A thread for all the non motoring bits.
Bits that caught my eye; minimum wage up to £9 by 2020. Corporation tax planned to be cut. Defence spending to met 2% NATO target and rise each year.
|
|
We've only seen so far the headlines Osborne wanted to pull from his hat for the house. The details, including quite a bit of bad news will only emerge after the Treasury has published the background papers and they're analysed by the experts.
|
Corporation tax reduced but tax on dividend imposed. Will hurt very small limited companies.
Student grant abolished - replaced as loan!
BTL landlords can't claim interest payment as deduction if they belong to higher rate taxpayer group based on their total earning.
|
>>Will hurt very small limited companies.
Mostly those who use dividends and loans as part of their "tax management".
|
>>Mostly those who use dividends and loans as part of their "tax management".
Yes, long overdue.
Lots of self-employed chaps who treat themselves as a 1-man company, pay themselves a tiny salary and then remove cash from the business as dividends, effectively paying a far lower rate than income tax.
|
>> minimum wage up to £9 by 2020.<<
In other words, not his problem unless they look like being re-elected.
I think they think the minimum wage earners are too stupid to realise this.
Pat
|
>> >> minimum wage up to £9 by 2020.<<
>>
>> In other words, not his problem unless they look like being re-elected.
>>
>> I think they think the minimum wage earners are too stupid to realise this.
>>
>> Pat
It doesn't suddenly jump to £9 at the end of the parliament.
|
Is this minimum wage or living wage?
thought it was living wage he said would start at £7.20 next April and rise to £9.00?
Except Living Wage is currently £7.85 in Glasgow and in London as well I think?
|
|
An Anfield butcher being interviewed on Sky News said that young people on benefits should be given more than they are getting now as it would "encourage them to go out and get work".....
|
|
I work part time in a shop. Two of the drivers who deliver our newspapers are Polish, one is Italian. The carer who calls a few doors away is Polish, as is the girl who delivers our mail. This is in an area with very low immigration. As a taxpayer it is not acceptable to me that we are paying unemployment benefits to those who supposedly can't find work when hundreds of thousands of jobs are being done by recently arrived migrants. It is about time people were made to understand that the benefits system is there for the genuinely unfortunate, not for those who decide to chose the easy option.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Wed 8 Jul 15 at 18:21
|
|
My student son currently gets a non repayable maintenance grant, which from September 2016 will be replaced by an increased student loan. Thankfully from January 2015 he will be receiving a bursary from HM forces, provided he passes a basic fitness test between now an then.
|
|
I assume you mean January 2016. I wish him the best for going into the forces - we need people. It's shame they couldn't/wouldn't cover the cost of the university education to be honest.
|
It seems to me, as a person not affected much by this budget, that the minimum wage concept , as presented, is flawed.
People who are in work, I think, should be paid enough to live on without the necessity of working tax credits.
Yes - a proper living wage.
Granted this would mean a rise in wage bills, but surely the cessation of WTcr could reduce the overall tax bill?
How can it be right that taxpayers subsidise the wages employers pay?
There are too many instances, both nationally & internationally, where taxpayer's money is recirculated, less considerable cost decuctions, to the starting point of collection, with the only real benefices accruing to those who are employed to run the system.
Caveat - I'm NOT a economist:-)
|
>>How can it be right that taxpayers subsidise the wages employers pay?
It happens anyway in the prices we all pay for goods and services, but I agree the system of the State subsidising low wage is a nonsense.
The dangers of higher minimum wages is a jolt to inflation and an increase in unemployment, but I think the benefit to the State in not paying to redistribute money back to low earners will at least partly mitigate this effect.
This 'windfall' for the Exchequer should be used to reduce the costs for business, to help offset the higher wage bills and promote employment.
|
The major issue with Living wages etc is contracts of employment.
In an ideal world everyone is employed full time, on a full time contract , and therefore a Living Wage would show that every week they would earn £x and not need a penny more in benefits.
However, when we start to throw in part time jobs and zero hours contracts then the whole lot gets a lot more muddled.
