Rhossydd
Established Member
That hasn't changed.
There was media speculation a week ago it might be capped, but there was no mention in Reeves speech today.
So what are peoples thoughts and any potential impact on yourself
- Thread starter Spectric
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
There was media speculation a week ago it might be capped, but there was no mention in Reeves speech today.
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
I want some of what you're smoking, mate. You aren't looking at the same budget as me! At least not the official one - interested to know where you're getting some of this misinformation from.
Sorry should have started it by saying that after such a dramatic budget the chancellor in her infinite wisdom stated that she couldn’t rule out further tax rises and that speculation is now rife that……pensions etc etc. she needed to rule it out rather than tossing petrol on the fire of speculation. The impact would be so massive for some people that they make devious and changes before the budget occurs. I know a few people who consolidated capital gains before this budget due to speculation.
Were they going broke in March?
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
The spending side of the budget taken in isolation is fairly straightforward - more for the NHS, education, blood and Post Office scandals etc etc is all nice (and good) to have. Some of that announced is a bit smoke and mirrors - eg:
Changing the fiscal rules. This runs counter to the manifesto narrative. To separate investment from current spending in this way creates the illusion, not the reality of sound fiscal management.
That investment may create an asset is correct, but the costs ultimately need to be recouped through future savings. This is evidently not the case. OBR forecast increased deficit and debt.
Growth. There is limited investment spend, much ill defined (GB Energy??) Most additional spend is on public services. Promised re-invigoration of UK growth is lacking. There is little that obviously attracts inward investment. Disappointing - a testament to dominance of rhetoric over action.
Feasibility. The budget aspires to improve infrastructure in housing, hospitals, schools. I would question whether the skills and resources exist to do all this concurrently - or is it a program that is destined to slip. Time will tell.
Honesty and integrity. The manifesto was very light on commitment despite years to plan what Labour would do. Labour were (rightly) very critical of the Tories as the party of high taxation. The illusion was created that tax increases would be limited and not affect "working " people.
It is now evident this was an illusion with the sole intent of electoral victory. I am not surprised - but any confidence I may have had that a new age of integrity and honesty in politics would be delivered have been completely erased.
- extra money for Scotland - they already do disproportionately well under the Barnett formula
- £500m for new housing won't build many houses
Changing the fiscal rules. This runs counter to the manifesto narrative. To separate investment from current spending in this way creates the illusion, not the reality of sound fiscal management.
That investment may create an asset is correct, but the costs ultimately need to be recouped through future savings. This is evidently not the case. OBR forecast increased deficit and debt.
Growth. There is limited investment spend, much ill defined (GB Energy??) Most additional spend is on public services. Promised re-invigoration of UK growth is lacking. There is little that obviously attracts inward investment. Disappointing - a testament to dominance of rhetoric over action.
Feasibility. The budget aspires to improve infrastructure in housing, hospitals, schools. I would question whether the skills and resources exist to do all this concurrently - or is it a program that is destined to slip. Time will tell.
Honesty and integrity. The manifesto was very light on commitment despite years to plan what Labour would do. Labour were (rightly) very critical of the Tories as the party of high taxation. The illusion was created that tax increases would be limited and not affect "working " people.
It is now evident this was an illusion with the sole intent of electoral victory. I am not surprised - but any confidence I may have had that a new age of integrity and honesty in politics would be delivered have been completely erased.
The chancellor wanted to ensure the super rich Labour peers, the Prime Minister and Labour funders were looked after. So, Capital gains for the rich (those who pay 40% tax) rose from 20 to 24%, so a 4% hike. A bit harsh, but don’t worry, the ordinary working person earning an average salary can make a much bigger contribution, capital gains for those paying 20% tax rises from 10% to 18%, a sinister 8% rise, or twice as large as that for the wealthy!!
But Labour supporters can take solace that tax threshold rates will remain frozen, so as wages rise inline with inflation, so they don’t get any richer, more people will be pushed into the 40% tax category meaning that they will face an additional 14% hike in capital gains as they tip over the edge! Thats a 240% increase on the 10% tax rate they would have been paying if tax threshold rates had moved with inflation.
Labour, the party to punish the working person.
But Labour supporters can take solace that tax threshold rates will remain frozen, so as wages rise inline with inflation, so they don’t get any richer, more people will be pushed into the 40% tax category meaning that they will face an additional 14% hike in capital gains as they tip over the edge! Thats a 240% increase on the 10% tax rate they would have been paying if tax threshold rates had moved with inflation.
Labour, the party to punish the working person.
Last edited:
Lons
Established Member
Not 100% accurate I believe.
