Osbornes budget

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Main theme

“The decision to freeze the age related personal tax allowances effectively means around five million pensioner tax payers will no longer get additional reductions in their tax over the coming years – whilst those on the top rate of tax will see their bills reduced.

“Many older people will feel they are being asked to forego their reduction in tax to help out the super rich.

variations et seq eh .....

[Lateralthinking1]

Aw look, Mum, the horrid spiteful bully is kicking all the vulnerable people again. Why doesn't he get counselling?

[Serial_Apologist]

Main theme


variations et seq eh .....

I'm just off now for a quick nervious breakdown. Back soon...

[Flosshilde]

Aw look, Mum, the horrid spiteful bully is kicking all the vulnerable people again. Why doesn't he get counselling?

Not sure what point you are making, Lat?

[Lateralthinking1]

Not sure what point you are making, Lat?

Oh yes, it could be read in two ways. Sorry. To clarify, for reasons of rules, the words are placed in a character so that they are not my words. But it's literal, purely literal. Hope this helps.

[Flosshilde]

Main theme

"The decision to freeze the age related personal tax allowances effectively means around five million pensioner tax payers will no longer get additional reductions in their tax over the coming years – whilst those on the top rate of tax will see their bills reduced.

“Many older people will feel they are being asked to forego their reduction in tax to help out the super rich."


variations et seq eh .....

Well, yes, but ...

Around another 5 million pensioners won't be affected
The personal allowance is higher than the State pension, so people who just have that, or that and a small employer's pension, won't be paying tax
The figure quoted in the article for the 'average' pensioner couple's expenditure is less than their combined tax allowance.

Being the Telegraph, they're obviously not thinking of the problems of a retired office cleaner on a State pension & nothing else.

[scottycelt]

The freezing of pensioners' tax allowance to allow others to catch up is a major blunder much more significant than reducing the top tax, imo.

In effect it means pensioners are expected to at least part-fund the increase in allowances for everyone else.

Apart from the obvious unfairness, it is extraordinarily politically inept, given the voting power of pensioners.

I suspect (like in the case of Broon's 10% tax debacle) that there may well be an enforced amendment to this curious decision in the not-too-distant future.

[Lateralthinking1]

Well, yes, but ...

Around another 5 million pensioners won't be affected
The personal allowance is higher than the State pension, so people who just have that, or that and a small employer's pension, won't be paying tax
The figure quoted in the article for the 'average' pensioner couple's expenditure is less than their combined tax allowance.

Being the Telegraph, they're obviously not thinking of the problems of a retired office cleaner on a State pension & nothing else.

I am not sure where my parents will stand. But my father set aside optionally a significant percentage of his average salary for added local government pension. When others had foreign holidays and bought a lot on credit, he didn't. It was very difficult to do.

Later, thinking at the age of 22 of employment with what was supposed to be a guaranteed pension, I too acted sensibly. Profligacy and burying the head in the sand about old age are being rewarded. Self-responsibility is yet again being punished.

The well-off won't be bothered. It is at the margins where these politics are being felt. As scottycelt says, the big Conservative vote is among the elderly. I guess they think they can get away with it because they won't vote Lib Dem in this climate.

[johnb]

I'm puzzled by the figures relating to the change in the top rate of 50p income tax down to 45p.

In Osborne's budget speech he said that the 50p only brought in a third of the 3 billion that was originally predicted [the actual prediction was £2.5b]. It is a long time since I was taught maths but that seems to come to £1b, no mean sum (and £1b is the figure quoted in the HRMC's review of the 50p rate).

He also described how some £16b to £18b of income had been moved from the 2010-11 tax year into 2009-10 in order to take advantage of the 10% differential.

Although I accept that people would no doubt find other tax avoidance measures, that particular rouse would not be repeatable in subsequent years. (Bear in mind that 10% of £15b is £1.5b.)

Osborne then went on to say that the change from 50p to 45p would only cost £100m pa.

So, reducing the top rate from 50p to 45p will only lose £100m even though the 50p brought in £1b during 2010-11, and that was in a year when there was a very simple and straightforward way of avoiding, say, £1.5b tax.

Please help!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Note another of his Budget Speech comments re the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Fund to the Treasury. He bragged about using it to help others. Not a word about the fact that he has now spent it and will have to fund the pesions from taxation in the future - the same trick that has been played on nurses, teachers, civil servants, etc., whose pensions he wrongly claims are unsustainable. However you look at it, this is theft.

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm puzzled by the figures relating to the change in the top rate of 50p income tax down to 45p.

In Osborne's budget speech he said that the 50p only brought in a third of the 3 billion that was originally predicted [the actual prediction was £2.5b]. It is a long time since I was taught maths but that seems to come to £1b, no mean sum (and £1b is the figure quoted in the HRMC's review of the 50p rate).

He also described how some £16b to £18b of income had been moved from the 2010-11 tax year into 2009-10 in order to take advantage of the 10% differential.

Although I accept that people would no doubt find other tax avoidance measures, that particular rouse would not be repeatable in subsequent years. (Bear in mind that 10% of £15b is £1.5b.)

Osborne then went on to say that the change from 50p to 45p would only cost £100m pa.

So, reducing the top rate from 50p to 45p will only lose £100m even though the 50p brought in £1b during 2010-11, and that was in a year when there was a very simple and straightforward way of avoiding, say, £1.5b tax.

Please help!

I don't know but HMRC's figures are estimates. They have over a 9% increase in £150,000 plus earners' income for 2011-2012 that looks very dubious compared with the previous four years when it was flatlining. This then suggests that the tax retrieved is less.

The Government also signed an agreement with Switzerland yesterday which appears to reinforce tax avoidance methods for high earners. Is it Boots who are there? If so, their higher earning employees will be pleased.

[teamsaint]

The age allowance is a daft anomaly in my view.
It should be scrapped, but with a balancing increase in basic state pension.
State pension should be set at a half decent level.£200 a week at 65.or something

Quite why people on incomes over £150 k a year need a helping hand is beyond me.
And most of them aren't "wealth creators", they are just people on very good salaries.
Wealth creators can easily avoid tax on profits by reinvesting in their businesses.

[teamsaint]

Anyway, if you allow a complete idiot like gormless george to run the country's finances, trouble is sure to follow.

They should have given him a tuck shop to run.

[scottycelt]

Anyway, if you allow a complete idiot like gormless george to run the country's finances, trouble is sure to follow.

They should have given him a tuck shop to run.

Do you really reckon Young Osborne runs the country's finances ... ?

I don't ... he just tells us what has been agreed at the Coalition Cabinet table, imv ...

[teamsaint]

Do you really reckon Young Osborne runs the country's finances ... ?

I don't ... he just tells us what has been agreed at the Coalition Cabinet table, imv ...

well quite........who just do as they are told by the banks, city, arms manufacturers and big industrialists.