Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36185057)

I assume you joking as it clearly is enough to live on, my daughters would all love to be getting 33K a year.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36185041)

i suspect life expectantcy will go down under labour

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36185026)

They can grasp it.

This is all confected outrage. When we talk of workers we generally think of people whose income comes from their direct labour. People on salaries or self-employed.

We don't think of people who gain passive income from investments.

No honest person is that confused about this and thinks they're not workers because they own a few thousand pounds worth of shares or they have some savings gaining interest. When we talk of class in this country this divide is now probably the most important one, the answer to the question of if you need to work or not.

There is plenty to criticise about this budget regarding workers, i.e increasing the employers' NI contributions will indirectly tax workers. You can argue Labour never should have made this promise at all and instead should reverse last year's NI cut because it was never budgeted for in the first place. You could also argue that by far the biggest tax increase in tomorrow's budget will be that the tax bands are once again being frozen pushing more people into the higher tax bands despite inflation eroding the values of those salaries. An honest budget would go back to last year's NI rate and tell everyone upfront about the freezing of the bands. The tax burden on the middle-class is already very high so there isn't much scope to increase it beyond those measures anyway.

But instead of those substantive points, we get this disingenuous nonsense. Just liars everywhere arguing fiction between each other. This budget is a tax increase on workers, the last Tory budget was an tax increase on workers, it's needed because the economy has no growth and nobody is confused what workers mean.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36185026)

They can grasp it.

This is all confected outrage. When we talk of workers we generally think of people whose income comes from their direct labour. People on salaries or self-employed.

We don't think of people who gain passive income from investments.

No honest person is that confused about this and thinks they're not workers because they own a few thousand pounds worth of shares or they have some savings gaining interest. When we talk of class in this country this divide is now probably the most important one, the answer to the question of if you need to work or not.

There is plenty to criticise about this budget regarding workers, i.e increasing the employers' NI contributions will indirectly tax workers. You can argue Labour never should have made this promise at all and instead should reverse last year's NI cut because it was never budgeted for in the first place. You could also argue that by far the biggest tax increase in tomorrow's budget will be that the tax bands are once again being frozen pushing more people into the higher tax bands despite inflation eroding the values of those salaries. An honest budget would go back to last year's NI rate and tell everyone upfront about the freezing of the bands. The tax burden on the middle-class is already very high so there isn't much scope to increase it beyond those measures anyway.

But instead of those substantive points, we get this disingenuous nonsense. Just liars everywhere arguing fiction between each other. This budget is a tax increase on workers, the last Tory budget was an tax increase on workers, it's needed because the economy has no growth and nobody is confused what workers mean.

Originally Posted by Escapee (Post 36185077)

I'm sure I will see an increase in my tax today because my main source of work is a contract that has been placed inside IR35.

There are many that are on contracts like myself who pay employer NI and the apprentice levy as well as employer NI, income tax and for umbrella company services. These people are not all well paid, when all the costs are added up some are on similar wages in their pockets to permanent employees, but it looks like they are going to take a hit.

I have just renewed what was my main contract on terms that are a maximum of 3 days a week, there's just no point working 5 days and the extra I inevitably ended up doing on the weekend. I'm now going to stick rigidly to 2.5/3 days per week.

The problem I have been working on as the engineering lead is costing in excess of £1m every working day until there's a fix in place, and it was on hold for 10 weeks while the civil servants got their act together renewing the contract. They introduced a weeks delay while they attempted to cut my day rate by a small percentage. (I just accepted it because we all want to get on with the job)

It means that making it not worth my while to work a full week by double taxing me with IR35 is going to cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot more every day than the extra tax they collect off me.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36185078)

In percentage terms, this does not represent the majority of contractors. If they made "similar wages .. to permanent employees", they would not be contractors. They do it because the overall remuneration is better and in most cases, significantly better.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36185026)

They can grasp it.

This is all confected outrage. When we talk of workers we generally think of people whose income comes from their direct labour. People on salaries or self-employed.

We don't think of people who gain passive income from investments.

No honest person is that confused about this and thinks they're not workers because they own a few thousand pounds worth of shares or they have some savings gaining interest. When we talk of class in this country this divide is now probably the most important one, the answer to the question of if you need to work or not.