So typically you get scenarios like
a. unemployed - so entitled to whatever the benefits are available
b. working some hours - so get wages and benefits. Do the wages you get make it worthwhile to work rather than being (a)
c. a young worker doing the same hours as (b) but not entitled to any benefits so theoretically is getting less for doing that job than (b) is.
and all along, you will get many employers who will do this in as cheap a way as they can so while there is a scope for advertising zero contracts and basic pays then that is the route they will go down.
|
>> It's shame they couldn't/wouldn't cover the cost of the university
>> education to be honest.
>>
What, so that we can go back to people going to Uni purely because they don't know what else to do and mum still needs her state benefits, which otherwise would be cut?
Do we really need people studying cobblers at the public's expense?
What is wrong with a student gaining the advantage of a university education, then paying it back when they start earning a reasonable amount?... and if they never earn a reasonable amount, they never pay it back.
|
>> What, so that we can go back to people going to Uni purely because they
>> don't know what else to do and mum still needs her state benefits, which otherwise
>> would be cut?
How does that work then?
|
>> How does that work then?
Child in education... versus not having a child in education.
|
>> >> How does that work then?
>>
>> Child in education... versus not having a child in education.
>
Only it doesn't work like that.
Uni students are not children. They will be funded thorough laon or grant. No Child Tax Credit for advanced education. Furthermore, the child's room would probably be seen as not needed and the bedroom tax would apply.
|
>> Only it doesn't work like that.
>>
>> Uni students are not children. They will be funded thorough laon or grant. No Child
>> Tax Credit for advanced education. Furthermore, the child's room would probably be seen as not
>> needed and the bedroom tax would apply.
>>
You sure?
The conversation I had with a lady in my office before I retired allowed me to believe this, although I'm willing to be corrected.
What about child benefit?
|
>> What about child benefit?
>>
I can be absolutely certain that, for those going away to uni, child benefit stops after upper 6th. .May be different for non advanced college etc education where it's possible to claim tax credit up to age 20.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 10 Jul 15 at 22:49
|
>> I can be absolutely certain that, for those going away to uni, child benefit stops
>> after upper 6th. .May be different for non advanced college etc education where it's possible
>> to claim tax credit up to age 20.
>>
I had a long conversation with a lady in my office, before I retired.. and it niggled me, because of the angle she came from.
She told me her daughter was at Uni because she (the daughter) didn't know what she wanted to do and 'she had nothing else to do'... and it allowed her (the mother) to retain some of her State allowances...(help with rent maybe?)
When I asked what career her daughter was aiming for, she had no idea.. and the area being studied seemed somewhat irrelevant and haphazard IMO.
Maybe she was stringing me along (in which case it worked), but it didn't seem like that at the time.
I have no problem with investing for the future and paying for students to go through a Uni education which benefits them and the country... but I do have a problem with people just filling their time and 'studying' things that are no use to man nor beast, whilst the rest of us pay for it.
I'm willing to concede if i'm wrong, although this was 5 years ago, so maybe the system has been tweaked in the meantime.
|
>> She told me her daughter was at Uni because she (the daughter) didn't know what
>> she wanted to do and 'she had nothing else to do'...
>>
My niece wants to study art "A" level at college. Her grandparents and mother are dead against it as on their view it is a dead end course.
I think undertaking the course shows a willingness and capably to learn at a certain level. There is a point to studying even though you don't know the final career direction. It shows employers that you can stick at something and put in the work required to succeed.
When the young adults go to university they are now paying for it themselves so in my view they should be allowed to study what they want. Who are we to say that multimedia studies is a waste of time degree if it gets the graduate a job in the burgeoning media industry?
|
|
I'd agree with that, i think there is a snobbery about anything ending in an 'ology'. It seems to be a case of if they've never heard of it before or don't understand what the course is they decide it's pointless. And as you say if they're paying why not study what ever you like ?
|
>> I'd agree with that, i think there is a snobbery about anything ending in an
>> 'ology'. It seems to be a case of if they've never heard of it before
>> or don't understand what the course is they decide it's pointless.
