Budget 2024

[Chris in London]

Silly post, I know it's what the country voted for as did I. You need to grow up. Its called a debate, if you are unable to contribute, perhaps it's wise you don't.

Touched a nerve?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

No mate

Asylum seekers are all given £1000 upon arrival and put up in swanky hotels whilst "our own" are left on the streets, they then get given a house and live a life of luxury for the rest of days.

And every benefit claimer is screwing the system, as everyones mates sister has 4 kids, gets 50k a year and they have smartphones, flatscreen tvs and go abroad on holidays

Illegal asylum will cost the UK economy £6.4 billion this year. That's not a small sum. The Torries were unable to control it, let's see how the new Government does?

 

[Blue Maverick]

absolute bollocks. i assume you have not been paying into a pension for over 35 years. Do you realise that death in service benefits are included in this. So if your house is worth the same as IHT your death in service life insurance is taxed to fuck as well as your pension, see below

Position from 6 April 2027​

2.4. The value of Jas’s lump sum death benefit will be included within her estate immediately before death for Inheritance Tax. Jas’s estate, for Inheritance Tax purposes, will be valued at £600,000 and the Inheritance Tax liability will be £110,000. (£600,000 - £325,000 nil rate band = £275,000. Inheritance Tax charged at 40% = £110,000). The PSA would be liable to pay Inheritance Tax of £36,667 from the lump sum death benefit before paying this to her son. The PR would be liable for Inheritance Tax of £73,333

Technical consultation - Inheritance Tax on pensions: liability, reporting and payment

www.gov.uk

And its the pension schemes who have to pay the IHT and are liable for late payment, who do you think pays for that, the policyholders. The pension schemes will have to invest significant amounts to administer these payments too, again funded by those who pay into a private pension.(not public sector as that will be covered by increases in your council tax)

ok if you pay £80 into your pension you get £20 tax relief. In 30 years that £100 is worth £200. If it is subject to IHT that's £80 IHT to pay. So the government make £60 profit but you took the risk.

On one hand they want you to save for retirement and look after your family and on the other they want to take the lot with a death tax! I think I might get to the stage where I sell up and blow the lot in Vegas.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I think you missed the bit where she helped small businesses by raising the small business relief from £5k to £10k. So the Ni increase won't be felt by small businesses. Middle and large business like mine will be hit but they can take the hit as they're by definition more robust and profitable. It's a balance act with large businesses increase the NI too much and they'll reduce the employees to compensate. This 15% level seems about right.

I've no idea why you've brought up Corbyn he didn't even get in power to set a budget. Personally, I liked him but ultimately he's wasnt prime minister material.

That small business relief you mention will only affect a small percentage of small businesses as I uunderstand it. And will be most accounts be offset by the larger tax take and not helped by the additional red tape that the new Government have brought in, which disproportionately affects small businesses imo.

I brought up Corbyn and his tax plans, as I found it interesting that the scale of yesterday's tax and spending rises were not that dissimilar to his, but its fair to say his were roundly rejected by the electorate at the ballot box. Its also fair to say Reeves and Starmer have were not entirely open about theirs before the election. They only had tax rises of £8.5b in their manifesto, but that's politicians for you!

I'm not against the scale of yesterday's tax rises perse, there have certainly been a lot of good things announced by the Government since they took power and also in yesterdays budget and I feel it's right to try a different approach to generate growth. But I do feel strongly that too much tax burden has been put on SMEs and the biggest companies have got off yet agaiin virtually scot free from not paying their fair share.

I think we can all agree, the economy has largely stagnated in the last 17 years. We had excellent growth under New Labour up until the crash of 2007/2008. Since then it has been a roller coaster at times, but has not really grown overall until the last couple of years where it seems to have hopefully turned a corner somewhat.

The new government will be judged on how they sustain and expand those early signs of growth. I am just not convinced that the tax weighting across all business's was the right way. I hope I'm wrong, but it will be a challenge for Reeves and a fine balancing act. It's clearly not easy growing an established western economy , you only have to look at the likes of Germany , Japan and France who have all struggled in recent years.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Think it was a pretty measured and necessary budget. Anyone who think the Tories weren’t going to put taxes up isn’t living on planet earth.

 

[hampshireblue]

On one hand they want you to save for retirement and look after your family and on the other they want to take the lot with a death tax! I think I might get to the stage where I sell up and blow the lot in Vegas.

And this is the key. Many people are simply using their pension, on which they have received tax relief, to leave to future generations. The less well off don't do this because they actually use the pension to live on(what it's designed for) whilst those better off are able to hand it down to be put back into the economy, who knows when.

 

[Brewster's millions]

The public and private sectors do not exist in self-contained bubbles. They are interlinked. You invest in the public sector you are also benefitting the private sector. Infrastructure, health, education - all benefit the private sector. Starving the public sector has harmed the economy. Failing to invest through borrowing when interest rates were at an historic low was the triumph of blind Conservative political dogma over common sense.

From Johnson’s ‘Fuck business’ and Truss crashing the economy, a year or so of Tories and their supporters ‘shutting the fuck up’ would be greatly appreciated.

I don’t think it’s particularly informative to state that the private and public sectors are interlinked, given that one of the largest tax grabs in history was announced yesterday and the official fiscal forecaster is stating that private sector investment will be crowded out as a result.

Along with higher inflation, higher interest rates, lower growth and an extra £35bn in funding costs, based on extremely conservative assumptions.

It’s also frankly laughable, ludicrous in fact, to suggest that the public sector has been starved of funding when government spending was already running at an abnormally high share of GDP. Throwing many more billions at the NHS hasn’t worked previously, so I fail to see why this time will be any different.

Finally, if you don’t want to read different opinions on the Budget, then it’s perhaps best not to engage in a thread where people offer up different opinions on the Budget.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

And this is the key. Many people are simply using their pension, on which they have received tax relief, to leave to future generations. The less well off don't do this because they actually use the pension to live on(what it's designed for) whilst those better off are able to hand it down to be put back into the economy, who knows when.

OK, if we accept your argument , would it not be fairer to have the IHT at the same rate as that which was given the relief on when placed in the pension?

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Have Interest rates gone through the roof this morning? Is the Country in financial turmoil? Have the financial markets gone into free fall ?


Nope ...... thought not.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

He's got a point, people were encouraged to save into a pension and would benefit from saving 20% tax , and now they could be paying 40% tax on the money saved. It's a a bit of a snide trick.

Reeves and Starmer are were not honest about these tax rises. They consistently stated that they had no plans to raise more than £8.5b in the manifesto. It's a shame as I was hoping they would be different to the last lot. But they will be judged on these policies and the growth or otherwise they generate.

People were encouraged to invest in a pension to provide for their old age, not as an investment tax avoidance vehicle to pass on.