There is plenty to criticise about this budget regarding workers, i.e increasing the employers' NI contributions will indirectly tax workers. You can argue Labour never should have made this promise at all and instead should reverse last year's NI cut because it was never budgeted for in the first place. You could also argue that by far the biggest tax increase in tomorrow's budget will be that the tax bands are once again being frozen pushing more people into the higher tax bands despite inflation eroding the values of those salaries. An honest budget would go back to last year's NI rate and tell everyone upfront about the freezing of the bands. The tax burden on the middle-class is already very high so there isn't much scope to increase it beyond those measures anyway.

But instead of those substantive points, we get this disingenuous nonsense. Just liars everywhere arguing fiction between each other. This budget is a tax increase on workers, the last Tory budget was an tax increase on workers, it's needed because the economy has no growth and nobody is confused what workers mean.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36185080)

I was wrong about this! They won't extend the freeze beyond the already announced one until 2028.

That's a surprise.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36185080)

I was wrong about this! They won't extend the freeze beyond the already announced one until 2028.

That's a surprise.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36185083)

Carers Allowance to rise to equal 16 hours of the National Minimum Wage.

16 x £12.21 = £195.36 ? £195.36 x 52 = £10,158.72 pa. ???

It is presently £4,258.80 pa.

Or did I hear her incorrectly?

Originally Posted by Escapee (Post 36185084)

It's going to cost the worker.

My (very) quick calculations are that a small business employing someone on minimum wage for a 37.5 hour week will have to find another £998.65 per year to fund the wage increase and employers NI increase.

Imagine how much the NI increase is going to cost for larger employers. Just the reduction of the £9100 threshold to £5000 itself will cost the business £492 for every employee.

Ultimately it's going to cost employees, it will result in lower wage rises and lower down the wage chain it will cost jobs.

Now I'm part time at least the NI increase is only going to cost me around £1200 per year Ouch.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36185093)

I had a quick read of the main points on the BBC site, there dont seem to be any personal tax rises.
Indirectly, I expect prices of goods & services will rise due to increased business costs (mostly NI changes).
Since prices rise anyway, it may be hard to tell how much more they have gone up than they would have otherwise.

Overall, it doesnt seem as bad (for me anyway) as I had expected.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36185096)

Don't worry , Richard, will tell businesses we're to find another money tree :D remember we the customer aren't the source of the monies, that are given to everyone. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36179991)

I pay next to NOTHING, get yourself a good accountant, worth every penny. Really enjoyed visiting hmrc with one of them , don't know their own regulations . :shocked:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185094)

Any thought of onshoring call centers, out the window

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185098)

Except in your case… (according to you ;) )

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36185096)

Don't worry , Richard, will tell businesses we're to find another money tree :D remember we the customer aren't the source of the monies, that are given to everyone. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185098)

Except in your case… (according to you ;) )

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36185199)

Isn't this the essential problem here: we have so many people who feel that they should not contribute, in a proportionate way, to help repair the damage to the country and its services that the last 15 years inflicted.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36185210)

My brother in laws dad who is retired is £1,000+ a year worse off.


So much for NOT raising taxes, well 2029 can't come any quick so we can remove the lying party

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36185210)

My brother in laws dad who is retired is £1,000+ a year worse off.


So much for NOT raising taxes, well 2029 can't come any quick so we can remove the lying party

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185217)

Important point - the "bold" highlighting for doubling from current level will be for new cars only…

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36185218)

Did you read the fist part of Taff's post?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185217)

Important point - the "bold" highlighting for doubling from current level will be for new cars only…

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36185219)

Read :shocked:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185211)

Did he explain how he is losing £1000 per year because of this Budget?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185220)

Yes, but it wasn’t emboldened, so I posted my comment to minimise confusion amongst those who only focused on the bit in bold…)

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36185224)

Corrected.

My 2019 car is ULEZ compliant (Euro category Euro 6d-temp CO2 emissions rating D - 121g / km), but if it was new it would get hammered by this doubling of VED.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36185210)

My brother in laws dad who is retired is £1,000+ a year worse off.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36185214)

Also, they didn’t promise to not raise taxes they made a promise not to raise SPECIFIC taxes ie income tax and national insurance contributions for employees

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36185230)

So how do they distinguish between those employed by the public sector and outsourcing where they're still working for the public sector?

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36185231)

They dont, apparently.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgl409gww1go

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36185227)

I wasnt aware of this until today



---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------

How ?