Would you agree with the pointlessness of most of these?
tinyurl.com/pbhryb5
>> And as you say
>> if they're paying why not study what ever you like ?
Agreed... to a point.. but the study is covered by a cheap loan, which you pay back as or when you can afford it. In the meantime the rest of us pay.
So studying at Uni should have some sense to it.
|
>>Agreed... to a point.. but the study is covered by a cheap loan, which you pay back as or when >>you can afford it. In the meantime the rest of us pay.
Where else do we stipulate that receivers of benefits from the state have to spend their money on specifics? We don't do it for benefit claimants who don't even have to repay their loans!?
>>So studying at Uni should have some sense to it.
The article gives a very biased view of the course. For example it is not a degree in Harry Potter studies but a module of a degree in education and deals with bullying, students away from home, prejudice and intolerance in the classroom etc and is it any more "silly" than studying Shakespeare or Wordsworth?
|
> Would you agree with the pointlessness of most of these?
>>
>> tinyurl.com/pbhryb5
>>
No i wouldn't.
>> Agreed... to a point.. but the study is covered by a cheap loan, which you
>> pay back as or when you can afford it. In the meantime the rest of
>> us pay.
>>
>> So studying at Uni should have some sense to it.
>>
The point about the loss of interest is weak at best. I don't think it's an issue at all. People learning things at that standard of study is always a good thing. Maybe there are a few who don't earn much but i would think them so small it's not worth fussing about a tiny number and to no real end.
Sorry but it does sound like i said earlier, ie it's new or i don't understand it means it's pointless.
|
>> Sorry but it does sound like i said earlier, ie it's new or i don't
>> understand it means it's pointless.
>>
To me, something paid by all of us, should have a point to all of us. If you want to go beyond that, pay for it yourself.
|
Who decides the point of it?
They pay anyway. I don't think there's some big issue of people doing 'pointless' degrees then earning so little they don't pay it back. Nor would i want a system set up to stop a tiny number.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 11 Jul 15 at 19:05
|
>> They pay anyway.
Eventually .... and I'd hazard a guess it isn't the full amount, it'll be well subsidised.
I just want the average Joe to get away from the 'I'm entitled' culture.
Somewhere along the line, it needs to be paid for.
|
>> I just want the average Joe to get away from the 'I'm entitled' culture.
>>
I don't think there's anyone at uni that thinks they are getting something for nothing.
|
>>
>> >> I just want the average Joe to get away from the 'I'm entitled' culture.
>> >>
>>
>> I don't think there's anyone at uni that thinks they are getting something for nothing.
That's WP's point, isn't it?
|
>> I don't think there's anyone at uni that thinks they are getting something for nothing.
When they are paying about £18k per year they certainly are paying for it!
£9k tuition
£6k accommodation
£3k food / living expenses
|
>> >> I don't think there's anyone at uni that thinks they are getting something for
>> nothing.
>>
>> When they are paying about £18k per year they certainly are paying for it!
Those whose parents are paying for all the accommodation and food etc. probably think less about it than those who have to get part time jobs to cover (at least some of) it :)
|
>> Eventually .... and I'd hazard a guess it isn't the full amount, it'll be well
>> subsidised.
Difficult to judge that I think. When current regime came in tuition fees were expected to be 'up to' £9k. In practice that's become pretty much standard not only at Russell group Uni's (ie the upper tier including old 'red brick) but the former polytechnics etc too.
A student doing sciences will get far more tuition contact time, lectures plus laboratory, than one studying an arts subject where solo reading/research is a big part of the week. Where is value quantified and subsidy calculated? Are arts subsidising science?
The only straw in the wind for 'market' value is the fee charged to overseas students.
At one time we had a resident academic who might have given us a view. Unfortunately he's another of the informed/interesting contributors who walked because of the aggressive style of some of our regulars.
|
>> another of the informed/interesting contributors who walked because of the aggressive style of some of our regulars.
