The Next Conservative Budget

[otolith]

Funkycoldribena said:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/09/were-pretty-much-all...
Interesting 16 second clip halfway down the page.

"We’re pretty much all going to be worse off as a result of the Budget"

We aren't.

But then we don't get anything to cut.

[plasticpig]

rover 623gsi said:

indeed - the Tory plan is
household income =£29,999 live in social housing and pay 60% of market rate rents
household income =£30,001 live in social housing and pay 100% of market rate rents

genius

The KISS principal in action. The problem with doing something more complex and tapering the rates depending on income is it's far more complex and costly to implement. This starts to defeat the object of the changes in the first place which is generate more income for the councils and housing associations.

[emicen]

otolith said:

Funkycoldribena said:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/09/were-pretty-much-all...
Interesting 16 second clip halfway down the page.

"We’re pretty much all going to be worse off as a result of the Budget"

We aren't.

But then we don't get anything to cut.

According to the calculator on the bbc website, I'll be marginally better off. According to Labour, LibDems and SNP commentators, this apparently makes me wealthy/rich.

I disagree with their analysis.

[simoid]

IroningMan said:

rover 623gsi said:

IroningMan said:

rover 623gsi said:

otolith said:

Just seen this - I must admit, I had no idea that tax credits and child benefit were quite so generous, I didn't realise that a minimum wage earner with two kids was on the same take-home as a single person on £24250.

another way of looking at that is that in one example there are four people living on £24,250 and in the other example there is one person living on £24,250

the idea behind tax credits was that it would encourage people in the example given to at least take the full-time minimum wage job rather than do nothing.

I think the tax credit system was/is messy and over-complicated and some reform was needed, but there are a lot of families that are going to really, really struggle without it.

Another way of looking at it is that in a third example there is a family of four with a single wage earner pulling-in £24,250...

And why are families going to 'really, really struggle' without tax credits when the numbers above show that their incomes will be affected very little? Are the numbers wrong?

a family of four with a single wage-earner getting £24,250 will also be getting child benefit on top of that and probably tax credits too

And presumably all will also be getting Housing Benefit?

Rover - tax credit and child benefit are included in the £24k figure.

What's the idea behind tax credits? Is it simpler to put them in a tax code, or is it because it's for a family and not a single earner?

[Funkycoldribena]

emicen said:

otolith said:

Funkycoldribena said:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/09/were-pretty-much-all...
Interesting 16 second clip halfway down the page.

"We’re pretty much all going to be worse off as a result of the Budget"

We aren't.

But then we don't get anything to cut.

According to the calculator on the bbc website, I'll be marginally better off. According to Labour, LibDems and SNP commentators, this apparently makes me wealthy/rich.

I disagree with their analysis.

I was pointing out the blatant lies in the clip more than anything.

[otolith]

Funkycoldribena said:

I was pointing out the blatant lies in the clip more than anything.

Note that he said he didn't want to do it, not that he wasn't going to...

[rover 623gsi]

plasticpig said:

rover 623gsi said:

indeed - the Tory plan is
household income =£29,999 live in social housing and pay 60% of market rate rents
household income =£30,001 live in social housing and pay 100% of market rate rents

genius

The KISS principal in action. The problem with doing something more complex and tapering the rates depending on income is it's far more complex and costly to implement. This starts to defeat the object of the changes in the first place which is generate more income for the councils and housing associations.

the extra money isn't going to councils or housing associations - it's going directly to central govt

[plasticpig]

rover 623gsi said:

the extra money isn't going to councils or housing associations - it's going directly to central govt

Not as I understand it. The Government will cut funding in line with the rent increases. The tenant doesn't pay the extra to the government directly.

[rover 623gsi]

the govt doesn't fund social housing - although it is forcing social landlords to reduce rents by 1% each year for the next four years

[rover 623gsi]

plasticpig said:

rover 623gsi said:

the extra money isn't going to councils or housing associations - it's going directly to central govt

Not as I understand it. The Government will cut funding in line with the rent increases. The tenant doesn't pay the extra to the government directly.

seems we are both right

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summer-...
Local Authorities will repay the rent subsidy that they recover from high income tenants to the Exchequer, contributing to deficit reduction. Housing Associations will be able to use the rent subsidy that they recover to reinvest in new housing.

