Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Brown really is trying to up his game, isn't he?
without penalising non-smokers
financially good for the NHS, like....
nicotine patches are going cheap! GET EM WHILST YOU CAN
but spirits duty frozen!
price rises that'll be 20p. Damn you Brown! And 11p on fags! Damn you Brown!
My budget comment ends here for another year.
You know, bamos.
Bamos for Chancellor!
me for Chancellor!
Me for PM
Hello! I'm his right-hand man! I do doors, windows, and I'll take a look at your boiler as well if you want!
I've never even tried!
into the PMs everyday family life.
PM WARN: THE MRSTHEWARN DIARIES
'This book could ruin his career' The Times
'I've not laughed so much in years' Private Eye
'A memory box?! HAHAHAHA!' Daily Mail
'The best memoir since Diana's inquest' Express
"When did anyone ever benefit from a budger."
once led me to safety when trapped on the moors
they bite you know
he said anything about car tax and fuel yet?
If so, what?
Are you the right people to ask these questions to?
A tabloid summary on the above plus family allowance would be great, thanks
This year's 2p fuel duty rise will be delayed FOR six months.
With cider sales up last year by more than 70 per cent, Brown slung his clunking fist of economic action right on to the ordinary persons pint of apley goodness, and put a penny on a pint of cider.
How will your child drink this weekend? This is weak half-hearted measures from a chancellor that doesn't understand where his core vote is coming from.
Traditionaly labour pasttimes like smoking are also being punished in the latest budget announcement, being dubbed by colleagues as 'In-cider Politics'.
at a dental magazine.
and if it does, I'll start buying it
I like him. This budget is The Good Stuff. I don't smoke so couldn't give two shits about that. More expensive the better, that's what I say. Plus income tax is down by 2p which makes me go 'wikkedy wa'
Tories will hate it because they'll have to pay more for the Range Rovers. Oh well!
But what I DO know is that my nan now gets up to £4000 for central heating, insulation etc. I *think* this is up from £3000, but I might be wrong
(I also *think* that it has previously been as much as £3500. Either way, more help for my nan = good)
is such a fucking pussy.
"Look at me, if I lower the basic rate, people will think I'm being progressive."
Of course he's also raised the threshold of the higher rate to £43K
How about creating a few more bands Gordon?!?! How about a higher rate? How about fuck off you corporate fat cat dick sucking arsehole.
in the rate of corporation tax.
it's reallllllllly just an attempt to please as many people as possible.
Gordon Brown's most profound legacy as chancellor is turning the UK's economic policy into a contest to pass off as regressive policies as possible by pretending to be interested in poverty reduction.
getting rid of the 10% band means you need to be earning more than 19,000 not to be worse off....
The average is approx 22.5k
and the extra 10p is only on £2230 (2007 rate) over the allowance, which will likely be boosted by various allowances. Taking the base rate though, someone on 19000 will pay £2775 income tax in a year under the new rates, £2762.90 under the old
So yeah, such an earner pays an extra £1 a month, based on current bands.
I suspect changes to income tax allowances before the alteration of basic rates will absorb most if not all of that £1, but I don't have the figures.
I think this budget strikes a good balance.
i think think he is.
So it's not really a fair comparison to use the 2007 allowances. You should be basing calculations all on the same year, 2008-2009, surely?
But i agree it strikes a fair balance, and, from an admin point of view, i can see it would be better not to have the small band at the start of earnings.
alters roughly in line with inflation. It's impossible to use 2008-9's actual allowances as they won't be known until next year (or maybe in the pre-budget), so yeah it's not an ideal calculation, but it does show that roughly, the change is quite small.
I think (in terms of direct income tax) that anyone about the 19k mark will be a little better off thanks to the alteration, but they will of course be penalised for that privelege in other ways... VAT, stamp duties, etc etc
Allowances aside, I agree, this makes income tax more understandable (straight 20% low, 40% high bands), which in turn could lead to people making sure they are receiving all of the tax breaks and such like that they are entitled to.
but the amount that would offset against the small extra amount this hypothetical person would be paying, would ordinarily have been an extra amount they'd receive, in line with inflation. So they'll be penalised by inflation, as well as by VAT, stamp duties, road tax etc.
or i thought i was right when i started on this....
ach, we basically agree anyway...
its the first time i'll have been paid "officially" (not cash in hand) since i left full time education
i'm getting paid £8.50 and hour
i believe my overall annual earnings place me in the kindest tax bracket
how much of my £8.50/hr will i actually see?
and YOU JUST GOT SERVED
is a purely libidinal, prelinguistic interjection. It has no propositional content.
