people seem very angry about this budget and the highly misleading information provided so I still think it's doubtful she can hold the whole scope or even last a week in the job if she tries. The misjudgments in this budget were off the scale and there seems to be a consensus that it doesn't do what the country needs so it's going to be a huge problem for them.

Once the bond markets look past the increased headroom and think about if the government can really deliver the forecast future year reforms then confidence in gilts might drift down especially if there is a period of political uncertainty of who the next PM and chancellor will be and what kind of policies they might go for.

Sounds like the scenario many of the media are trying to engineer. But the budget itself may well have done "what the country needs", so the rest, including your post, is just part of the noise.

Grumpy_chap

michaels said:

The reality is the triple lock is no more as once the state pension is taxed, pensioners will only get 80% of any increase so the state pension will no longer keep up with inflation but will fall in real terms.  

Not really.
The Triple Lock sees the SP increase by 4.8% for the coming year.
The National Living Wage will increase by 4.1%.
It is difficult to see why the SP should be protected against income tax while the worker on NLW is not.  The SP is still increasing by more than the NLW.


The real problem with the press at the moment is the seemingly collective decision to target the individual and hound a change of personnel.  It would be far more important, IMO, to be commenting on and challenging the actual policies and driving clarifications on matters such as how the "no tax for SP" will actually work.

ClashCityRocker1

Grumpy_chap said:

michaels said:

The reality is the triple lock is no more as once the state pension is taxed, pensioners will only get 80% of any increase so the state pension will no longer keep up with inflation but will fall in real terms.  

Not really.
The Triple Lock sees the SP increase by 4.8% for the coming year.
The National Living Wage will increase by 4.1%.
It is difficult to see why the SP should be protected against income tax while the worker on NLW is not.  The SP is still increasing by more than the NLW.


The real problem with the press at the moment is the seemingly collective decision to target the individual and hound a change of personnel.  It would be far more important, IMO, to be commenting on and challenging the actual policies and driving clarifications on matters such as how the "no tax for SP" will actually work.

I agree with your last paragraph. As the press have been viciously attacking Reeves for months on spurious grounds without discussing any real pros and cons and the current feeding frenzy just sounds like more of the same.

m_c_s

ClashCityRocker1 said:

Sounds like the scenario many of the media are trying to engineer. But the budget itself may well have done "what the country needs", so the rest, including your post, is just part of the noise.

Alongside the budget the OBR delivered it's report on the future of the economy as a result of the budget:
1. Declining Growth: The OBR has downgraded its long-term economic growth forecasts due to lower-than-expected productivity growth.
2. Stagnant (Higher-for-longer) Inflation: The OBR state it expects inflation to remain above the Bank of England's 2% target for longer than previously forecast.
3. Higher Borrowing: The OBR expects higher debt and inflation leading to an increase in the cost of servicing government debt and paying for welfare. The OBR projects higher near-term government borrowing compared to previous estimates. Public sector net debt is expected to rise, peaking at 97.0% of GDP in 2028-29.
4. Higher Borrowing Costs: The OBR also projects that borrowing costs for the government and households will remain elevated. Average mortgage interest rates, for example, are expected to peak in 2027 and remain high.

Are you suggesting these are what the country needs or these things are just noise?

Cobbler_tone

m_c_s said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

Sounds like the scenario many of the media are trying to engineer. But the budget itself may well have done "what the country needs", so the rest, including your post, is just part of the noise.

Alongside the budget the OBR delivered it's report on the future of the economy as a result of the budget:
1. Declining Growth: The OBR has downgraded its long-term economic growth forecasts due to lower-than-expected productivity growth.
2. Stagnant (Higher-for-longer) Inflation: The OBR state it expects inflation to remain above the Bank of England's 2% target for longer than previously forecast.
3. Higher Borrowing: The OBR expects higher debt and inflation leading to an increase in the cost of servicing government debt and paying for welfare. The OBR projects higher near-term government borrowing compared to previous estimates. Public sector net debt is expected to rise, peaking at 97.0% of GDP in 2028-29.
4. Higher Borrowing Costs: The OBR also projects that borrowing costs for the government and households will remain elevated. Average mortgage interest rates, for example, are expected to peak in 2027 and remain high.

Are you suggesting these are what the country needs or these things are just noise?

You missed the unemployment figures.

Point 1 is the biggest concern for me. None of what has been presented shows any prospect of growth. I was shocked to hear that only 60% of those benefiting from the removal of the two child cap are in work.

