Budget 2016

[Earl Aelfheah]

So far.. reduction to corporation tax, cuts to disability budget, two new tax allowances for landlords. Growth forecasts slashed.

Apparently the 1% paying 28% of income tax and this is a sign that we're all in it together (rather than a sign that inequality is running away unchecked).

[Earl Aelfheah]

A sugar tax. Kind of surprised by this. Going to be used to fund a longer school day (and all schools to become academies). Better start stock piling kit kats.

[????]

it's a piss poor effort, he's been busted by his gamble on the optimistic Autumn Statement. Bottom line is the deficit will still very likely be here by the next Election, if only the angry brigade had held their nerves I think it would have been a shoe in for Labour but with Corbyn, much less so. Can't see Osbourne being leader post Cameron now.

[Sue]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So far.. reduction to corporation tax, cuts to

> disability budget, two new tax allowances for

> landlords. Growth forecasts slashed.

> Apparently the 1% paying 28% of income tax and

> this is a sign that we're all in it together

> (rather than a sign that inequality is running

> away unchecked).

This government really has it in for disabled people, doesn't it.

Disgraceful.

[Jeremy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> two new tax allowances for landlords.

Not found any info on this - all I could find was related to increased stamp duty. Could you elabroate?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > two new tax allowances for landlords.

>

> Not found any info on this - all I could find was

> related to increased stamp duty. Could you

> elabroate?

... Actually, this is my mistake. it's in fact a tax break for those renting out there house (as in airbnb).

http://linkis.com/www.standard.co.uk/n/mXKdz

[LondonMix]

Yes, landlords are actually getting hammered with reduction on interest tax shield and increased stamp duty. Good though as the speculative air needs to be let out of the market.

Haven't read the budget yet but I'm in general supportive of a sugar tax. Last time he squashed it as I guess it was too close to the election.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > two new tax allowances for landlords.

> >

> > Not found any info on this - all I could find

> was

> > related to increased stamp duty. Could you

> > elabroate?

>

> ... Actually, this is my mistake. it's in fact a

> tax break for those renting out there house (as in

> airbnb).

> http://linkis.com/www.standard.co.uk/n/mXKdz

[Earl Aelfheah]

The cut in capital gains tax (excluding property) is a bit of a give away to wealthy investors. Seems naughty when at the same time cutting disability benefit. I'm supportive of a sugar tax, although like all flat taxes it's regressive (and it'll be unpopular amongst his own back benchers).

[DulwichFox]

A Sugar Tax will do nothing to stop people consuming sugar in the same way as taxation on tobacco and alcohol

in itself stops people Drinking and Smoking..

Jamie Oliver is still selling Full Sugar cola in his outlets but I understand he he as put a levi on prices..

So this just increases his profits while getting all the 'This Little Good Boy' publicity.

Why does he not just sell sugar free..

DulwichFox

[ed_pete]

DulwichFox Wrote:

> Jamie Oliver is still selling Full Sugar cola in

> his outlets but I understand he he as put a levi

> on prices..

> So this just increases his profits while getting

> all the 'This Little Good Boy' publicity.

Get your facts straight

Where does the sugary drinks tax go?

Jamie?s restaurants are self-imposing a levy of 10p on all non-alcoholic soft drinks with added sugar

The money raised by Jamie?s in-restaurant sugar levy will directly fund food education for children and similar health initiatives. This Children?s Health Fund, as we?ve named it, will be supported and administered by the charity Sustain. Formed in 1999, Sustain is the alliance for better food and farming.

[DulwichFox]

ed_pete Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> > Jamie Oliver is still selling Full Sugar cola

> in

> > his outlets but I understand he he as put a

> levi

> > on prices..

> > So this just increases his profits while

> getting

> > all the 'This Little Good Boy' publicity.

>

>

> Get your facts straight

>

>

> Where does the sugary drinks tax go?

>

> Jamie?s restaurants are self-imposing a levy of

> 10p on all non-alcoholic soft drinks with added

> sugar

>

> The money raised by Jamie?s in-restaurant sugar

> levy will directly fund food education for

> children and similar health initiatives. This

> Children?s Health Fund, as we?ve named it, will be

> supported and administered by the charity Sustain.

> Formed in 1999, Sustain is the alliance for better

> food and farming.

The Publicity has given him more sales of his Books.. and TV rights..

It will not stop children eating sweets.. Sugar..

His recipes continue to use. Sugar.. Salt.. White flour.. Butter.. with a few green leaves to make them seem healthy.

DulwichFox

[sheff]

DulwichFox - I think the point Ed_Pete is accurately making is that you stated that Jamie Oliver is in effect bolstering his profits by charging more for sugary drinks.

He's not... 10p is charged and 8.33p goes to charity.. The govt get the balance as VAT.

You didn't mention anything about recipes of other products in your original comments.

ETA - he does sell drinks with no added sugar as well..

[Mick Mac]

The 20% capital gains tax and the extension of entrepreneurs relief are welcome incentives to investment in this country. We need more investment not less.

