Budget 2012

notsoblue

Surprised there has been no thread so far...

What do people think?

I think it was about what I was expecting. Though I'm surprised that Osborne chose to target pensioners.

The big question though: Will abolishing the 50p tax rate stimulate business and reduce tax avoidance? Bit of a gamble.

rick_chasey

Some of you commuters have been discussing this over on cake stop

walkingbootweather

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you commuters have been discussing this over on cake stop

Don't tell me, someone has created a "girls in ....... poverty" thread?

rjsterry

This is better. I felt very out of place over there.

EDIT: My word, ol' Greg is getting stuck in isn't he?

dhope

I'm thinking I'll probably hold off on N+1 for a while until I move to a new place and know how much space I have to play with. Save up for a bit for when I do get the next 'best bike' - Boardman is up to scratch for weekend rides at the moment and the fixed works for commuting. The Langster needs moving on actually and I need to decide if I'll actually use the Cooper or if it's just there 'cause it's pretty.
Oh, the UK budget? Sorry.

SimonAH

There is no possible budget that would balance the books and keep everyone happy across the board.

Reducing the 50p rate will theoretically mean that a lot less tax will be sidestepped and should increase overall revenue.

Increasing the tax threshold for normal earners will make all of us wage slaves a little teensy bit better off.

Fags have gone up, but hey, this is punitive and unreproachable.

But pensioners are getting a bit of a bite....seems a politically daft manouvre?

TheStone

The pension thing is strange. We should be encouraging people to save for their old age, but instead both Labour and the Tories have removed nearly all the benefits in doing so. They've also both continued with the money printing with the specific purpose of control interest rates, destroying annuities and causing inflation.

Wasn't much else in the budget really. Some light tinkering. The 50p rate is political posturing from both sides and by the time the allowance hits 10k, it won't be that far ahead of inflation.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

This is better. I felt very out of place over there.

EDIT: My word, ol' Greg is getting stuck in isn't he?

I think Gregg's the only one who after criticising the cake-stop lot has made an effort to post over there (though, truth be told, I didn't follow that whole argument thing very closely).

Either that or he browses the girls threads anyway, and occasionally comes across an interesting thread over there.

Koncordski

I'm glad they've sorted the child credits or whatever they were called. Bloke opposite me (who earns north of 50K) was whinging about losing them. I pointed out that he didn't need the money and it could be better spent on someone or something more deserving. His response pretty much sums up what a lot of families were doing with it, "But it pays for my daughters swimming and ballet lessons, I'm going to have to cover that now!".

:roll:

notsoblue

dhope wrote:

I'm thinking I'll probably hold off on N+1 for a while until I move to a new place and know how much space I have to play with. Save up for a bit for when I do get the next 'best bike' - Boardman is up to scratch for weekend rides at the moment and the fixed works for commuting. The Langster needs moving on actually and I need to decide if I'll actually use the Cooper or if it's just there 'cause it's pretty.
Oh, the UK budget? Sorry.

Jeeze, how many bikes do you have?! I'm budgeting for a Pompetamine to replace my Scott as a touring/casual bike. The PX is still going strong and I'm happy with that for the foreseeable.

I do OK out of the budget, so could treat myself to some more bling really

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

This is better. I felt very out of place over there.

EDIT: My word, ol' Greg is getting stuck in isn't he?

I think Gregg's the only one who after criticising the cake-stop lot has made an effort to post over there (though, truth be told, I didn't follow that whole argument thing very closely).

Either that or he browses the girls threads anyway, and occasionally comes across an interesting thread over there.

I've looked several times since, but it just seems to be Girls... threads and b*tching about 'us lot'. It's pretty much confirmed my preconceptions.

notsoblue

TheStone wrote:

The pension thing is strange. We should be encouraging people to save for their old age, but instead both Labour and the Tories have removed nearly all the benefits in doing so. They've also both continued with the money printing with the specific purpose of control interest rates, destroying annuities and causing inflation.

Wasn't much else in the budget really. Some light tinkering. The 50p rate is political posturing from both sides and by the time the allowance hits 10k, it won't be that far ahead of inflation.

The pension think is indeed strange, but perhaps its a recognition of the fact (citation needed) that keeps being raised about this generation being the first to be less well off than the previous.

The 50p rate really is a bit of a political hot potato. Wasn't it introduced as Labour were on the way out? Its a bit silly of them to criticise it's abolition given that they didn't have the cajones to bring it in earlier in their government.

notsoblue

Tim Montgomerie (Of Conservative Home) just tweeted this:

"A montage of the post-Budget newspaper frontpages (not what George Osborne wanted)"
http://twitpic.com/8zn92i

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

This is better. I felt very out of place over there.

EDIT: My word, ol' Greg is getting stuck in isn't he?

I think Gregg's the only one who after criticising the cake-stop lot has made an effort to post over there (though, truth be told, I didn't follow that whole argument thing very closely).

