Budget

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Mar 2012, 13:52

A few sensibly populist moves for those who believe in the current paradigm.

Who amongst us think the OBR forecast of 3% growth for 2015 and 2016 will come to pass?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Mar 2012, 14:46

I do approve of the 7% and 15% stamp duty for mansion sales, though.

Pity all those enterprise-related breaks (films, drugs etc) didn't extend to the energy conservation and renewables sectors.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 21 Mar 2012, 15:28

I think Osborne's budget speech has upset this guy. Try counting the expletives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpnxLhZM ... ature=plcp

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 21 Mar 2012, 15:56

Aurora wrote:I think Osborne's budget speech has upset this guy. Try counting the expletives.

55

He has a point but I'm sure he needn't shout though.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 21 Mar 2012, 16:01

biffvernon wrote:A few sensibly populist moves for those who believe in the current paradigm.

Who amongst us think the OBR forecast of 3% growth for 2015 and 2016 will come to pass?

I reckon there's a fair to middling chance.

Past 2016 however, if we haven't got off oil in a sufficient manner I reckon we (speaking of back home not where I currently am) will be up shit creek.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 22 Mar 2012, 07:03

Cartoon courtesy of the Independent - 22/03/12

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 22 Mar 2012, 08:51

Is he that Knob ranty shouty man, ex crappy lecturer in some unknown subject at an ex swimming pool turned university? Now taxi driving and dribbling voice of the people?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 22 Mar 2012, 08:52

Same old same old

Apparently, in order to incentivise the rich to be more competitive, they need more money. Whereas, everyone else needs less money in order to be incentivised. Funny that, isn't it.

Expect more of the same as times get tougher

woodpecker · Post by **woodpecker** » 22 Mar 2012, 09:52

I'm no fan of this or any other government.

At least he came down hard on the stamp duty idiots. Having to pay 300% of what they were trying to evade is not a bad outcome. Serves them right. Plus a new higher rate too for properties £2m+.

And at least also they are it appears sticking to the promise of bringing up the personal allowance to a sensible figure. Previous governments have been so totally mean on this, so there's been a lot of ground to make up. If the allowance is at a sensible level, I don't then see a problem with everyone including pensioners getting that same personal allowance.

I think the simpler the tax system is, the better. Less room for expensive accountants to find fiddles for wealthy clients.

And credit to them for actually doing a proper assessment of how much difference to tax income the difference in tax rate made. Governments should be basing decisions on evidence, but it rarely happens.

They also look as if they're going to be getting rid of all that pension credit nonsense. The worst idea Gordon Brown ever had, forcing poor older people to apply for means-tested benefit because the state pension is inadequate, and creating a mammoth and highly expensive administration to run it all. Again, a simple one pension for all, that's at a reasonable level, and is cheaper to administer, makes more sense.

The trouble is Steve, taxing the rich to the hilt does not bring in as much as taxing the poor and the middle. There are not enough of them to make those big differences to government tax income. They should of course be paying as much as anyone else. But if you imposes taxes that raise next to no money but just piss people off, that's fairly pointless.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 22 Mar 2012, 09:57

woodpecker wrote:And credit to them for actually doing a proper assessment of how much difference to tax income the difference in tax rate made. Governments should be basing decisions on evidence, but it rarely happens.

They didn't - see Faisal Islam.

None of this uncertainty suggests it is right or wrong to cut the 50p. It’s just almost impossible to discern from the existing data. It might have been that this year’s data, a full, far less distorted year of 50p might have yielded considerably more tax. It was in a way strangled at birth.

Actually it really was nobbled from the start by the fact that it was pre-announced by Labour with a year to forestall income. In some ways it was set up to fail. Many economists will argue that it was always going to. We’ll never know.

Peter.

woodpecker · Post by **woodpecker** » 22 Mar 2012, 10:35

Yes, it was pre-announced by Labour. But all taxes do have to be pre-announced, don't they? You can't avoid telling people how they will be taxed. Unless you're a dictatorship.

So if people are going to arrange their affairs if it's pre-announced, they are always going to arrange their affairs thus. You are not going to get the tax.

It's rather pointless thinking 'well in theory we could have got x taxation, but people knew about the new tax so we only got y, but we could have got x if they hadn't know about it'. Because in the real world, they would never have not known about it, so you would never have got x.

They are going to move employment income into dividends, or whatever. So unless you change the law on dividends, and tax them more than income from employment (which will have all kinds of other repercussions e.g. on little old ladies living on state pension and some shares in British Gas).

You are where you are, not where you might have been in a universe that doesn't exist.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 22 Mar 2012, 10:48

Woodpecker
New Taxes are usualy announced the day before.
The 50p rate was announced months in advance I think

However Steve is still blindingly wrong, people would have still changed their affairs, as soon as they found out.

Just out of curiosity, whats the view on here of a flat tax, 35% over everything over £20k?

Post by **clv101** » 22 Mar 2012, 11:40

DominicJ wrote:Just out of curiosity, whats the view on here of a flat tax, 35% over everything over £20k?

Would that raise the same amount as today's system? If so, then given that it would raise less from the very wealthy it must be raising more from the not so wealthy. Do we want a system that transfers money form the middle earners to the very wealthy and those earning under £20k?

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 22 Mar 2012, 13:16

It seems to me, that given that the income distribution of a modern society is a curve with a very long tail, it is possible to have progressive income tax (where the rate of taxation increases with income) without significantly affecting the incentives to make substantially more money. After all, the first million only feels so good. 2 or 3 million just doesn't seem that big a goal. If you really want to get ahead in the millionaire's club nothing less than 10 million will do. Then 100 million, then you really want to be admitted to the billionaire's club... it is not how much you get, but how many times more than your neighbours that you get that counts.

If the tax man takes 50 or 70 percent of whatever you can't squirrel away, you really won't care as long as long as your yacht is bigger than your neighbour's.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 22 Mar 2012, 13:46

clv101 wrote:
DominicJ wrote:Just out of curiosity, whats the view on here of a flat tax, 35% over everything over £20k?
Would that raise the same amount as today's system? If so, then given that it would raise less from the very wealthy it must be raising more from the not so wealthy. Do we want a system that transfers money form the middle earners to the very wealthy and those earning under £20k?

Adam Smith would not have liked it.

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

PowerSwitch

Budget

Budget

Re: Budget