So what do we think of the budget

Ive just worked out my finances on a tax calculator and I will be approx £450 a year worse off, so dont know how Osborne can say - oh you will all be £200 a year better off from 2013, as I wont due to the child tax credits stopping next month, yet the ones who are paid over £150k per annum, get a 5% tax cut, so do you think they will use this to boost new jobs - I doubt it

I dont understand how it works..

I just did the BBC calculator.. turns out i will be just over £200 per annum better off. I am NOT a high earner by any stretch of the imagination, and i live on my own and probably drink a fair amount (Hence i thought i would be far worse off!) - but somehow its come out at around £200 per annum better off..

Sounds good to me!

I think most of the cuts that will affect people are the child benefits cuts etc etc.. and to be honest, I dont really understand why people need child benefits, as with most benefits (except for disability of course)..

This post was last modified: 22-03-2012 11:41 AM by poolsneighbour.

I would agree - why should people who have children receive tax credits, yet if everyone didnt bother having children, then there would be no future and no new generations to pay tax, to keep our pensions going when we retire, as ive paid tax/ni for 37years, then i feel im entilted to getting a little bit of it back

But..as far as I am aware, my parents, and their parents before them for the history of mankind did not receive child benefits. I have no intention of having children (personal preference) - so don't understand why people who do decide to have them consider it necessary to have tax credits.

Poolsneighbour - you're better off because duty on alcohol is frozen and you don't mention having young kids (so won't lose tax credits). The £200 better off comes from the increase in the personal allowance (the money in a year you are allowed to earn on which you don't pay any tax).

To be fair to the government, I don't think they'd have cut the 50p tax rate unless they were sure it wasn't working - they know the political damage it can do.

I agree Joffe.. it couldnt have been working as they know it would cause uproar if they reduced it..

I am just grateful for even the smallest amount of extra cash at the moment. Im still on 2008 wages and have been through over a year of 20% paycut on those 2008 wages. I don't see a pay rise any time in the near future..so for once its nice to have some good news!

Child tax credits I believe were brought in by New Labour in 1997ish

Family Allownace as it used to be called was brought into play many many years ago

I can see your point - you have no children [ your choice ], so why should people who have them, get credits, yet you argue that case for tax credits, suppose really just got used to having it, then its gone, yes wil be better off with slightly less tax, however £545 worse off per annum due to the CTC going.

Well good luck to you poolsneighbour, suppose there are always winners and losers, I was on the winning side when they brought in CTC, so now cant really complain after having it for nearly 15 yrs

This post was last modified: 22-03-2012 12:34 PM by Foresthillboy.

My mother got child benefit for me, and I am in my mid-40s.

I'm losing two lots of child benefit and according to the BBC calculator will be about £640 a year worse off. If that £640 goes to helping people who are struggling, I don't mind.

What makes me laugh is that the cut in child benefit was brought in because (and the govt actually said this) it would be cheap to administer, maximising the gain to the national purse. But because there were built-in flaws, they have had to introduce it on a sliding scale and recover it through self-assessment. So it is going to cost much more to implement than they thought. Whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of child benefit for higher earners, it is a bit of a shambles for the government.

I am going to be about £200 better off. But I will soon be affected by the "granny tax". Not that I am a granny!

This post was last modified: 22-03-2012 02:08 PM by Sherwood.

Well,

some may be better off due to increase in personal allowance, but cost of living is increasing above the rate of wage increases. It is even worse for people who are made redundant and out of work as the increase in personal allowance is negligible compared to the loss of income.

So what about employment? Ah, it is going to further increase. Make sure you are not one in that statistic, as out of work benefits are not a safety net you would expect for all your contributions over the working life.

I just wonder if the beneficiaries of the reduced income tax will spend all the extra money they have. Surely some of it will be put away for a rainy day, some will be spent abroad?

How is that an efficient way of creating employment?

This post was last modified: 22-03-2012 02:16 PM by DerbyHillTop.

I think the argument goes that if you pay towards some of the costs of families with children the benefits come both.....
a) now, in that it means more parents can afford to go out to work and pay tax, and b) in the future, when those children are adults paying tax, which is then used to pay state pensions (for those with and those without children).

The key difference with state pensions against private pensions is that state pensions are not saved forward into a pot of money to be paid back, they are paid out of the tax revenues being paid at the time. With an aging population we will need more people paying out for all of our pensions in the future - and hence more children needed.

Or something like that.

There was no justification in keeping the 50% tax which is higher than our competitors and also was being evaded by leaving the country or someother legal evasion.
Labour only introduced this to cause the Tories embarrasment as Balls is a complete hypocrite.
Independent bodies all agree that by lowering will get more tax in


As the Chancellor said other taxes on the wealthy will raise 500% more.

I am 63 as should be collecting state pension in 2014. I do not see why pensioners should have a bigger allowance than working people , especially as pensioners do not pay nat insurance .
I am more concerned with the introduction of the new super pension in 2016 all people who collect pensions prior to that will be on second class pensions. I hope not but have my doubts

Seems like a good budget for business with corportaion tax being lowered etc. This must be good to get people employed

We need to get rid of more red tape. It should not be so difficult to dismiss a lazy worker. No wonder they will not take on new staff

moving to local wage bargaining for the public sector makes supreme sense and will help the regions attract public sector employers.



Finally I noted the comment that the Welfar Budget will be reduced. It is already a lot more than raised in income tax.

It must be slashed if we are to survive as a competitive nation. Greece and Ireland have slashed all benefits and public sector wages .

This puts things in super-perspective..

The Unions (RMT I am talking about here - greedy gits) and people who moan about the cuts and lack of bonuses/pay-rises really have no leg to stand on!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17202274

Yes all you hear from our socialist brothers is how bad various government proposals are.
They should count their lucky stars they are not in Greece and accept all proposals with a smile

Yes yet where would we all be without our Socialist Brothers and Trade Unions, still all in the Workhouse, however, maybe in years gone by, we needed unions, not so sure now days if they are really that relevant.

Brian,

are you not aware that that more than half of the welfare bill is paid out as pensions. All reductions in welfare are aimed at the other half.

If deficit reduction is the top priority then even pensions should make its contribution. Same as maximising tax intake by closing legal evasions. It can really be simple by making all residents and UK passport holders’ subjects to UK tax. By all means allow double taxation rules, but make rich pay their dues like you make poor suffer by taking their benefits away. The country needs them now more than ever.

Tax is not optional! Why allow rich to choose?

Yes but bear in mind that Greece and Ireland had absolutely massive benefits and public sector wages. In their case completely unaffordable. Other countries do have higher benefits and are still competitive - I think that Germany pays more for unemployment than we do for instance and much more for housing.

So, I don't buy the competitive link with benefits. Education, innovation & investment are much more relevant to that.

This post was last modified: 23-03-2012 11:32 AM by lacb.

If we are mentioning Germany , something I know about. The German Unions accept apprentices who train for 3 or 4 years at German companies should be paid a very small wage.
Most living at home abd gaining a great skill

Our Unions however claim slave labour. What do they know of slave labour were they on the river kway in 1942

I accept half the welfare is pensions but most pensioners have put in over there working lives.
Benefit cuts should be aimed at those who do not want to work.

Where did family allowance come from. Used to be parents only had children they could afford.

Yes, lets force low income families and those of parents who suddenly are plunged into redundancy/poverty to put their children up for adoption, preferably abroad where we never have to pay a penny towards them again. Also lets sterilise people without any prospects less they decide to breed and cost us a fortune. That should I think satisfy Brians social cleansing requirements adequately.