So what are peoples thoughts and any potential impact on yourself

[Sachakins]

Well, a few hours to digest it, what have we got in a nutshell...
A lot of smoke and mirrors, a fair dose of magic manipulation of rules to allow greater borrowing AND the biggest rise in TAXATION this century.

The £25 Billion rise in NI is eye-watering. And the fakery that its on EMPLOYER not employee is just a semantics argument, hidden in the phrase "... no change in your payslip NI..."

Just because it's not shown on your wages does not mean its not an increase.
An employee wage cost to a company is not just your payslip payments. Simply your annual salary of say, £20,000 to you is actually £23,000 to the company when you include the new NI employer rate.

So in actuality your annual gross salary is £23,000, you just don't see it in your payslips. (I've ignored other things like employer pension contributions etc for simplicity)

So when a company costs a project it uses your total salary cost, £23,000 to evaluate project profitability and other costs. If its no longer viable then no project and no job.

How she believes this won't affect the jobs market beggers belief, it will stiffle recruitment at best and cause job losses at worst.

 

[Housey210]

WTF are you on about, it's not 'stolen'.
Let's be clear; When you put money into a pension scheme you get tax relief, firstly on the input payments and on interest earned throughout it's life.
At retirement you can get 25% of the total accrued back tax free. Is that fair ?
You can then either buy an annuity to provide income or leave it to take as required as drawdown. That's taxable income.
Until this budget, if there's a surplus on your death it becomes part of your estate that's tax free, is that fair ?
From now on that might be subject to inheritance tax dependant on the size of your estate.

The change is just a way to get (very rich) people to stop using pension pots as tax avoidance tools. Use them for retirement income, which is what they're meant to be, and nothing changes.

yep. they like the tax relief but not paying it. Many just have these soley as passing on to kids to avoid the tax. A loop hole plugged hopefully, though personally I would like to see their pension pots sucked dry by care home fees as afterall many claim its for their old age. £1800 pw care home fees near me. More than £23k savings then self funded I was told when looking after my elderly mum, no help whatsover, bought everything from hoist to nappies. Cuts cuts cuts to social care help. Pure evil.

 

[mudman]

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?

You really are a ****.

 

[Robbo3]

And you couldn't put budget in the title so we don't have to waste our time reading this crap.
It's fait accompli. You can't do anything about it.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I’m not APMI qualified but I too was a trustee of several pension schemes for twenty years, a couple of years short of you. It all, if memory serves started with Robert Maxwell and ended in a tax grab of the pension schemes leading to reduced pensions for everyone and the death of final salary schemes and a reliance on contribution based schemes that are no where near as generous if trying to buy an annuity.

The golden age of the final salary scheme was probably 1970-1980s. This typically provided for an inflation proofed pension at age 60 or 65.

In 1982 the average life expectancy of a male age 65 was 13.0 years. By 2005 this had grown to 17.0 years. In 2024 life expectancy is 18.6 years - an increase in the pension obligation of 43%.

That both the private sector and more recently government have sought to change pension arrangements due to the funding challenges is no surprise.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Well, a few hours to digest it, what have we got in a nutshell...
A lot of smoke and mirrors, a fair dose of magic manipulation of rules to allow greater borrowing AND the biggest rise in TAXATION this century.

The £25 Billion rise in NI is eye-watering. And the fakery that its on EMPLOYER not employee is just a semantics argument, hidden in the phrase "... no change in your payslip NI..."

Just because it's not shown on your wages does not mean its not an increase.
An employee wage cost to a company is not just your payslip payments. Simply your annual salary of say, £20,000 to you is actually £23,000 to the company when you include the new NI employer rate.

So in actuality your annual gross salary is £23,000, you just don't see it in your payslips. (I've ignored other things like employer pension contributions etc for simplicity)

So when a company costs a project it uses your total salary cost, £23,000 to evaluate project profitability and other costs. If its no longer viable then no project and no job.

How she believes this won't affect the jobs market beggers belief, it will stiffle recruitment at best and cause job losses at worst.

It will not be without consequences - it could affect jobs, investment, prices (inflation), or profit.

The only question is which, by how much and when - there is no simple answer.

 

[Ozi]

That's because they're going to implement pay-per-mile instead. You wait.

Sounds fair, the more you use the more you pay.

 

[niemeyjt]

Well, a few hours to digest it, what have we got in a nutshell...
A lot of smoke and mirrors, a fair dose of magic manipulation of rules to allow greater borrowing AND the biggest rise in TAXATION this century.

