Budget 2016: what do you think?

The Government are absolutly wrong to send any monies to foreign countries, they are robbing the uk people, this money is paid in by the people of the UK to benefit the uk not other often corrupt countries just so some smart ars politition can get credit for pulling the wool over the eyes of the UK people to say look what i’ve done taken from the mugs of the uk again.

I entirely agree, Joseph, there are more billionaires in India than any where else in the world. W hy should we subsidise any other country when we have people in this country depending on food banks.

I agree with this comment charity begins at home the government need to get their act together and only give were it is needed. The government need to realize that it is the tax payers money they are dealing with and not their own???

I agree, but only in regard to the monies being spent on interfering in the way peoples in other countries choose to live their lives and the way they choose to change the way their lives are being affected by the Government(s) they, the citizens, are under the power of. The UK Government would do better to negotiate access to the assets of other Countries instead of trying to grab them by force.

you are absolutely right, June!
“aid to Africa” is criticised by the Africans themselves.Working in Nigeria a while back, I was left in no doubt about this, They said it was demeaning,patronizing, and politically manipulative. (Blatant interference in their politics) When I had some free time I paid to go for long drives in the country to Aba, Onitsha, Enugu, Badagri, Abeokuta and etc and I saw NOBODY starving! My drivers were very chatty and pointed out many times overseas aid was just “neo colonialism” at work with money being taken from poor people in “rich” countries by lefty “do gooders” – modern Mrs Jellabies, if you like – to be handed out to rich people in “poor,starving,Africa” . (Coming from Murtila Mohammed airport one day on the way into Lagos, the driver said “do you know how much money Ibrahim Babangida is worth? I said I didn’t. “He is worth 25 billion!
I said “25 billion nairas?” The driver replied “No, I mean dollars!”)
There is a Zambian economist, Dambisa Moyo you should find out about, she had a run in with both Bob Geldof and Bill Gates and out argued both of them! She maintains that food aid especially just puts African farmers out of business!

I am not disappointed by the decision not to increase road fuel duty – in rural areas this is of vital assistance to people who have no alternative form of transport. It also helps small businesses to keep their costs down and I think the economy will be no worse off in the long run.

Every time there was a rise in fuel duty and prices the local authorities in rural areas were pressed to raise the maximum permitted taxi fares. Keeping the duty at the same level removes this threat.

How do I sign your petition?

This comment was removed at the request of the user

And CGT doesn’t apply only to residential property but to most assets that appreciate so this really is a golden give-away and could potentially enrich lots of people. Presumably, and I haven’t heard or read this part of the Budget speech, the thinking is that if gains are relieved of high taxes it will improve the liquidity of capital and generate more worthwhile investment. It might, or then again it might not – it’s a bit of an experiment.

From what I heard on the news today, there is no planned “cut in the money for the disabled”, indeed total expenditure is forecast to rise, but the redistribution of the money through the PIP asessment process will leave significant numbers worse off although other recipients deemed more needy, and people with new entitlements, will be better off. Ever since the Community Charge [poll tax], Conservative governments have always come a cropper on how to allocate welfare resources and, in their desire to improve equitability and rationality, always manage to leave a needy group exposed and deprived. The Spare Room Subsidy [“bedroom tax”] was another classic example. I blame the civil service really – they should spot these pitfalls at an early stage and steer the government away from them. The minor amount of money involved is usually out of all proportion to the distress and outrage caused, and the dogmatic intransigence when they apprehend their blunder only serves to compound the hurt. Whether we like it or not, we have to recognise that certain state benefits have become untouchable; years ago galloping inflation could be used to quietly smooth away these ‘anomalies’ but the government being saddled today with minimal inflation levels needs to develop a more sophisticated and sensitive way of managing these aspects. The theory behind it is sound in a philosophical sense but its practical application is crude and uncaring. It is bad politics to leave detriment and can usually be avoided.

T Burgess – The politicians certainly have to take responsibility for creating this points-based Personal Independence Payments scheme which was undoubtedly developed in the Department of Work & Pensions under Ian Duncan-Smith’s direction. In principle I can see some merit in it, but they probably did not explain it properly to, or consult on it with, the representatives of disabled people in order to understand the consequences of introducing such a formulaic method of determining benefit payments. Thinking up things like this is what the DWP does and is there for. My criticism of the civil service is that when the scheme was wheeled round to the Treasury for implementation under the 2016 Budget somebody should have analysed it a lot more carefully and noticed that the Chancellor would be walking into a mire if he pushed it forward in the raw and detrimental state in which it had been prepared. Perhaps the mandarins were so fixated technically on achieving their fiscal and budgetary objectives that they could not see the human side of the measure.