---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------

I thought the promise was not to raise them for working people ?

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36185222)

Yes he did

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36185227)

How

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36185202)

Don't mention the EU

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36185239)

This is relevant to the current budget since the Chancellor is trying to plug a fiscal shortfall to fund public services and investment. The shortfall would be 40 Billion less each year if we went back into the Single Market.

As time goes on, the cost of staying outside will be more and more apparent even to Starmer. This would mean, in the context of this thread, the need for lower tax levels and more growth in the economy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36185240)

Only if he continues to avoid utilising the freedoms we attained by leaving the EU.

We’re still waiting for the ‘bonfire of regulations’, so the will for the people is being cruelly ignored.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36185241)

The previous Govt of brave Brexiteers had over 4 years to burn the regs, but discovered they were actually needed. Who'd have thought?!

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36185241)

The previous Govt of brave Brexiteers had over 4 years to burn the regs, but discovered they were actually needed. Who'd have thought?!

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36185238)

No point in increasing NI contributions for public sector employers. The Govt would have to pay the increase, to pay themselves the increased tax.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36185240)

Only if he continues to avoid utilising the freedoms we attained by leaving the EU.

We’re still waiting for the ‘bonfire of regulations’, so the will for the people is being cruelly ignored.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36185248)

The reason I discussed the 40 Billion shortfall per year was not to revisit the old contentious process by which this arose, rather to highlight the inevitable point in the future when we re-join the single market to address the shortfall.

This will not happen in this parliament but what will happen is the realisation that it needs to happen in some form within 10 years.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36185242)

Currently 798 amended, 1,461 repealed, 41 replaced, 61 expired.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36185253)

A meaningless set of numbers unless the total amount is also provided. I wonder why you haven’t ?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36185242)

Currently 798 amended, 1,461 repealed, 41 replaced, 61 expired.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36185258)

And where has anybody else provided the evidence for ZERO changes? 1,461 repealed is NOT zero changes.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36185238)

No point in increasing NI contributions for public sector employers. The Govt would have to pay the increase, to pay themselves the increased tax.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36179926)

Whoever formed the next government would have had to put up taxes of some sort.

The reality of the last 14 years saw to that.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36185241)

The previous Govt of brave Brexiteers had over 4 years to burn the regs, but discovered they were actually needed. Who'd have thought?!

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185259)

And the tangible benefits** of those changes were*?

*nb - "sovereignty" is not a "tangible benefit"

** Tangible benefits are positive results that can be accurately measured and quantified with standard measurements. The term describes any kind of outcome that is directly associated with financial gain or loss.

Originally Posted by daveeb (Post 36185251)

Unfortunately it's akin to watching coal form. People, especially politicians, can't admit it when they got it badly wrong.

Originally Posted by daveeb View Post Unfortunately it's akin to watching coal form. People, especially politicians, can't admit it when they got it badly wrong.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY;36185307What, like Covid and the0))0?t added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------[/SIZE

.

After all, it was the decision of our voters.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185428)

They’ve screwed up big time with the inheritance tax on farms.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185428)

They’ve screwed up big time with the inheritance tax on farms.

They’re idiots and have not thought it through at all……which is really worrying and shows ignorant form, as they did with WFA.

This will be reversed, very quietly, in the next 12 months………..just wait for Iran to nuke Israel and they’ll announce it then.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185430)

One of the reasons this was brought in was that very wealthy people (James Dyson amongst them, who has bought up 37,000 acres of farmland in the last 15 years) bought farmland as a way of avoiding Inheritance Tax on those assets, whilst also driving up the price of farmland.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185458)

We'll end up with farms owned by banks and venture capitalists instead of the actual farmers.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36185489)

The current system drives farmland into the hands of banks, venture capitalists and high net worth individuals like James Dyson. The changes seek to discourage this.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185496)

Time will tell, I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36185497)

Well, it will discourage buying farming land purely as an investment since it's no longer a loophole to avoid tax. Why would Dyson buy it up if that money is now subject to just as much inheritance tax?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185513)

he said "you're lucky he sold it to you at all, the thing about land is...they don't make it anymore....."