The £25 Billion rise in NI is eye-watering. And the fakery that its on EMPLOYER not employee is just a semantics argument, hidden in the phrase "... no change in your payslip NI..."

Just because it's not shown on your wages does not mean its not an increase.
An employee wage cost to a company is not just your payslip payments. Simply your annual salary of say, £20,000 to you is actually £23,000 to the company when you include the new NI employer rate.

So in actuality your annual gross salary is £23,000, you just don't see it in your payslips. (I've ignored other things like employer pension contributions etc for simplicity)

So when a company costs a project it uses your total salary cost, £23,000 to evaluate project profitability and other costs. If its no longer viable then no project and no job.

How she believes this won't affect the jobs market beggers belief, it will stiffle recruitment at best and cause job losses at worst.

Just to build on this - don't forget for the hundreds of thousands of "ordinary workers" who are freelancers hit by IR35, this is something that will go straight out of their payslips.

As has always been said - Dogs bark, Cats meow and Labour increases taxes.

The only consolation is that if history is anything to go by, this will be a one term government - followed by several parliaments in opposition. We must just hope the damage they cause is not irreparable.

 

[Chris152]

View attachment 191545So what is this threshold ?

From the same source:

"If you give away your home to your children (including adopted, foster or stepchildren) or grandchildren your threshold can increase to £500,000.

If you’re married or in a civil partnership and your estate is worth less than your threshold, any unused threshold can be added to your partner’s threshold when you die."

 

[woodieallen]

Sounds fair, the more you use the more you pay.

And if you live rural? Where it’s a 30 mile or more round trip to the supermarket and no public transport. I see you live in Rugby and so guess it’s a case of “I’m alright, Jack”

 

[woodieallen]

Overall very pleased with the budget. It’s such a relief to have grown-ups running the country…….INTO THE GROUND

 

[TRITON]

We keep following the same deal

Tories are corrupt, to their very core. Have been, always will be.
they devastate the economy and cut or completely remove public services.

It gets so bad that the public then vote in labour.
Labour needs to make hard choices to get it all back on track. This means taxation.

After a bit the public, get fed up with the taxation, but are forgetting that public services are back to normal, they have taken them for granted and forgotten what it was like without them.
So they vote the tories back in again and around we go.

The NHS will be fixed by labour. Homes will be built and the general public will have a good standard of living. But it will take time and we're just going to have to suck it up

The tories invest in people who donate to the tories
Labour invest in the population.

Take one billion pounds.
The tories would give 1000 millionaires 1000000 each and they would bank that money offshore
Labour would give 1000000 people 1000 pounds, and they would spend it in our economy

So who is better for our economy. the millionaires or the public.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

As has always been said - Dogs bark, Cats meow and Labour increases taxes.

Do you think that is a "fair" assessment of this particular budget?
I'd say not.
The reality of the situation is that Tory have left an extremely bad Public Finance situation. Anyone with eyes can see this to be true. How else would you propose we fix our Public Finances?

 

[Scruples]

WTF are you on about, it's not 'stolen'.
Let's be clear; When you put money into a pension scheme you get tax relief, firstly on the input payments and on interest earned throughout it's life.
At retirement you can get 25% of the total accrued back tax free. Is that fair ?
You can then either buy an annuity to provide income or leave it to take as required as drawdown. That's taxable income.
Until this budget, if there's a surplus on your death it becomes part of your estate that's tax free, is that fair ?
From now on that might be subject to inheritance tax dependant on the size of your estate.

The change is just a way to get (very rich) people to stop using pension pots as tax avoidance tools. Use them for retirement income, which is what they're meant to be, and nothing changes.

I agree. I've had a pension pot which I've accrued over a lot or years from an employer's pension scheme. I decided that, since this money was extra to my income. I'd use it as a small monthly pension and the rest as retirement drawdown money. The fund has already accrued, over the last 30 years, more than the original pension pot. I've used the money to do some global travel, build my shed and stock it with tools and look after my childrens' needs. And the value of the fund continues to rise.

It matters not what happens now. I've already have the value. And life goes on...
I did read, though, that it's better not to leave your assetts to your kids but putting it into a trust fund with conditions, since if your kids divorce (and that's about a 50% chance thesee days), your in-law kids get a half of the inheritance, so that's a half of your money gone...I'm going to do some serious research on that.