A few hours later . . .

The back-tracking has already started and I cannot see this proposal proceeding now. The education secretary has apparently described it as merely “a suggestion” which is disingenuous to say the least. This was indeed a very well worked-out policy that was delivered as part of the Budget and ministers were publicly defending it during the rest of Budget day.

Malcolm you have written that post like one has to pay 40% of one’s entire earnings in tax once over the 40% threshold. . i.e. if your earn 50K you will pay 20k in tax. . .
This is not the case
One has to make around 11k before one pays tax
Then one pays tax of around 20% on earnings between 11k odd to the 40% threshold
Then anything above the 40% threshold attracts the 40% levi not the entire earnings

DeeKay, sorry -not meant to read like that. I assumed most would understand my meaning – that when you earn more than the threshold – £43000 – you will only get 60% of the extra (instead of 80%), forgetting NI.

Can you remember “supertax” at 19/6d in the £1?

I think pension tax relief has been missed – but maybe that will follow in the next budget. I am in favour of a single rate of 20% relief for all on their pension contributions, up to a cap. It will not stop people contributing more if they wish to and can afford to ; just they will be saving from taxed earnings like the rest of us for something that will be of future benefit to them.

Yes, but you are not taking into account that civil servants pay is much less than the private sector.

Avril, it may have been once, but not any more. rosaltmann.com/public_sector_pensions.htm
If this is to be believed, the reverse is true. Some “rebalancing” called for perhaps.

I think the disparity in public service pay is a myth, Avril.

Public sector administrative and professional workers in the middle and lower grades are usually on higher salary scales and more favourable conditions of service than equivalent private sector staff, plus they usually get annual increments as well as an annual pay award, and their pension schemes are heavily subsidised by employer contributions charged to local or national taxation. Moreover they are on national pay scales which generally pay the same across the nation ignoring regional variations found in private sector pay with the exception of staff in London and certain metropolitan areas who actually get a top-up, or ‘weighting’. The thirty-five hour week is normal across the public service and any extra time is generously compensated at enhanced rates. Their pension is based on the best of their last three years at a high ratio based on years of service and is index-linked t inflation with death grant, survivor benefits and other enhancements. Redundancy schemes in the public sector generally out-class those in the private sector and all these schemes are completely copper-bottomed with a perpetual guarantee and no risk of default or underfulfilment, the costs being secured against the public purse. One rarely hears any public sector workers complaining about their package [junior doctors excepted who probably do have a legitimate grievance about the way they are being treated if not about their remuneration].

I think that plan is in the bin now, Ian; it won’t see the light of day in this Parliament.

I read more about the details of the measure today and it really was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think the CGT changes might come under the microscope now more than they would have done and the Treasury will want to get something back for its humiliation. Their fiscal benefit was dubious and they mainly served a political purpose.

The pity here is that all we see is the headlines – like “disabled benefits cut”. One commentator pointed out that the current points system has a drawback that was being addressed. It seems one objective was to ensure that if a disability caused a continuing financial problem then an appropriate benefit was paid to compensate. However, if a capital item were purchased – an appliance for example – that overcame that problem the current system still pays an ongoing benefit even though the financial problem was no more. So this anomaly was being removed. That seems fair to me. Now it may be that any sensible reforms will be lost.

What I find continually frustrating is that instead of running the country our politicians indulge in childish acts and point scoring. No more so than here.

If you were contracted out you would have been paying reduced NI contributions.

Pat – Are you saying you don’t have a works pension? If you do have one it might put you in a better financial position than just having the state retirement pension. Maybe you were not told that you were paying your state pension contributions at the contracted-out rate, or perhaps you did not realise what that would mean when you reached retirement age.

With the state pension scheme there is no direct link between the amount paid in and the pension paid out in later life; its the contribution record that counts and it would seem that you have a full contribution record, albeit at the contracted-out rate, so you should be getting the maximum state pension that your circumstances allow.

If you are not receiving your occupational pension you should chase that up as a matter of urgency.