Budget 2012

2»

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    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?

    You problem re- the lowering of the 40% threshold is unrelated to the 50p, and totally related to the increase in the tax-free allowance.

    If you are in the 40% bracket, either before or now, the budget is neutral to you re tax. You will pat the same amount you did before. At least, that's how I understand it.
    _
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    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?

    Because (1) the high earners will still pay more, in absolute and % terms than those in the 40% bracket, (b) that's "fair" (hahahaha :twisted: ); (c) "we're all in it together".

    Gotta love it when the boomerang returns carrying those soundbites ...
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    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?

    You problem re- the lowering of the 40% threshold is unrelated to the 50p, and totally related to the increase in the tax-free allowance.

    If you are in the 40% bracket, either before or now, the budget is neutral to you re tax. You will pat the same amount you did before. At least, that's how I understand it.
    Yep. Same thing happened this year: personal allowance went up, 40% threshold went down to match*.
    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm

    * Broadly
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    Greg66 wrote:
    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.
    Yep, I think that was always their intention. A bit cynical really.
    Greg66 wrote:
    Typical Labour "do it because it's good for Labour, not the country" politicking.
    To be fair, I think most political parties with any influence act primarily in self interest. And to say that its "typical" of Labour would imply that you think the tories only have the country's best interest at hear? :P
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I've little sympathy for the pensioners

    <sharp intake of breath>

    You kitten-killing monster.

    Those tiresome pensioners. Not paying enough tax. Living in their mansions. Not paying mansion tax. Holding up the Treasury's IHT take on their deaths. |They're the main reason we have a public transport system and they don't even pay for it. Awful people.

    You'll be dismantling the NHS next.

    I obv have little sympathy for anyone who isn't me. But even I recognise you can't run a country on that basis.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Greg66 wrote:

    I obv have little sympathy for anyone who isn't me. But even I recognise you can't run a country on that basis.
    My image of you is totally shattered.

    I might have to go lie in a darkened room to recover.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,359
    Greg66 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I've little sympathy for the pensioners

    <sharp intake of breath>

    You kitten-killing monster.

    Those tiresome pensioners. Not paying enough tax. Living in their mansions. Not paying mansion tax. Holding up the Treasury's IHT take on their deaths. |They're the main reason we have a public transport system and they don't even pay for it. Awful people.

    You'll be dismantling the NHS next.

    I obv have little sympathy for anyone who isn't me. But even I recognise you can't run a country on that basis.

    They are treated like some sort of holy cow though, mainly due to the fact that they vote more than other sectors (cf. winter fuel allowance). I'm not saying to hell with them, but I don't see why they should be absolutely exempt from all cuts.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    All I'm saying is that on the face of it. The Tories raised the amount of tax middle income earners pay and reduced the amount the top earners pay.

    If they reduced the 50% to 45% and the 40% bracket to 35% but then lowered the latter threshold, I could stomach that.

    I don't think top earners should be taxed as high as 50%, but you can't then penalise other groups. It just ain't fair.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    The Tories raised the amount of tax middle income earners pay and reduced the amount the top earners pay.

    No they haven't.
    _
  • cje
    cje Posts: 148
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    People who earn £150,000 have had there tax reduced by 5% to 45%.?

    Not quite.

    People who earn upwards of £150,000 will have their tax on anything over £150,000 reduced by 5%.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    cje wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    People who earn £150,000 have had there tax reduced by 5% to 45%.?

    Not quite.

    People who earn upwards of £150,000 will have their tax on anything over £150,000 reduced by 5%.
    OK yes, I worded that wrong. Still rich people got taken cared of while everyone else got dicked. (If you exclude the £2mil property stamp duty thing...),
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • cje
    cje Posts: 148
    Rightly or wrongly, the take tends to go up when the top rate of tax is lowered slightly. It does appear to be true that the higher the rate, the more effort high-earners put into avoiding their taxes.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,359
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    cje wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    People who earn £150,000 have had there tax reduced by 5% to 45%.?

    Not quite.

    People who earn upwards of £150,000 will have their tax on anything over £150,000 reduced by 5%.
    OK yes, I worded that wrong. Still rich people got taken cared of while everyone else got dicked. (If you exclude the £2mil property stamp duty thing...),

    Eh?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    rjsterry wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    cje wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    People who earn £150,000 have had there tax reduced by 5% to 45%.?

    Not quite.

    People who earn upwards of £150,000 will have their tax on anything over £150,000 reduced by 5%.
    OK yes, I worded that wrong. Still rich people got taken cared of while everyone else got dicked. (If you exclude the £2mil property stamp duty thing...),

    Eh?

    The working poor are f*cked because of the revision in the tax credits.

    People working for low incomes will lose more benefits as a result of the tax allowance increase than they gain through the increase.
    _
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    cje wrote:
    Rightly or wrongly, the take tends to go up when the top rate of tax is lowered slightly. It does appear to be true that the higher the rate, the more effort high-earners put into avoiding their taxes.
    Can't the HMRC just make it harder to avoid taxes?
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,359
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    cje wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    People who earn £150,000 have had there tax reduced by 5% to 45%.?

    Not quite.

    People who earn upwards of £150,000 will have their tax on anything over £150,000 reduced by 5%.
    OK yes, I worded that wrong. Still rich people got taken cared of while everyone else got dicked. (If you exclude the £2mil property stamp duty thing...),

    Eh?

    The working poor are f*cked because of the revision in the tax credits.

    People working for low incomes will lose more benefits as a result of the tax allowance increase than they gain through the increase.