 

[selectortone]

Amusing to read all the bleating from people with more money to live on than they need, wailing that they'll get taxed after they die. Wish I was in that position.

Yes, it's nice to have some grownups in charge of the finances again.

 

[Jacob]

It seems you are not much of a man. You can't apologise for saying stupid and callous things about innocent people who will lose their jobs and trot out the usual tax tropes. As I said, shame on you Jacob.

Throughout these threads the unwoke have consistently repeated the idea that being on benefits is a lifestyle choice and nobody's fault but their own.
Were your mates an exception to this rule, or were they slackers and should they have tried harder? Voluntary wage cuts? Longer hours?
You haven't answered my first question:
"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."

 

[RobinBHM]

Yes more money is being thrown at the NHS, a good businessman will tell you that no amount of money can fix a failed business. The NHS needs reforming from ground up so that the majority of the staff are medical and not paper pushers. The one thing that would help and will require funding is an IT system that works across all NHS trust and removes the need for those trolleys full of files being wheeled around and makes all data easily accessible between departments.

The NHS has rather lower management / clinical staff ratio than other leading health systems.

Well, a few hours to digest it, what have we got in a nutshell...
A lot of smoke and mirrors, a fair dose of magic manipulation of rules to allow greater borrowing AND the biggest rise in TAXATION this century.

The £25 Billion rise in NI is eye-watering. And the fakery that its on EMPLOYER not employee is just a semantics argument, hidden in the phrase "... no change in your payslip NI..."

Just because it's not shown on your wages does not mean its not an increase.
An employee wage cost to a company is not just your payslip payments. Simply your annual salary of say, £20,000 to you is actually £23,000 to the company when you include the new NI employer rate.

So in actuality your annual gross salary is £23,000, you just don't see it in your payslips. (I've ignored other things like employer pension contributions etc for simplicity)

So when a company costs a project it uses your total salary cost, £23,000 to evaluate project profitability and other costs. If its no longer viable then no project and no job.

How she believes this won't affect the jobs market beggers belief, it will stiffle recruitment at best and cause job losses at worst.

did you complain about the last Tory govt that put £80b of tax rises in place?

I guess you didn’t complain about Jeremy Hunt cutting NI, which was totally unfunded and was a deliberate trap leading to Labour having to promise not to cut taxes in their manifesto to avoid the right wing media screaming about it daily.

Oh and Tories left NHS with 8 million NHS waiting list, how do you expect to sort that out without money?

 

[deema]

Throughout these threads the unwoke have consistently repeated the idea that being on benefits is a lifestyle choice and nobody's fault but their own.
Were your mates an exception to this rule, or were they slackers and should they have tried harder? Voluntary wage cuts? Longer hours?
You haven't answered my first question:
"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."

Just read the OBS report on the budget, everyone will be worse off with this budget, the economy will shrink over the next five years, real wages will reduce. Spending power will decline. Yep, a real budget for the working man. The main hit is going to be in the working and lower middle classes. If that’s Woke fiscal policy, well I’m so glad I would feel it an insult to be called woke.

 

[Spectric]

The NHS isn't a business. It's a service that has has increasing demands on it along with increasing expectations of what it can or should do, without the funding to allow it to grow to meet those demands.

You have probably highlighted the problem, it is run as a service with very little thought on being efficient or cost effective. This was an issue for many nationlised industries back in the day where they consumed vast amounts of money to deliver because people just thought the cash was infinite. The NHS needs to be reformed, then you might find it easier to recruit and retain staff.

 

[Jacob]

Yes more money is being thrown at the NHS, a good businessman will tell you that no amount of money can fix a failed business.

The NHS is not a business, it's a non-profit making public service. If on the other hand a monetary value was to be put on public health the NHS could only be seen as astronomically profitable and worth every penny.
This is the fundamental weakness of the naive neoliberal economic theories - that things they can't put a price on have no value.

The NHS needs reforming from ground up so that the majority of the staff are medical and not paper pushers.

Basically needs money, for all the usual reasons.

The one thing that would help and will require funding is an IT system that works across all NHS trust and removes the need for those trolleys full of files being wheeled around and makes all data easily accessible between departments.

Dunno haven't they been trying for years and wasting money on failed IT projects? https://www.panorama-consulting.com/nhs-it-system-failure/
It's too easy to dream up panaceas, but in fact the NHS works pretty well and far better than many e.g. USA public health system. Suffered from under investment under the tories of course, but all the moaning about failure and inefficiency is just wishful thinking from the right. It's not true.