Emergency Budget 2010

[StuartHopkin]

Is it just me or does today budget not fill you with the greatest confidence.

Giving people in the basic tax bracket £200 a year? Is this going to make much of a difference to anyone, especially when VAT goes up to 20%? Its like saying heres £200 ready for when your yearly expenses go up at least double that.

National insurance rise to take the £200 benefit from most people and purposefully moving the higher rate tax band to avoid high earners gaining.

Corporation tax reduced but you cant get it out as they target the EBIT and EFRBS schemes.

Increasing everyones insurance bills by 1%

Its obviously going to raise money, and it seems like the cuts in spending are in the right places. Just seems theres is a lot that cancels out other changes and they could have made it a lot clearer for most people.

[erse]

Giving people in the basic tax bracket £200 a year? Is this going to make much of a difference to anyone, especially when VAT goes up to 20%? Its like saying heres £200 ready for when your yearly expenses go up at least double that.

Probably no good for money in back pockets, but it's intended to save the govt some money as people were claiming family credits/other claims while still paying tax.

It'll take some people out of that loop. Sounds sensible.

[Jon MW]

Giving people in the basic tax bracket £200 a year? Is this going to make much of a difference to anyone, especially when VAT goes up to 20%? Its like saying heres £200 ready for when your yearly expenses go up at least double that.

Probably no good for money in back pockets, but it's intended to save the govt some money as people were claiming family credits/other claims while still paying tax.

It'll take some people out of that loop. Sounds sensible.

I don't think the yearly expenses would be at least double that because of the VAT rise

How much VATable goods would someone in the basic tax bracket realistically get through in a year?

Generally I just agreed with your post, that's why there's nothing more substantial

[StuartHopkin]

You might be right. Obv need to spend 16k to suffer a £400 rise in your VAT.

I was just thinking out loud and interested on what people thought and who was interested.

[Jon MW]

Politically I saw an interesting result for the budget.

In the local news they had the Labour council leader saying how terrible it was and how it would all end in disaster - particularly for the town.

Then they took a vox pop and pretty much every answer was - it's bad, but we know it has to be done, and we know we'd have got the same with Labour.


Not exactly scientific, but definitely interesting.

[Delboy]

Hardly fair and equitable though is it?

Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise.
I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job

[Acidmouse]

mainly ex bankers and virtually all from the same schools ofcourse they not gonna hit the wealthy.

Welcome to Tory world.

[Delboy]

"Please meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

[thetank]

Then they took a vox pop and pretty much every answer was - it's bad, but we know it has to be done, and we know we'd have got the same with Labour.

I'm 100% sure they weren't showing you the Scottishvox pop by mistake.

[pleno1]

"pensions to go up with wage increases" ermmmmmmmm you just stalled them for 2 years buddy.

[Jon MW]

Hardly fair and equitable though is it?

Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise.
I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job

Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference.

The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid.

[mondatoo]

I know there's a new bunch of idiots in charge but it seems a bit mad to put the VAT rate down then back to normal then up to 20% within 6 months.

[boldie]

Hardly fair and equitable though is it?

Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise.
I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job

Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference.

The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid.

The obvious question is though, What would you do if you were in charge? every government measure is bound to be a bit more biased against the ones on a lower income as they are more dependent on Govt support in one way or another.

I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. Now all they need to do is scrap child tax credits and child benefits all together for anyone say earning more than £25k and those long term unemployed and I'll be a happy camper.

[Jon MW]

...
I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. ...

I've seen a few more people in the street being interviewed and, apart from the public workers they ask, this seems to be the prevailing view.

Which is really weird because you really don't expect the general public to be quite so pragmatic.

Maybe it's an indication that the government (aided by the media) fully established the expectation that this was going to be bad and it's definitely going to hurt, but we have to do it

[StuartHopkin]

Hardly fair and equitable though is it?

Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise.
I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job

Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference.

The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid.

The obvious question is though, What would you do if you were in charge? every government measure is bound to be a bit more biased against the ones on a lower income as they are more dependent on Govt support in one way or another.

I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. Now all they need to do is scrap child tax credits and child benefits including maternity pay all together.

Until you can afford to support yourself you shouldnt be aloud one.