He was supercilious in style and not as knowledgeable as he thought he was. He flounced because he couldn't take a dose of his own medicine. It was a net loss and I was sorry, but what can you do when you are insulted and accused of being insulting?
|
>> He was supercilious in style
Really ? Are you talking of number cruncher, I didn't think that of him at all.
|
>> number cruncher, I didn't think that of him at all.
Perhaps he didn't do it to you sooty. He couldn't take being argued or disagreed with. The world is full of thick academics.
|
>> >> Eventually .... and I'd hazard a guess it isn't the full amount, it'll be
>> well
>> >> subsidised.
>>
>> Difficult to judge that I think. When current regime came in tuition fees were expected
>> to be 'up to' £9k. In practice that's become pretty much standard not only at
>> Russell group Uni's (ie the upper tier including old 'red brick) but the former polytechnics
>> etc too.
>>
I had a look for some numbers, I think it's about 45% will have some or all written off. The interest rate is the killer RPI + 3% I believe. I saw someone do some figures and I didn't double check their figures, but it worked out starting on £20k and earning £1k extra every year after 30 years and on £50k you'd still have £14k written off.
>> At one time we had a resident academic who might have given us a view.
>
Number Cruncher?
|
I had a look for some numbers, I think it's about 45% will have some or all written off. The interest rate is the killer RPI + 3% I believe. I saw someone do some figures and I didn't double check their figures, but it worked out starting on £20k and earning £1k extra every year after 30 years and on £50k you'd still have £14k written off."
Here's a nifty little calculator that will do the job.
www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-finance-calculator
|
>> >> It's shame they couldn't/wouldn't cover the cost of the university
>> >> education to be honest.
>> >>
>>
>> What, so that we can go back to people going to Uni purely because they
>> don't know what else to do
He's talking about the forces support for people going through uni. They do specific courses such as dentistry, medicine engineering etc. And there is a return even before they join, they are expected to join as a cadet.
|
|
Bit out of context their, wp. Rtj was referring to my lads bursary and, while it would be nice if the forces could have funded his whole university education, that would have required him to know vaguely what he intended to do at the start of the course. The bursary is from Jan 2016, of course.
|
>> Bit out of context their, wp. Rtj was referring to my lads bursary
As is common on here, the conversation drifted. Wasn't referring to your family's experience.
|
|
Another thing that caught my eye was that public sector pay will be held at 1% for the next 4 years.
|
>> Another thing that caught my eye was that public sector pay will be held at
>> 1% for the next 4 years.
Given that inflation is currently negative, thats a real pay rise.
|
|
Just gone positive for this month (0.1%) who knows if it'll be like that for the next 4 years?
|
|
Are MPs deemed to be in the public sector?
|
|
Clearly they don't seem to think so.
|
>> >> Another thing that caught my eye was that public sector pay will be held
>> at
>> >> 1% for the next 4 years.
>>
>> Given that inflation is currently negative, thats a real pay rise.
>>
Only if you use the latest made up metric (CPI) to measure inflation, RPI has never gone negative.
moneyweek.com/merryns-blog/the-difference-between-cpi-and-rpi-and-why-it-matters-55018/
like it says :-
"But the real advantage to the government of using a geometric mean is that it is always below or equal to the arithmetic mean"
|
>> >> Another thing that caught my eye was that public sector pay will be held
>> at
>> >> 1% for the next 4 years.
It's been held below inflation for almost ten years.
My 'best' year for purpose of my Civil Service pension was c2006. If my actual salary at date I retired, 30/11/2013, had kept pace it would have been approx 10% higher.
I was doing same job on same pay scale from 2003 until I left.
|
I don't think one is entitled to increases in salary, for cost of living or any other reason.
The idea is surely that you should be paid a market rate. So if the rate you are paid causes you all to leave and seek employment elsewhere, then that rate should be increased if they wish to retain you.
Inflation is not constant across the board, either in skills demand or cost of living. One should constant reassess one's own value in a changing environment.
Why should it be any other way?
It behoves us all to bear in mind our market value, and to manage that; learn more stuff, get better at it, do additional or different stuff, etc. etc.
All things that will cause our employes to value us more, and then pay to retain us.
