The Budget, March 2012

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

So the millions of the poorest in society that now won't be paying income tax and the general reduction in income tax for lower and middle classes obviously passed your blinkers by.

Those same blinkers that conveniently forgot about GB's removal of the 10% rate when Labour clobbered the poorest.

You weren't expecting a balanced view from Arthur where you ?

[Alan Fry]

Yet again, this budget will NOT grow our economy, NOT reduce unemployment, NOT improve wages, NOT reduce debt, NOT crack down on tax evasion, NOT make the rich pay a fair share, NOT give us a decent public sector, NOT create decent jobs, NOT imrpove our public transport, NOT improve pensions, NOT improve benefits, NOT imrpove our schools etc...

In other words a very dissapointing budget!

---------- Post added at 13:19 ---------- Previous post was at 13:16 ----------

What is government thinking when they suggested cutting the top rate of income tax (along with reduced corporation tax!), the rich are the only people doing well and we need more tax revenue to pay our debt. They already get away with tax evasion and avoidance, this coming from a 50% income taxpayer!

---------- Post added at 13:21 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

Yet again the government is having a go with their own civil servants (with regional pay deals) and proving to Brits outside the London Communter Belt how much they really care about them

Also, give control of the roads to the state owned railways!

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think it's disincentivizing. If people would really lose motivation to earn more simply because more would be taken proportionally then they need to examine their priorities. They would still get more money, it's not as it the moment you cross the threshold the new tax rate applies to your entire income.

Even so, that's not the intention behind taxing wealthy people more. You need taxes to operate the society and all the benefits that come with it, and they are the best placed to provide it. Companies employ people who are educated by the state, protected by the state, and looked after by the state and there is a cost involved in that. If any of us suddenly found ourselves unable to work due to heath reasons then in comes the state to look after you, if you find yourself out of work, there is the state.

Taxes are the price we pay and people can go to countries like the US where you pay less tax, pay for health insurance, and as long as you don't lose your job and the health insurance company doesn't screw you over then you don't have to worry if that heart operation you need will bankrupt you family or not. There is a cost involved in not paying as much tax as well.

The government is lowering corporation tax, fair enough, more people employed means more income tax. However I think income tax should largely remain the same. Tax breaks should be given to use who have the most need.

And yet the government wants to reduce public services and sell the NHS!

Like I said, all they care about is people with a lot of this



Also, if another nation invades the UK, will G$S stop it?

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

And yet the government wants to reduce public services and sell the NHS!

The government NEED to reduce public services

The government are not ,not do they want to sell the NHS

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chris

But that's not how it works. The 50% rate kicks in at £150,000 and affects all your earnings over £150,000. All your earnings below that continue to be taxed at 20% for the first £40,000 of taxable income and 40% for everything between £40,000 and £150,000.

I'm not sure I buy the rather self-serving argument that the higher tax rate disincentivises people from growing their business. People who make £200,000 a year are already generally highly capable and ambitious people who invest and grow their businesses because they can. They don't sit around refusing to do it because the chancellor has taken a few extra quid from their pay.

There does of course come a point where high tax rates become counter productive, but those rates are way, way higher than they are now and they result in emigration of the most mobile and affluent to lower tax regimes elsewhere in the world.

I am a 50% rate payer and I suggest that taxes for the rich should be raised, and if they leave, any nation that accepts them, will be as well liked as let say Iran!

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:34 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

The government NEED to reduce public services

The government are not ,not do they want to sell the NHS

No they do NOT need to reduce public services, in fact in times like these, they need to enlarge it even more

It only the rich that want to reduce it

[Pierre]

Have you been away on Holiday by any chance Alan?

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Taf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...idden-tax.html

---------- Post added at 16:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:17 ----------



Just a quick guesstimate: now 78% of the price of a pack of fags goes straight back to the exchequer.

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-public...arette-prices/

The more taxes on tobacoo and alcohol, the more money for public services and less people smoking (and a few drinking less)

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Have you been away on Holiday by any chance Alan?