That said, no-one can be at all surprised with any of this.
There'll be a thread closing near you soon. 

m_c_s

Cobbler_tone said:

m_c_s said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

Sounds like the scenario many of the media are trying to engineer. But the budget itself may well have done "what the country needs", so the rest, including your post, is just part of the noise.

Alongside the budget the OBR delivered it's report on the future of the economy as a result of the budget:
1. Declining Growth: The OBR has downgraded its long-term economic growth forecasts due to lower-than-expected productivity growth.
2. Stagnant (Higher-for-longer) Inflation: The OBR state it expects inflation to remain above the Bank of England's 2% target for longer than previously forecast.
3. Higher Borrowing: The OBR expects higher debt and inflation leading to an increase in the cost of servicing government debt and paying for welfare. The OBR projects higher near-term government borrowing compared to previous estimates. Public sector net debt is expected to rise, peaking at 97.0% of GDP in 2028-29.
4. Higher Borrowing Costs: The OBR also projects that borrowing costs for the government and households will remain elevated. Average mortgage interest rates, for example, are expected to peak in 2027 and remain high.

Are you suggesting these are what the country needs or these things are just noise?

You missed the unemployment figures.

Point 1 is the biggest concern for me. None of what has been presented shows any prospect of growth. I was shocked to hear that only 60% of those benefiting from the removal of the two child cap are in work.

That said, no-one can be at all surprised with any of this.
There'll be a thread closing near you soon. 

Why would the thread be closed for just providing information and official statements from the independent OBR, a Government body?
I assume MSE would want the correct full information to made available from the most credible source possible and not rely on someone's view on what the country wants or what is just noise. 

artyboy

Cobbler_tone said:

m_c_s said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

Sounds like the scenario many of the media are trying to engineer. But the budget itself may well have done "what the country needs", so the rest, including your post, is just part of the noise.

Alongside the budget the OBR delivered it's report on the future of the economy as a result of the budget:
1. Declining Growth: The OBR has downgraded its long-term economic growth forecasts due to lower-than-expected productivity growth.
2. Stagnant (Higher-for-longer) Inflation: The OBR state it expects inflation to remain above the Bank of England's 2% target for longer than previously forecast.
3. Higher Borrowing: The OBR expects higher debt and inflation leading to an increase in the cost of servicing government debt and paying for welfare. The OBR projects higher near-term government borrowing compared to previous estimates. Public sector net debt is expected to rise, peaking at 97.0% of GDP in 2028-29.
4. Higher Borrowing Costs: The OBR also projects that borrowing costs for the government and households will remain elevated. Average mortgage interest rates, for example, are expected to peak in 2027 and remain high.

Are you suggesting these are what the country needs or these things are just noise?

You missed the unemployment figures.

Point 1 is the biggest concern for me. None of what has been presented shows any prospect of growth. I was shocked to hear that only 60% of those benefiting from the removal of the two child cap are in work.

That said, no-one can be at all surprised with any of this.
There'll be a thread closing near you soon. 

Well what's the point in working when benefits are ever more generous, as a result of workers "being asked to contribute a bit more" (I think that's the current politically correct term for being taxed to extinction).

No wonder my LinkedIn feed is full of "come to Dubai" posts... (no thanks, but I can see why some might...)

Alexland

Cobbler_tone said:

Point 1 is the biggest concern for me. None of what has been presented shows any prospect of growth. I was shocked to hear that only 60% of those benefiting from the removal of the two child cap are in work.

Even for those 60% then there is an argument that their needs would be better met from reduced taxation and improved growth rather than handouts. I have been impressed with how fair the media have been on reporting this budget - the facts speak for themselves and it's right that people should be held to account for their actions.

Cobbler_tone

Alexland said:

Cobbler_tone said:

Point 1 is the biggest concern for me. None of what has been presented shows any prospect of growth. I was shocked to hear that only 60% of those benefiting from the removal of the two child cap are in work.

Even for those 60% then there is an argument that their needs would be better met from reduced taxation and improved growth rather than handouts. I have been impressed with how fair the media have been on reporting this budget - the facts speak for themselves and it's right that people should be held to account for their actions.

There is definitely an argument that raising the lower tax threshold by a grand or two must massively incentivise work vs benefits. There must be a point where it doesn't pay to work. It would also help all manner of lower paid families, along with deferring the state pension issue in a year or two.