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36185518)

Land is expensive but land that would be exempt from IHT is worth even more. That said, you can you build on the land you purchased? Land for which you can't get planning permission is worth even less irrespective of its scarcity.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36185519)

If you sell it or develop on it, that will attract tax.
The problem with inheritance tax is that you are forced to sell something to pay it. Where it involves a business of any sort, that business is likely to be destroyed.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36185519)

If you sell it or develop on it, that will attract tax.
The problem with inheritance tax is that you are forced to sell something to pay it. Where it involves a business of any sort, that business is likely to be destroyed.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185428)

They’ve screwed up big time with the inheritance tax on farms.

They’re idiots and have not thought it through at all……which is really worrying and shows ignorant form, as they did with WFA.

This will be reversed, very quietly, in the next 12 months………..just wait for Iran to nuke Israel and they’ll announce it then.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36185452)

You need to listen less of Clarkson and Dyson who basically bought the farmland to avoid paying tax.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36185497)

Well, it will discourage buying farming land purely as an investment since it's no longer a loophole to avoid tax. Why would Dyson buy it up if that money is now subject to just as much inheritance tax?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185525)

With farming land, they have 10 years to pay the IHT…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36185538)

It seems that Rach didn’t anticipate the impact of employers’ NI contributions either. They just don’t understand business. They are well out of their depth.

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------



The words ‘babies’ and ‘bath water’ come to mind.

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:41 ----------



Is that all you see? This is nothing but vindictiveness against people with money.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------



I’m sure that will be a great comfort to those trying to keep their farms afloat. You’re all heart, Hugh. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36185538)

Is that all you see? This is nothing but vindictiveness against people with money.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185525)

With farming land, they have 10 years to pay the IHT…

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185562)

You seem nice…

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185561)

Working for 10 years, on a business you’re lucky to make 1% profit on the investment you put in, just to pay for the privilege of owning it, which your parents already owned……and knowing that after you’ve worked yourself to death that when you die your kids will have to do the same thing.

Don’t have ten years to pay for the machinery, livestock, harvested stock and everything else.

It’s just a typical ignorant attitude that comfortable well pensioned lefties from middle Britain have from their now wholly owned semi or detached houses……………

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185564)

1% sounds bad - average income of £96k not so bad…

https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/busin...ite-volatility



Sad that you have to descend to ad hominem insults…

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36185543)

I’d argue that austerity was victimisation of those less well off and that those with more should pay more. And I say that as someone whose tax liability is going to go up by approx 15-20% in the next fiscal year and possibly more if I decide to sell some of my stock and shares

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36185553)

If you think IHT shouldn't apply at all then that's the argument that should be made. But when it does apply then we should close off loopholes that allow people to avoid it.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185568)

Because it makes you look St…… I won’t say it, Paul will be after me again.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36185577)

Are you expecting a knighthood? You should be furious.
.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185525)

With farming land, they have 10 years to pay the IHT…

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36185564)

1% sounds bad - average income of £96k not so bad…

https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/busin...ite-volatility



Sad that you have to descend to ad hominem insults…

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36185596)

Ironic seeing all this love for farmers on here!

Where was the support for farmers when all their funding was being slashed?

I’m a sheep and cattle farmer in England, and Brexit has left farmers in fear for their futures

It looks like the love is actual for land-owners, not farmers. As anyone who has seen Clarkson's Farm knows, the two are not always the same!

Reality is, these are just partisan and me-too repetitons of attacks from rich investors advocating for themselves. There's plenty to criticise in the budget starting with the NI hike.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36185623)

It’s time the rich and tax avoiders paid their share, and those that are really farmers left to get on with it.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185624)

How about, they levy the tax when the farm is sold?

If you’re passing it down in the family no tax, as you need the asset to work the farm.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36185626)

Yes, but this should apply to anything, I disagree with inheritance tax in general, if you are passing it on to your spouse, or children.


[ And no, before anyone asks, I dont have "assets" high enough in value to be taxed ]

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36185632)

Don’t disagree Paul, if you are left a house by your parents, or grand parents, and you intend to live in it, no tax.

But if you’re left a property, and you flog it, ……..taxed.

This is the thing, it’s extremely difficult to get on the housing ladder, so if you can leave your children or grand children a house they can live in…….surely that’s good for everybody.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36186069)

Reeves actually worked in a small complaints team within HBOS which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. Just in case you thought her experience as an “economist” justified that budget…

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36186066)

Wow, a politician who lies. Indeed who’d have thunk it.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36186076)

Like someone working in a Meta contact centre, saying that they have experience working in "big tech"