Either that or he browses the girls threads anyway, and occasionally comes across an interesting thread over there.

I've looked several times since, but it just seems to be Girls... threads and b*tching about 'us lot'. It's pretty much confirmed my preconceptions.

It was a very different beast 18 months or so ago.

Rather more like commuting chat - albeit with more perspectives from different ends of the UK.

TheStone

Koncordski wrote:

I'm glad they've sorted the child credits or whatever they were called. Bloke opposite me (who earns north of 50K) was whinging about losing them. I pointed out that he didn't need the money and it could be better spent on someone or something more deserving. His response pretty much sums up what a lot of families were doing with it, "But it pays for my daughters swimming and ballet lessons, I'm going to have to cover that now!".

:roll:

It's still a bit of mess and now over complicated.

They should just get rid of it and then compensate the low/non paid via the child tax credits.

I'd like to see anyone making above average wage removed from any benefits and anyone making less than say 60% of average wage removed from taxation.

CiB

Koncordski wrote:

I'm glad they've sorted the child credits or whatever they were called. Bloke opposite me (who earns north of 50K) was whinging about losing them. I pointed out that he didn't need the money and it could be better spent on someone or something more deserving. His response pretty much sums up what a lot of families were doing with it, "But it pays for my daughters swimming and ballet lessons, I'm going to have to cover that now!".

:roll:

Radio 5 were desperately trying to get an argument going over this tapered loss of CB this morning, on the basis that it still leaves the anomaly of two earners both on a shade under £50k still getting full CB whereas a family with one earner on just under £60k get virtually nothing. Radio 5 Breakfast presenters could start an argument in an empty room sometimes, and since when did those on generous levels of income need CB or the support of Rachel Burden & Nicky Campbell? When did R5 start to worry about people on that level of income being treated unfairly by the tax system? Sheesh. Wherever the cut-off is, some people will fall either side of it by a few quid and lose out a bit.

You know what? I've never been affected by a budget in my life enough for it to make a difference. Things go up, tax changes, we mumble a bit and then still drive to the pub like before. Budgets don't change much. Pretty certain thing is that by May no-one will recall one detail over & above the dropping of the 50% tax rate. Last year's budget came & went, just like every one since 1979. And we still go about our lives adjusting for the fact that we pay a bit less tax but wine has gone up by 9p a bottle or whatever. Who gives a hoot? If I had to budget for exactly 4 bottles a week at exactly £4.78 I'd stop drinking the stuff. I could stop. Anytime. I just choose not to for now. But I could, if I wanted to. Easily.

<Lynn Truss mode>"But it pays for my daughters swimming and ballet lessons, I'm going to have to cover that now!" reads as "it pays for my daughters, and for my swimming lessons, and for my ballet lessons.", whereas daughter's (or daughters') covers the intended meaning. Gotta love Lynn Truss.</Lynn>

SimonAH

The biggest impact of this (or any) budget is that radios 2 and 4 are unlistenable to as they fill the airwaves with Vox Pop.

Any financial legislation will always disadvantage a band of specific people, these are the ones who become vocal, so it is inevitable that the coverage is negative. Can't be helped.

DonDaddyD

The biggest issue I have with the 50-soon to be-45p tax bracket is this.

The Coalition intend to lower the 40p tax bracket to somewhere within £35,000 - £42,000 range. If they lower that threshold while reducing the top earner tax bracket then that will appear as though they have favoured the rich. If they took 5p off every tax bracket and lowered the middle earner threshold then I could mostly stomach that.

As for the rest of the budget, as was expected. Aging population means that pensioners were going to get stung. The stamp duty thing doesn't affect me, but may artificially stimulate the market - hopefully force the release of second/company owned properties. Even if in real terms it does little the perception may drive prices/encourage more competitive mortgage lending (I'm clutching at straws, maybe).

But this was a budget of "Well, I'm alright". In that I'm happy with the final Child Benefit decisions, I don't think any system was going to be 'fair and affordable' and the final decision seems the most palatable (doesn't make sense that they would then lower the tax bracket though - one one hand people earning less can afford more tax but can't afford to have a benefit taken away...).

Wasn't anything said about the public sector pay freeze or regional pay - not a fan.

I though this was the best performance of Ed Miliband to date: T'was actually funny

TheStone

DonDaddyD wrote:

But this was a budget of "Well, I'm alright". In that I'm happy with the final Child Benefit decisions, I don't think any system was going to be 'fair and affordable' and the final decision seems the most palatable (doesn't make sense that they would then lower the tax bracket though - one one hand people earning less can afford more tax but can't afford to have a benefit taken away...).

I find it really strange that someone can be taxed at over 50% (including NI/ENI) and then given child benefit. It's statism.

DonDaddyD

Ya, it seems topsy turvy, this budget could be the mid point perhaps towards the completion of the rebalancing act the Tories originally intended.

rick_chasey

From yesterday (and the cake stop thread).