Sorry I was suspended for two weeks

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Taf

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/2012/03/tm...21-march-2012/

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------

In that case, there should be more limits on duty free booze and tobacco

[Pog66]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Have you been away on Holiday by any chance Alan?

A world government will not organise itself now will it Pierre.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Sorry I was suspended for two weeks

no need to aplogize Alan

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

no need to aplogize Alan

And welcome home

Is that how much a typical pack of 20 fags is now. £7?

I remember when singles were 10p each. in this months money you get 50 fags short.

Originally Posted by Gary L

And welcome home

Is that how much a typical pack of 20 fags is now. £7?

I'm a rolly man so i pay £6.50 every 5 days

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

I'm a rolly man so i pay £6.50 every 5 days

So am I. I pay £42.50 every 5 weeks to Trev

How many grams is the £6.50?

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Mick

So absolutely no incentive for middle earners to join a pension scheme then with that hidden bombshell.


The planned 3p rise in Fuel duty in August will be going ahead, this will be the sting in the tail for many people. If you fill up a car with an average fuel tank capacity of 55 Litres of fuel. You will be paying £1.65 more at the pumps, plus there is the VAT added on top of the fuel purchase itself at 20% rate.

Which means that the government (and businesses) will have a big pension bill, it is clear that what they are doing now is not working!

---------- Post added at 14:00 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Traduk

For pensioners and pensioners to be today was one heck of a nasty budget.

For those already on pensions, the freezing of the April 2012 level possibly until the general allowances for those under 65 catch up has destroyed a principle set in place in 1957 and revised in 1975. A bedrock protection against living into retirement on a fixed income is in the process of being swept away.

Those who are unfortunate to retire whilst the drift down parity is taking place need not be concerned because from April 2013 (when the freeze begins) nobody retiring will get on it anyway as those retirees are stuck at pre-65 allowances. Loss by exclusion?.

As the vast majority of posters are probably too young to be concerned about retirement the good news is, repeated from last year, longevity is alive and well and a closely scrutinised statistic for elevating the retirement age so that IMO 70 is perhaps a good guestimate for those under 50. Of course many under 50 will never reach 70 but there wouldn't be much point in moving the target if it was achievable.

With the first steps of the privatisation of the NHS almost law, resentful anger about pensions and public sector workers possible regional pay and just about everybody excluding bankers well and truly fed up, we are moving towards the critical mass needed for a Thatcher type passive public backlash.

Any non mainstream parties who fancy their chances in the next election have a chance in a lifetime to court the mass of voters (grey) who Osborne managed to alienate big time.

I suspect a surprisingly small percentage of tax paying grannies lose anything on the allowance claw-back so in one move he got almost the lot. Brown got a small percentage when he scrapped the 10% rate and I suspect that the move was a nail in Liebours coffin. Osborne has trumped that big time like a kid let loose with a nail-gun and the biggest voting bloc , by miles, will not forget. I thought the Cons had a chance of two in a row without the stooges but today it has been blown away.

Is UKIP and RESPECT listening?

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I'll have to ask my father in law (the accountant) ... he knows what all the deductions and allowances are. The great thing when your home is the business is that certain household bills, or a proportion of them, become payable by the business. You don't pay tax on the money that pays those bills - only on what you pay yourself as income after all those things are deducted. So we can earn £9k each, pay no income tax on it, and have lower bills to pay out of it.

This is why I think the rapid increase in personal allowance is such a fundamentally good thing. It makes it far easier to plan and to start a small business without worrying about the jump from benefits to low earnings.

If I was in power, personal allowance would fall!

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

The big questions should be.Is this the budget to get the economy moving,growing and get unemployment down.Or is it merely a cost cutting exercise?

Will the super rich actually take their tax cut and invest it in this country or will they just carry on investing it abroad?

The answer to all your questions is NO, except the last two!

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Sorry I was suspended for two weeks

It seemed like only yesterday

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

It seemed like only yesterday

Not to me!

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

If I was in power, personal allowance would fall! (

If you were in power we would be in serious trouble and i predict a quick assassination of the person in power

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Not to me!

Well i am sure it will not be long before your away again if you keep up your spam rate