|
Exactly the same as you, Cranks. Spooky.
|
>>We will be about £220 per year better off.
Its a pre-EU referen-dumb sweetener. He'll claw it back (and some) in the Autumn budget.
|
>> >>We will be about £220 per year better off.
>>
>> Its a pre-EU referen-dumb sweetener. He'll claw it back (and some) in the Autumn budget.
In the world of Dog everything everywhere is the fault of the EU and everything everyone says or does is an EU inspired plot.
You are going to be in deep sheet when they increase the tax on tin foil.
|
He may well have a point though.
The Autumn statement was all about how windfall stuff which would arise from the growth of the UK gave Gideon loads of extra scope to make fewer (less?) cuts than everyone expected.
Today he admitted that the forecasts have all gone a bit breasts up since then yet still manages what appears to be a giveaway, pre-election style budget.
He did scoot over a bit where he said he'd need to talk to the Paymaster General (or was it the Witchsmeller Pursuivant) about cutting Whitehall costs.
|
|
That link is for last year's post-election emergency budget...
|
Scratch that then. Is there one for today's somewhere?
Edit
The same calculator is on the Daily Mirror site, specifically says its for today's, and yields the same numbers for me, so I think the telegraph one is updated and valid
Last edited by: Crankcase on Wed 16 Mar 16 at 16:31
|
And a timeout on my message with this utterly shonky rubbishy slow iPad leaves me no alternative than to now post this message saying I know perfectly well that should say "it's", not "its". Thank you.
|
This will go down in history as the "Sugar Tax Budget"
b***** nanny state.
|
>> This will go down in history as the "Sugar Tax Budget"
>> b***** nanny state.
This will go down as the Diabetic state unless we do something.
|
No change for me
I can only assume no more tax on beer, or flights !
|
|
I do not drink or smoke. So the budget for me is a no brainer.
|
>> I do not drink or smoke. So the budget for me is a no brainer.
we know.
|
Careful. We're £80 up according to that but it's not the budget impact alone, it's 2016-17 v. 2015-16. The £80 is just the increase in PA that was in the pipeline anyway as far as I can see.
Haven't looked at the measures yet, been doing something else.
|
Hmm. Just looking at the headlines, it seems that the budgetary realignment will come in spending rather than tax-raising, barring the sugar tax which is avoidable.
I see the SNP deputy leader says Osborne has failed to tackle the deficit but should abandon austerity. He probably needs to explain that a bit more.
Corbyn says the budget has unfairness at its core; I can see why, but having no way to calibrate how true that is - it depends where you start from.
|
|
Why was Corbyn responding to the Budget in The House rather than the Shadow Chancellor?
|
|
Mainly because he might be thought a buffoon after the "little Red Book" thing in the Autumn...
|
Having just got my tax coding notice, last years changes 'giving everyone' a tax free interest allowance of £1000 has reduced the money in my pocket. Because they've wildly over-estimated what interest I'll get and although I'll get some tax back in the end, the amount per month in my bank account will be less. So HMRC will get an interest free loan from anyone who is in the same boat. I am aware I could protest it, but it's not really worth the effort.
As for this year's, I'll be interested in how the 'sugar tax' is implemented. Means in theory, diet soft drinks should be cheaper than full fat ones. But will they be? I don't disagree with the motives, but I suspect the law of unintended consequences will rear its head here.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Wed 16 Mar 16 at 18:10
|
|
We'll be worse off by a couple of hundred quid.
|
|
£80 better off apparently
|
We're also £80 better off.
It is convention that the Leader of the Opposition, not the Shadow Chancellor, replies to the Budget.
It's also convention that the Speaker is replaced by the Deputy Speaker for the Budget.
|
|
£220 apparently. Should cover some of next year's mirror bill anyway.
|
|
Cost you £330 odd for The Mirror every day, Humph. It's not enough.
|
|
She doesn't knock it off every day, sometimes it's months between them...
|
Too much information.
Oh I see.
|
Latest one I put ( had put ) on it at Christmas is definitely wobbling. She denies all knowledge.
Anyway £220, yip-ruddy-pee eh ?
|
|
you need to learn how to DiY it. Its not like you wont get any experience.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 16 Mar 16 at 20:11
|
>> I'll ask AC.