TheStone

Rick Chasey wrote:

From yesterday (and the cake stop thread).

It's a bit misleading and someone could think that you're taking money off the poorest quintile to give to the second richest quintile. (just take a look at the gaurdian comments!!)

But really, the second richest quintile are giving the poorest quintile slightly less than before.

Koncordski

CiB wrote:

Koncordski wrote:

<Lynn Truss mode>"But it pays for my daughters swimming and ballet lessons, I'm going to have to cover that now!" reads as "it pays for my daughters, and for my swimming lessons, and for my ballet lessons.", whereas daughter's (or daughters') covers the intended meaning. Gotta love Lynn Truss.</Lynn>

Good spot, I am rather ashamed I missed that one.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

This is better. I felt very out of place over there.

EDIT: My word, ol' Greg is getting stuck in isn't he?

I think Gregg's the only one who after criticising the cake-stop lot has made an effort to post over there (though, truth be told, I didn't follow that whole argument thing very closely).

Either that or he browses the girls threads anyway, and occasionally comes across an interesting thread over there.

No, I thought I would make the effort and go break the ice. And some spirits.

It's actually a pretty dull place once you remove the "Girls in" threads. The wit is a bit, well, basic, shall we say.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

The 50p rate really is a bit of a political hot potato. Wasn't it introduced as Labour were on the way out? Its a bit silly of them to criticise it's abolition given that they didn't have the cajones to bring it in earlier in their government.

I always thought of it as a clever/despicable political poison pill. They made it the Tories' problem: having to appease their core support who want to get rid of it whilst having to dodge the "friends of the rich" tag if they did.

Typical Labour "do it because it's good for Labour, not the country" politicking.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Typical Labour "do it because it's good for Labour, not the country" politicking.

That's a brush you can paint all parties with. Not exclusive to any of them.

---

The FT called the budget "intensely political" on their front page story and a comment article by Martin Wolf:

All Budgets are political. But some are more political than others. The one presented by George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer, was in the latter category. Little economically important happened. The question is whether his “Budget for business” will be a political success or be condemned as unfair.

The crucial sentence was from the OBR, which opened its report on the outlook with the remark that: “our overall assessment of the outlook and risks for the UK economy is broadly unchanged” from November. That is reasonable, but depressing.

cycladianpirate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Typical Labour "do it because it's good for Labour, not the country" politicking.

That's a brush you can paint all parties with. Not exclusive to any of them.

Agreed. But it's like saying Matisse and a decorator are, after all, both painters.

DonDaddyD

http://m.scotsman.com/news/leaders-devi ... -1-2191642

Alright, it is something to protest about.

Top earners will pay numerically less. While more middle income earners pay more. Underhanded cuny. My beef is that by lowering the threshold more of my salary will be deducted at 40%. This has a far bigger impact on the country affecting far more people - Rick you will likely be in the 40% bracket now - why this wasnt't said in the budget speech is disgusting.

Burying news, i'm going to write to some MPs.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

http://m.scotsman.com/news/leaders-devil-in-the-detail-of-budget-may-return-to-haunt-tories-1-2191642

Alright, it is something to protest about.

Top earners will pay numerically less. While more middle income earners pay more. Underhanded cuny. My beef is that by lowering the threshold more of my salary will be deducted at 40%. This has a far bigger impact on the country affecting far more people - Rick you will likely be in the 40% bracket now - why this wasnt't said in the budget speech is disgusting.

Burying news, i'm going to write to some MPs.

Pretty sure that's offset by the tax free allowance, so it evens out.

rick_chasey

It's pretty intensely political since the budget itself was more or less fiscally neutral.

The last two budgets have been budgets of circumstance. 2010 - the budget of the cuts, 2011 the Eurozone crisis budget (and the flagging economy).

Seems the IFS are saying the budget is regressive (unsurpringly), and the arguments Osbourne used to drop the 50p rate are looking increasingly flimsy on closer inspection.

I've little sympathy for the pensioners - Vince Cable said it quite well last night - the economy is making 10% less than it was before the crash - so people will notice a cut in their pensions.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

http://m.scotsman.com/news/leaders-devil-in-the-detail-of-budget-may-return-to-haunt-tories-1-2191642

Alright, it is something to protest about.

Top earners will pay numerically less. While more middle income earners pay more. Underhanded cuny. My beef is that by lowering the threshold more of my salary will be deducted at 40%. This has a far bigger impact on the country affecting far more people - Rick you will likely be in the 40% bracket now - why this wasnt't said in the budget speech is disgusting.

Burying news, i'm going to write to some MPs.

Pretty sure that's offset by the tax free allowance, so it evens out.

Rick,

People who earn £150,000 have had there tax reduced by 5% to 45%.

The 40% tax threshold will be lowered so that earning between £34,371 - £150,000 will be taxed at 40%.

How is it good policy or even ethical to decrease the amount of tax our highest earners pay while, at the same time, increasing the amount of tax our middle earners pay?