If a person thinks that they are not paid according to their value, but their employer fails to respond when pushed then either change to another job/employer reassess the market value of your skills.
To be honest, I have generally found that people are paid in accordance with their market value. There are injustices of course, although in my experience they usually involve people being paid more than they are worth, but they are in the minority.
And one shouldn't think I always work in the private sector.
|
|
The budget hasn't effected us I thought it would have been regarding disability payment.So we can't complain regarding that.On my State and workpension I had a increase but my tax number went down so we lost money.Strange, I rang tax office.Friendly lady told me the law live with it.
|
Wonder when they'll be brave enough to tackle child benefit.
Could never get my head around that one, why on earth isn't it means tested?
Something like under £20K family income, you get the lot..under £30K you get half... over that, nowt.
|
>> Wonder when they'll be brave enough to tackle child benefit.
Here are some reasons why a govt, still less one with a majority of 12 and rebels on the back benches won't:
First of all the recipients of Child Benefit, particularly those on middle an upper incomes vote. They also have articulate friends in the media. Losers will be vocal while winners will count their gains in silence.
Secondly, means testing is expensive. The current set up where it tapers off in households with a higher rate tax payer is crude and unfair. Doing a proper job of it means taking account of peoples circumstances at a pretty detailed level - look at the tests for Income support or Child Tax credit. The model where households have a 'family' income that's predictably £30k a year is crumbling; zero hours contracts, more than one job and self employment are three simple examples.
A system to deal with that will be complex and involve more expense.
Thirdly there's some history. Until the seventies earners got an increase in their personal tax allowance for each child. Child benefit subsumed that money into the former Child Allowance as a cash payment to the Mother. Critics will be quick to point hat fact out to undermine view of Child Benefit.
It's not worth it politically or economically for the savings it would actually generate. They tried it under the coalition and got their arxes bitten. Once bitten twice shy......
|
>> Here are some reasons why a govt, still less one with a majority of 12
>> and rebels on the back benches won't:
Can't really argue with any of that..it's just that a State benefit IMO ought to be paid as a last resort to those that need it... and anyone else shouldn't be in the running.
|
>>The model where households have a 'family' income that's predictably £30k a year is crumbling
Crumbling? Rubbish. No doubt there are cases where the contracted income has move below £30k, now doubt there are cases where it has moved above. Perhaps movement in one direction is slightly more than the other, I have no idea.
But crumbling? I don't think so.
We (my family) are eligible for child benefit and that is a nonsense.
I take your point about means testing being expensive, but surely an approach lumping it in with something else which is already means tested must be possible.
|
Remember when your mortgage interest attracted tax relief?
The recent, bit not Budget, option of transferring part of one's spouses personal allowance will be a small benefit to us as SWMBO only has a basic 95% State Pension, so her personal allowance is not utilised.
She has registered her interest with HMRC and received an acknowledgement by email.
Last edited by: Roger. on Sat 11 Jul 15 at 23:58
|
>> Crumbling? Rubbish. No doubt there are cases where the contracted income has move below £30k,
>> now doubt there are cases where it has moved above. Perhaps movement in one direction
>> is slightly more than the other, I have no idea.
For clarity the issue is people who have variable incomes. The combined effect of greater self employment, zero hours contracts, agency work etc. etc. is to make that cohort far larger than it was.
The existing means tests for Child/Working Tax Credit struggle with such a scenario with both under and overpayments resulting.
Why do you think applying a test to Child Benefit would be different?
|
>> Child benefit subsumed that money into the former Child Allowance as
>> a cash payment to the Mother. Critics will be quick to point hat fact out
>> to undermine view of Child Benefit.
>>
>>
I remember that argument from the days when most mothers didn't work. Child Allowance was held up as the only income that a mother got in her own right.
I remember going with my mother every month to collect the accumulated allowance from the Post Office, and then to the newsagent to pay the paper bill. It always seemed amusing that the government should have so neatly calculated the cost of having two newspapers delivered every day, and a puzzle as to why this was called "Child" allowance.
|
Budget 2015 - Bromptonaut