Return into far left corner. 15 - Love.
assuming no pension contributions or anything.
22% tax and 11% national insurance.
so you'll see about 1/3
but you dont get taxed on the first £5000 or so. But that's split by month. So for the first £420 a month you'll get about £360, plus a third of whatever you earn above that. with the possibility of claiming some back at the end of the year, if you havent been earning up until now.
you'll presumably have student loan repayments as well?
dunno, in that case.
Oh...That's £16,320 if you were on £8.50 an hour 40 hours a week 48 weeks of the year. Blimey.
working part time you're likely eligible for a shedload of council tax rebates, direct benefits, and other such things outside of direct income tax, helping to bridge that gap.
or by any real amount at least?
It's always hard to judge these things on individual cases anyway.
undoubtedly anyone whose total income falls within the old 10% band is now paying 20% instead of 10%
My point is that the vast majority of people within that band are eligible for savings elsewhere, altering that balance. Not to mention further income via direct benefits.
Of course, they would have been eligible for those benefits prior to this alteration in tax, but that hasn't happened.
The toss can be argued between whether the 10%/22% or the 20% system is better, but I think the bottom line will be... it's neutral.
but which benefits have been increased? Looking through the report, it looks like child tax credit has risen £150 per year but nothing else...
but that credit alone cancels out more than 50% of the stated 'increase' in taxation
and if it only cancels out 50% of the "increase" then surely the remaining 50% is an actual increase?
a small increase on an already very low level of taxation
a tax increase for the lowest earners...
it seems pretty unreasonable, to me..
it's about the economy of a country.
It is (I feel) undeniable that a lot is done for low earners within the continuing budget, and it is harsh and short-sighted to judge a budget because it doesn't do more.
explain the macroeconomic benefits of htis decision to me ....
the only "benefit" I've seen is the cut in corportation tax, which will aid Britain in competeting economically with Europe.
The rest is almost entirely neutral.
you'll be screwed if you're a low earner without children...
get of your arse and get a proper job, then :P
but what about someone who earns 8k a year working full time because they're incapable of doing a more demanding job?
for such petty, trifling fools. They should go home and die.
the NMW puts a 40/48 worker on over £10k a year
10k ... the worst off people will be those in the 10-12k bracket
I'd imagine people earning the lowest legal salary ARE worst off, in more ways than one.
Should they not be taxed, then?
Or perhaps think outside of income tax alone and realise that those people, now earning at least £10k a year, would be earning £6-8k without the NMW.
small proportion of the benefit of the NMW accrues to the earner, anyway ... the treasury benefits as much as the individual..
the lowest earners shouldn't be taxed
I don't disagree as such - I'd love to see a Chancellor attempt to balance a doubling of the personal income tax allowance across the economy, without, as a simple example, pushing business out of the UK by increasing corporation tax once more.
the income tax threshold to about 11/12k by creating a slightly higher tax bracket for those on six figure salaries. i'm talking 42/43%....
this is a guess
choose a job
choose to sit in an income category that pays a little extra tax
i'm surprised more poor people haven't thought of just getting jobs with bigger salaries. idiots!
this was directly referring to those who CHOOSE to work part-time and be in a band, or other such activities.
Occupations aimed at enjoyment rather than security or the raising of a family.
can be classed soley as "enjoyment".
the tax system doesn't make such judgements. and most people earning between 10k and 12k aren't in bands, are they?
I see "tax cunt". This is my new name for Goblin Brown.
boss and he says that the 20% rate now kicks in at the higher rate, so in practice there is a higher tax free allowance. is this right?
it's been interpreted that way in a few places but the majority assume the 20% starts from the old 10% starting point, rather than the 22% starting point
he tells me that my initial judgement was wrong. and he knows gordon brown n that ... so yer nah
which is it? I'm confused now :D
kicks in where it always did and everything below it is tax free.
but still, fuck Brown. Why did he have to raise the threshold for the top band by so much?
away from the few who earn a high amount by working hard, to those who just swan around in a big car? Who knows.
That shift is offset by NI changes anyway.
it hasnt been announced.
nothing i read on the bbc at lunchtime suggested anything like that.
i hope that is the case.
tax up to £350,000 by 2010? That is a shocker. That's not much better than a rate of inflation rise by that point, I shouldn't wonder
tax comes from the sale of houses which have an inflation rate considerably above both the rpi and cpi.
ESPECIALLY cos of what you said
this is a good point. i will write it down for future arguments....
I feel more intelligent for it.
even though the only thing I've taken away is that the cost of my pint of cider will rise between 2-5p but my whisky will be fine. hmmmmnn.