[Welshbeef]

rovermorris999 said:

Back in the fifties and sixties purchase tax was payable at a hefty rate on the base car but not the extras so many manufacturers had things like bumpers and heaters as extras to reduce the tax paid. I expect similar wheezes now if it's on the base price, not bumpers obviously but all the gizmos we expect as given these days. Surely it'll be on the price actually paid? In which case perhaps some things will be 'dealer fit' and could be bought a month down the line so keeping the price under the threshold.

You do that and it impacts BIK tax for company car drivers

[FredClogs]

otolith said:

Funkycoldribena said:

I was pointing out the blatant lies in the clip more than anything.

Note that he said he didn't want to do it, not that he wasn't going to...

She said "will you put to bed the rumour..." Etc... He said "I don't want to do that..." Etc. It's clever dick silliness like the "I didn't have sexual relations with that women" shtick.

[wst]

What's the justification for under-25's not being entitled to the same "National Living Wage"?

[paulrockliffe]

simoid said:

What's the idea behind tax credits? Is it simpler to put them in a tax code, or is it because it's for a family and not a single earner?

Tax Credits were introduced because once someone isn't paying anything to the state you can't cut taxes to give them more money. The poorest stop benefiting from tax cuts. The words 'bribe' or even 'benefit' were presumably a bit too honest, so they were given a more palatable name. I mean everyone pays tax, so recipients are just getting a little bit back right?

There's nothing simple about Tax Credits from an implementation point of view. If it was just a negative tax rate it would be quite a lot simpler.

[FredClogs]

wst said:

What's the justification for under-25's not being entitled to the same "National Living Wage"?

They'd only spend it on popping candy and monster munch, best let the grownups have it. Or something like that.

[wst]

plasticpig said:

rover 623gsi said:

indeed - the Tory plan is
household income =£29,999 live in social housing and pay 60% of market rate rents
household income =£30,001 live in social housing and pay 100% of market rate rents

genius

The KISS principal in action. The problem with doing something more complex and tapering the rates depending on income is it's far more complex and costly to implement. This starts to defeat the object of the changes in the first place which is generate more income for the councils and housing associations.

Ah but the byline is "making work pay". If I was working a waged job that paid me 29,999 per year (however that works out per hour) and I was quarter hour late clocking out one day (due to making sure I was doing the work properly)... just once... I'd end up with less money in the bank.

Being paid more money should always result in more expendable income for the payee. I say this as a supporter of highly progressive income tax rates.

[Murph7355]

wst said:

... I say this as a supporter of highly progressive income tax rates.

Then be quiet and suck it up.

[wst]

Murph7355 said:

wst said:

... I say this as a supporter of highly progressive income tax rates.

Then be quiet and suck it up.

You don't understand, even in their most extreme implementation that I support someone who earns more gross will always have more post-tax than someone who doesn't (everything else being equal). This idea where it sharply cuts in is directly anti the Tory byline. It's also anti-aspirational, people will turn down promotions and higher pay offers/better jobs that take them into the "earn more, have less money" bracket.

This is a discussion forum, if you are offended by discussion occurring on it, shove it up your arse and be quiet.

Edited by wst on Thursday 9th July 20:44

[Murph7355]

fblm said:

You have zero rate for cars older than 40 years on a rolling calender, 2 flat rates based on engine size if first UK registered after 1975 and before 2001, 13 bands based on co2 with 2 rates each depending on fuel type if registered after then but before 2010 with imported cars first registered after 2006 and over 225g/km rated in band k. From 2010 you pay a different initial duty based on the 13 bands before reverting to the standard rate for your band and fuel type with a 10 pound discount for alternative fuel and for cars registered from 2017 you'll pay a first year rate based on 13 bands associated with completely different co2 emissions to the other 13 bands, followed by a standard charge of either 0 or £140 with a surcharge of £310 for vehicles costing over £40000 for the first 5 years of the standard charge.

Its all perfectly clear and sensible!

or b) fvcking idiotic.

I guess it's also preventing 100% unemployment in Swansea.

[otolith]

FredClogs said:

otolith said:

Funkycoldribena said:

I was pointing out the blatant lies in the clip more than anything.

Note that he said he didn't want to do it, not that he wasn't going to...

She said "will you put to bed the rumour..." Etc... He said "I don't want to do that..." Etc. It's clever dick silliness like the "I didn't have sexual relations with that women" shtick.

Probably best in general that politicians don't do the wrong thing for fear of accusations of U-turning though.