Fat lot of good that'll do ye.
I'm bowled over by the grasp you cats have of numbers and Scheiss... how do you do it? Seems miraculous to me. And I passed as good at maths when I was small.
|
Wel, if you'd been £220 worse off you'd have been unhappy. As it is, if someone said they'd pay your tv licence next year and a bit more so you can have a good night out as well, or perhaps they'd give you a month off your council tax and enough left over for a night away in a nice b&b or something, you'd be calling him a jolly good fellow.
Of course the fact that he'd go on to say that he could only do this by taking away some money from those nasty rough types in the street who are struggling badly as it is, but hey, never mind, are there no poorhouses, they'd better just die and decrease the surplus population - well that might make you feel a bit guilty too.
Such are budgets.
|
Aye true enough, but I'm still not getting that "just won the lottery" feeling really.
;-)
|
Presumably Humph, Cranks and I are seeing the same result because we're all higher-rate taxpayers and we get 40% of the increase in the threshold.
My calculation included Mrs Beest's income. She's not a higher-rate earner, so she seems not to benefit at all. So it's a giveaway to higher earners? Whose idea of progressive is that?
|
>> So it's a giveaway to higher earners? Whose idea of progressive
>> is that?
Er, George Osborne, the Tory party at large, higher earners in general? Isn't it what they usually do?
Why isn't the demolition of disability benefit getting more attention? That's right, everyone's too consumed with the politics of the EU Neverendum and the Tory party leadership.
Gah. If George Osborne becomes Prime Minister I shall instantly do large lots of sick in a very big bucket. Harumph. Where is the Opposition? The only opposition the government are getting is from the LibDems at the moment. And they're totally insignificant at the moment nobody wants to vote for them still. What a bunch of Mail absorbing clowns my countrymen are. Even the supposedly arch-Tory hating SNP and Labour are abstaining their lives away in Parliament for some bizarre reason.
The electorate slurp up the presentation and ignore the pertinent. Ever thus, I suppose.
|
"So it's a giveaway to higher earners? Whose idea of progressive is that."
Since when did being allowed to keep fractionally more of what is your money become a giveaway?
The higher rate tax band is in any case now pitched so low that those who qualify can hardly be qualified as high earners.
|
>> The higher rate tax band is in any case now pitched so low that those
>> who qualify can hardly be qualified as high earners.
Compared with median pay the £50k plus gross you'd need to be on 40% tax looks bloomin' high!!
|
"Compared with median pay the £50k plus gross you'd need to be on 40% tax looks bloomin' high!!"
Yes I agree £50k threshold does look high.
That's because its wrong by a substantial margin. The actual thresholds for higher rate tax are as follows:
2015/6 £42,385
2016/7 £42,700
2017/8 £43,300
In fact in real terms the "increases" hardly keep paces with inflation.
|
>> That's because its wrong by a substantial margin. The actual thresholds for higher rate tax
>> are as follows:
Ahh right. I'd not appreciated how far the taxable income bands had changed in allowing for the increase in basic personal allowance. Nonetheless £40k plus is a pretty decent salary out of London. I doubt anybody but the Chief Executive is on that sort of money in my current employer. Even in a relatively top heavy* London Quango only 3 from peak staff of 14 were on 40% tax.
*Lawyer and two Senior Policy types one of whom was also formally Secretary to the body (though styled as Chief Executive).
|
>> The higher rate tax band is in any case now pitched so low that those who qualify can hardly be qualified as high earners.
>>
It's not really low, millions or quite possibly tens of millions will never come close to earning that amount of money.
|
>
>>
>> It's not really low, millions or quite possibly tens of millions will never come close
>> to earning that amount of money.
I bet a considerable number of people on here, when you add all the benefits in kind payments, do and have in the past easily gone of the threshold.
|
> I bet a considerable number of people on here, when you add all the benefits in kind payments, do and have in the past easily gone of the threshold.
I'm sure they have, but there aren't millions of people posting on here, not yet anyway ;)
|
|
About 15% of taxpayers pay tax at the higher rate.
|
>> About 15% of taxpayers pay tax at the higher rate.