"First year Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) rates for new cars have been overhauled, with significant rises for certain vehicles from 1st April 2025. According to the Government, the measures have been designed to “strengthen incentives to purchase zero emission and electric cars” by “widening the differentials between zero emission, hybrid and internal combustion engine (ICE) cars.
The biggest news is the ten-fold increase in first-year car tax rates for cars emitting between 1-50g/km of CO2, which includes hybrids. These will increase from the current rate of £10 for petrol and diesel cars (or zero for hybrids) to £110. The vast majority of plug-in hybrid cars fall into this band.
Rates for new cars emitting between 51-75g/km of CO2 will increase from £30 (or £20 for hybrids) to £135. All other rates will double next year, meaning the owner of a new VW Golf 1.5 TSI will pay an extra £220 in the first year. By contrast, a new BMW X5 M60i will have £2,745 added to the cost of the first-year rate.
Standard VED rates for beyond the first year will rise in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI) as is usually the case. The Government will “consider raising” the threshold for the current Expensive Car Supplement for electric cars “only at a future fiscal event”. Currently cars of any type costing over £40,000 when new are liable for an extra £410 a year VED charge for five years after registration.
Furthermore, Benefit-in-Kind tax rates for company cars will be maintained at 2% until 2026. Double-cab pick-ups will also be treated as cars for capital allowances, Benefit-in-Kind taxation and deduction from business profits from April next year."
What page is that screenshot from?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Well if they were that much on the edge it's probably doing them a favour to push them over.
If, even after 14 years of pro business tory govt, they still can't hack it, then early retirement is probably best option.
Sorting out the sheep from the goats?
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
AJB Temple
Finely figured
What a foolish and callous thing to say. It's in a sector that was badly hit by Covid. People are going to lose their jobs. Soon. Shame on you Jacob.
On the government website regarding IHT it says that if the estate includes property that is left to children or grandchildren the allowance increases to £500,000 per person so £1 million for a couple.
We've just had a recent bereavement so did bit of basic research. The information is there for all to see.
Oops Blackswanwood beat me to it whilst I was typing ;-{
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
Another half truth, I see.
Which bit do you think is incorrect? Id really appreciate you clarifying any inaccuracies I’ve made and helping my understanding by specifying what is the correct interpretation.
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
Did I say "incorrect"?
I don't think I did.
What I said was half truth. Omission and a Cherry Picking.
For example, when you declare "Labour" have frozen tax allowance, that is a Cherry Pick. The omission part here is that the allowance rates were frozen already. By Tory. (You know, the Party previously called "Party of Fiscal Responsibility", lol.)
Another omission is the OBR report that confirmed that Tory had deliberately and fraudulently concealed their spending pre-election, creating the circa £20bn black hole. Over and above the £20bn of known spending "difficulties".
Previous post half truths included your comment on moving pension offshore and changing country of domicile. You do know that the (loophole) "status" of non-dom is being removed from April, right?
There's just lots of your narrative that seems like pure agenda pushing and doesn't pass proper scrutiny.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Tax increases are inevitable after 14 years* of failed austerity. Who do think should bear the largest burden?
*45 years if you count back to Thatcher.
Lons
Established Member
That's pathetic even by your standards. I seriously doubt any of the potential employees losing their job would agree with that statement.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
They are probably better off out of it and looking for better jobs with better companies.
In the meantime they will have the benefit of our marvellously generous over-funded welfare system!
They'll just have to make it clear that it isn't a lifestyle choice, as it is for all the other scroungers
We need massive tax rises to get back up to speed after 45 years of tory bolox - who do you think should bear the largest burden?
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
There's quite a list.
Tax Free Cash is unchanged.
Pensions are meant to provide an income in retirement. The basic principle is that tax relief is given on contributions and the pension, when taken, is taxed as earned income. Tax Free Cash is a bit of an anomaly. It's no different to any other tax break and any advice you get around pensions will warn you it could change. Pensions are not meant to be an inheritance tax shelter. If that's why you are saving in one arguably you are unlikely to be short of money in retirement anyway. They remain a tax efficient way of saving for pensions so the vast majority of people should not be deterred from using them.
Gordon Brown did remove the tax credit on dividends received in a pension fund. This didn't sound the death knell on final salary pension schemes - improved longevity did. It's true that they were even better before this change was made but Pension funds continue to be a tax sheltered savings vehicle with tax relief given on contributions.
Many "workers" are now auto enrolled in a pension scheme where their employer also contributes. IHT planning will not have crossed their mind so again they will not be deterred.
No chancellor has ever given a guarantee as to what will be in future budgets.
Your other post is just a bit of a ramble based on your dislike of Labour.
- Status