    But that's not what DDD is saying (I think). He seems to be more worried about the middle earners paying for top earners rate reduction (which, depending on who you believe, may actually result in them paying more tax as a group).
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • cje
    cje Posts: 148
    notsoblue wrote:
    cje wrote:
    Rightly or wrongly, the take tends to go up when the top rate of tax is lowered slightly. It does appear to be true that the higher the rate, the more effort high-earners put into avoiding their taxes.
    Can't the HMRC just make it harder to avoid taxes?

    I think they're closing some loopholes with that very aim in mind.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    notsoblue wrote:
    cje wrote:
    Rightly or wrongly, the take tends to go up when the top rate of tax is lowered slightly. It does appear to be true that the higher the rate, the more effort high-earners put into avoiding their taxes.
    Can't the HMRC just make it harder to avoid taxes?

    IFS looked at the anti-avoidance stuff in this budget and concluded that it was 'worse than average' for cracking down on avoidance.

    Stevo's probably right that the tax avoidance industry is better at its job that HMRC.

    I don't see why, if they believe the rhetoric they give every year, than parliament don't pass a general tax avoidance rule whereby every new scheme is sent to to HMRC before they're put into place, to ensure they're in the spirit of the tax system.
    _
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    cje wrote:
    notsoblue wrote:
    cje wrote:
    Rightly or wrongly, the take tends to go up when the top rate of tax is lowered slightly. It does appear to be true that the higher the rate, the more effort high-earners put into avoiding their taxes.
    Can't the HMRC just make it harder to avoid taxes?

    I think they're closing some loopholes with that very aim in mind.
    The tax avoidance industry has to inform them of every loophole they find, but I think its a losing battle. I'm guessing its more profitable for tax accountants to work for those who want avoid tax rather than the HMRC.

    I wonder how this works in other countries? Specifically those with very high tax rates. Are their tax systems just less complicated, making it easier to enforce the spirit of the tax code? Or is it just that this country has a culture of wanting to pay the least amount of tax possible.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I don't see why, if they believe the rhetoric they give every year, than parliament don't pass a general tax avoidance rule whereby every new scheme is sent to to HMRC before they're put into place, to ensure they're in the spirit of the tax system.
    I use this scheme -
    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-self-emp.htm
    Is it in the spirit?
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I don't see why, if they believe the rhetoric they give every year, than parliament don't pass a general tax avoidance rule whereby every new scheme is sent to to HMRC before they're put into place, to ensure they're in the spirit of the tax system.
    I think its just too profitable. People who specialise in tax avoidance and their clients lobby so this doesn't happen.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    daviesee wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I don't see why, if they believe the rhetoric they give every year, than parliament don't pass a general tax avoidance rule whereby every new scheme is sent to to HMRC before they're put into place, to ensure they're in the spirit of the tax system.
    I use this scheme -
    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-self-emp.htm
    Is it in the spirit?

    That's up to them to decide.
    _
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    cje wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    People who earn £150,000 have had there tax reduced by 5% to 45%.?

    Not quite.

    People who earn upwards of £150,000 will have their tax on anything over £150,000 reduced by 5%.
    OK yes, I worded that wrong. Still rich people got taken cared of while everyone else got dicked. (If you exclude the £2mil property stamp duty thing...),

    Eh?

    The working poor are f*cked because of the revision in the tax credits.

    People working for low incomes will lose more benefits as a result of the tax allowance increase than they gain through the increase.

    But that's not what DDD is saying (I think). He seems to be more worried about the middle earners paying for top earners rate reduction (which, depending on who you believe, may actually result in them paying more tax as a group).
    Nope what Rich said.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,359
    Fair enough. How does all this sit with your Tory streak and your posts about higher rate tax? :P

    Giving everyone a tax cut isn't really feasible atm, and FWIW, I don't think there is a direct link between the drop in the 50p rate and the changes to tax credits. Having used the tax credit system, I can see how it is a very expensive way of redistributing money. For the small sum we got (Mrs RJS not working and me on a 4-day week a year or so back), HMRC must have spent nearly as much administering it.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    cje wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    People who earn £150,000 have had there tax reduced by 5% to 45%.?

    Not quite.

    People who earn upwards of £150,000 will have their tax on anything over £150,000 reduced by 5%.
    OK yes, I worded that wrong. Still rich people got taken cared of while everyone else got dicked. (If you exclude the £2mil property stamp duty thing...),

    You've changed dude. You've changed.

    You're red to me now.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,359
    Greg66 wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    cje wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    People who earn £150,000 have had there tax reduced by 5% to 45%.?

    Not quite.

    People who earn upwards of £150,000 will have their tax on anything over £150,000 reduced by 5%.
    OK yes, I worded that wrong. Still rich people got taken cared of while everyone else got dicked. (If you exclude the £2mil property stamp duty thing...),

    You've changed dude. You've changed.

    You're red to me now.

    He was always red; he was just blue-curious :lol:
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    rjsterry wrote:
    He was always red; he was just blue-curious :lol:
    He aspires to blue :P
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Gregory, I'm hurt.

    I had a lengthy debate with my friend who I accused of being 'blue'. The truth I believe to be this, the balanced among us or those who don't live within the extremes of society (i.e. the very poor/the very rich or the very accepting/the very prejudice) will believe in some conservative belifes and some liberal ones.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • cyclingprop
    cyclingprop Posts: 2,426
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Gregory, I'm hurt.

    I had a lengthy debate with my friend who I accused of being 'blue'. The truth I believe to be this, the balanced among us or those who don't live within the extremes of society (i.e. the very poor/the very rich or the very accepting/the very prejudice) will believe in some conservative belifes and some liberal ones.

    Ergo, democracy isn't perfect but there's no viable alternative. I think for the first time I agree with you DDD. Apart from your spelling of beliefs...
    What do you mean you think 64cm is a big frame?

Categories