>>
I'm sure that's correct. Reinforces my point above, thanks.
|
>> >> About 15% of taxpayers pay tax at the higher rate.
>> >>
>>
>> I'm sure that's correct. Reinforces my point above, thanks.
>>
Which was that lot of taxpayers don't pay tax at the higher rate I believe.
However the 16.1% (latest figure) represents a significant proportion of taxpayers and has increased by a third in the past five years due to failure to increase allowances in line with wage inflation and despite the drop in investment incomes as a result of minimal interest rates
|
>> Which was that lot of taxpayers don't pay tax at the higher rate I believe.
It was yes.
>>
>> However the 16.1% (latest figure) represents a significant proportion of taxpayers and has increased by a third in the past five years due to failure to increase allowances in line with wage inflation and despite the drop in investment incomes as a result of minimal interest rates
I wouldn't call roughly a 1/7 significant, it's a small minority. Even fewer people will pay top level tax because of their pension, I bet the number is tiny.
|
|
if its not significant it doesn't really matter does it? Might as well abolish higher rate tax then.
|
>> if its not significant it doesn't really matter does it? Might as well abolish higher
>> rate tax then.
>>
It's not so simple I'm afraid. The amount raised is different from those affected by it.
|
|
True but a small increase in the allowance wouldn't cost much would it?
|
|
In whose allowence, higher rate?
|
|
Yes just like the chancellor has arranged.
|
|
I'm not sure, I can't remember the figures on how much it would cost. How much was it each?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 17 Mar 16 at 20:38
|
>> However the 16.1% (latest figure) represents a significant proportion of taxpayers and has increased
>> by a third in the past five years due to failure to increase allowances in
>> line with wage inflation and despite the drop in investment incomes as a result of
>> minimal interest rates
Don't forget that 40% payers benefit from the increase in tax free allowances even without an increase in the top of the 20% band.
|
>> About 15% of taxpayers pay tax at the higher rate.
>>
And another 15% earn enough but don't declare it.
|
>> She doesn't knock it off every day, sometimes it's months between them...
>>
Feeling deprived, are you?
|
>> Why was Corbyn responding to the Budget in The House rather than the Shadow Chancellor?
According to media coverage it's always the Leader of the Opposition who replies to the Budget.
|
Decent beer still £2.48 pint in my local tonight.. £2.90 but loyalty is buy 6 get 1 free
The more you spend the more you save
Will check out my local butchers tomorrow, hope that pork pies are still £1.10
That's as far as my personal Budget concerns are:-
|
|
I had to give up beer when I gave up cigarettes. Can't sink a pint without a ciggie. Just wrong. Too wet.
|
|
Nice bloke Corbyn everytime he speaks the Tories have him by the Goolies just my impression.
|
Fortunately I gave up cigs when I was 12 and didn't start drinking beer till I was 14 so no conflict of interest. Giving them both up at the same time would have given me massive teenage angst.
I've been surrounded by drinkers all my life, moderate drinkers that is, and I can honestly say that I do not know a single tee total person. That's not to denigrate them, good luck I say. But living in a smallish village, where the pub is the hub...moving to the village on my own the local was a great source of friendship.
Others might have chosen the church, but spending several hours there on a wet Sunday afternoon never appealed.
|
>> Others might have chosen the church, but spending several hours there on a wet Sunday
>> afternoon never appealed.
>>
But you can drop in any time and be sure to find God there propping up the altar.
(Good line for a sermon? Any padres on this forum?)
|
>>Others might have chosen the church, but spending several hours there on a wet Sunday afternoon never appealed.
An unusual church to have services on Sunday afternoons, and lasting several hours too.
|
Better off by effect of the increase in personal allowance.
(I still pay tax, after the spousal allowance transfer, even on my modest income!)
|
|
I have no idea whether we are better or worse off and no interest either. One way or another, the Govt. will continue to extract more from us and I don't see that changing. Like others we are facing a 4.1% hike in Council Tax, due in part to reduction in subsidies from central Govt. Fortunately my missus and I have always been high earners so now we are retired we have plenty to live off. As long as I can have my beer and smokes then I'm happy. Time for another I think...
|
For better or worse - the budget - WillDeBeest