There are also encouragements for the young (under 40) to save.

A lowering of corporation tax to encourage companies to set up here and prevent them going via Luxembourg etc will also help.

Measures to make international companies pay more tax here, limit their interest deductibility etc are also welcome.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The further attacks on those with disabilities are pretty awful. I agree that some of the other stuff you mention MicMac is positive (except capital gains, where I disagree). But in the contact of less help for those with serious disabilities I think any 'give aways' are difficult to justify.

[Mick Mac]

I agree - people with disabilities need to be properly looked after and I think their approach is very harsh.

The thing about capital gains is that an increase in the capital gains tax rate does not always bring pro rata increases in capital gains taxes collected - likewise a decrease can attract investment and does not result in a pro rata decrease in taxes raised. Its about building a culture of investment to broaden the economy.

Taxes collected and taxes utilised for benefits are of course related in terms of available money - but when viewing tax collection strategies in isolation the drop in capital gains tax is more logical and can be seen as one step back to take two forward in the longer term rather than necessarily a concession to the wealthy.

[Jah Lush]

Another Tory confidence trick.

http://i1369.photobucket.com/albums/ag237/jahlushhead/11742970_10153380988565225_1694873293698778824_n_zpsjq8dfasg.jpg

[right-clicking]

Jah Lush,

I think you might be a little off the mark! By lowering the threshold will allow more people to be eligible!!

The ?3,850 is the minimum you have to earn before tax credits kick in as apposed to the existing ?6,420.

[JohnL]

It was mentioned on Sky - the money taken off the disabled almost

exactly matches that given to 40% rate tax payers.

Reverse Robin Hood - George looked unmoved though.

[LondonMix]

This doesn't eliminate working tax credit but it will reduce how much people above that threshold are entitled to for certain elements of working tax credit which in turn is a function of their broader circumstances.

right-clicking Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jah Lush,

>

> I think you might be a little off the mark! By

> lowering the threshold will allow more people to

> be eligible!!

> The ?3,850 is the minimum you have to earn before

> tax credits kick in as apposed to the existing

> ?6,420.

[JohnL]

right-clicking Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jah Lush,

>

> I think you might be a little off the mark! By

> lowering the threshold will allow more people to

> be eligible!!

> The ?3,850 is the minimum you have to earn before

> tax credits kick in as apposed to the existing

> ?6,420.

Not sure - it might be this

If your income is above this, your child tax credit award will be reduced by 41p for every ?1 of income over the threshold. For example, if you earned ?20,000 your child tax credit award would be reduced by ?1,596.95 (?20,000 - ?16,105 x 41p).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tax-credit-cuts-income-disregard-george-osborne-voted-without-debate-a6931676.html

[LondonMix]

Do you mean increasing that tax threshold in 2017 to 45k vs 42.5k? Do you also disagree with the tax free allowance going up to 11k? d

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It was mentioned on Sky - the money taken off the

> disabled almost

> exactly matches that given to 40% rate tax

> payers.

>

> Reverse Robin Hood - George looked unmoved though.

[JohnL]

Found the definition

If your annual household income is ?6,420 or below, you?ll get the maximum amount for each Working Tax Credit element you qualify for. This is called the ?income threshold? - anything you earn above that will reduce the amount you can get.

So you only get the maximum rate now if income is below 3,850

[JohnL]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you mean increasing that tax threshold in 2017

> to 45k vs 42.5k? Do you also disagree with the

> tax free allowance going up to 11k? d

>

>

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It was mentioned on Sky - the money taken off

> the

> > disabled almost

> > exactly matches that given to 40% rate tax

> > payers.

> >

> > Reverse Robin Hood - George looked unmoved

> though.

Benefits me personally :) - but don't like to see the

disabled hammered (GO disputes they are being and says

more is being spent - but even Sky disagreed).

The fact the figures were similar was mentioned as Robin

Hood like - in reality no real link :)

[LondonMix]

Can you link to that definition JohnL. The gov website says that there is no max upper income threshold to qualify as it depends on your circumstances-- i.e. how many children you have etc. Looking at the official tables on line I can't reconcile what everyone here is posting about-- not that anyone is wrong, I'm just confused

[LondonMix]

The increase in the tax free amount to 11k is a much more significant tax cut in terms of loss of revenue but of course I imagine that tax cut is a popular one so won't be quite so reviled in the press!

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Do you mean increasing that tax threshold in

> 2017

> > to 45k vs 42.5k? Do you also disagree with the

> > tax free allowance going up to 11k? d

> >

> >

> > JohnL Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > It was mentioned on Sky - the money taken off

> > the

> > > disabled almost

> > > exactly matches that given to 40% rate tax

> > > payers.

> > >

> > > Reverse Robin Hood - George looked unmoved

> > though.

>

> Benefits me personally :) - but don't like to see

> the

> disabled hammered (GO disputes they are being and

> says

> more is being spent - but even Sky disagreed).

>

> The fact the figures were similar was mentioned as

> Robin

> Hood like - in reality no real link :)