Autumn Statement 2015: what’s in it for you?

Making it easier for Londoners to buy homes, eh? Just what London needs – a more vibrant home buying market…

But the fact that the country has recovered probably has more to do with the fact that London still attracts bankers en masse, and it’s still a fairly secure city in international terms. But in many ways this mini-budget’s reactive: not going after Tax Credits will placate many in his own party whilst encouraging home owning will delight the remainder. Sadly, the really needed changes – a far superior form of public transport system throughout the UK and a move towards nuclear power as a backup until we secure fusion – didn’t even merit an aside.

Agree about NOT ring-fencing 0.7% GDP on Overseas aid, we should not be funding dubious projects or rushing to spend at the end of the financial year. Sometimes we’ll need to give more, but mostly far less.

Do t agree about getting rid if Trident…it’s rolling over to bullies.

S Louise -if only you knew who the bullies really are you only get one point of view in the west. NHS or Trident who pays the 99 % so they should decide not war-mongers, in the cause of Big Business -West losing profit ? Invade and conquer new territory for asset stripping of that country . And when the country is too big to threaten -WW3 just look out your window at the World its kept very quiet in the UK.

1)….. ” … private sector jobs have increased far more than the public sector ones lost, … ”
Please post your source.
2)….. Much of the increase has been in the ”Self employed” sector
ONS…. Self-employed workers in the UK – 2014
* Self-employment higher than at any point over past 40 years
* Rise in total employment since 2008 predominantly among the self-employed
* The number of over 65s who are self-employed has more than doubled in the past 5 years to reach nearly half a million
*** Average income from self-employment fallen by 22% since 2008/09
* Across the European Union the UK has had the third largest percentage rise in self-employment since 2009

Bump

The term ‘Private Sector’ hides a multitude of sins, Malcolm, as I’m sure you know. Increasingly, even small businesses are moving their employees to self employed status, since that dodges their responsibilities under employment law. I’m seeing that happen on a daily basis and, of course, it all appears as ‘new jobs’ on the stats of any right-leaning think tanks – which so many are.

In terms of wave power I agree a lot of investment is needed and whether we’re talking fission or water power it’s still billions. Although I have to say I’ve always wondered why they need to build such big nuclear plants. RR do sell some neat little units that would still power a moderate-size town.

But on the housing question – and especially in London – you’ve hit the nail neatly. Most (if not all) the boom and bust house price cycles have had their origins in the South East. The problem is not addressed simply by making it easier to buy properties in London as that will only serve to exacerbate the issue. Instead, the administration ought to be considering either imposing huge taxes on non-UK citizens wanting to buy houses in London or barring them completely. While they’re at it, they should legislate to prevent any national media from being owned by those who live overseas…

Osborne’s done a U turn on Tax Credits; they’re being left alone.

Very glad to hear that Ian as last I heard they were being removed those in need will be thankful for that at least.

The lead-in article assumed everyone had had time to watch the Autumn Statement or heard or seen the news. It merely said “with . . . changes to the tax credit system scrapped”, yet this was a huge policy reversal.

Yes Patrick I read it now but further down the page I see womens sanitary products are still taxed ,although I signed a petition against it by a UK women,s group ,but its an EU law and not a UK one . As this is something very essential to all women,s heath can somebody give the reasons why its taxed at all ?

”Tampon tax’ donated to good causes
Mr Osborne said that VAT paid on sanitary products could not be abolished due to EU rules but that the £15m raised each year would now be made available for women’s health charities.”
————-
What with the Carrier Bag Tax and now this new tax, it looks like Charities are onto a Hypothecation roll.
A payback for becoming lick-spittles for Tory tricks like :
** Privatization of Local Authority ‘social’ services – undercutting by using volunteers
** Participation in Forced Labour / Workfare, schemes
** Profit oriented HealthWatch = Privatizing the Patients’ NHS complaint support system – Community Health Councils

This not a new tax, but it is a new transfer of the revenue to relevant charitable purposes which in the circumstances seems like a good compromise if the EU will not allow a VAT exemption or nil rate charge.

Do you REALLY believe that if C & O went along, with a suitable # of female supporters, that the EU wouldn’t allow them to remove the Tampon Tax?

First find the Civil Servant who included this tax in legislation
2nd locate the Perm Sec’y who signed it off
3rd grab the Minister who approved it, and the SoS who supported it

Take then ALL to Brussels, lock them in a room with appropriate EU women and leave them there until they’ve negotiated the deal.
Say, 10 minutes?

Don’t blame the EU, blame the chinless wonders in Whitehall who impozed such a discriminatory Tax.

Yes, unfortunately, because of the nature of the EU, I do believe that it would not give way on the liability for 5% VAT on sanitary products, whoever turned up to argue for it. These products have been liable to VAT ever since we joined the EU. The VAT rate was reduced from 17.5% to 5% some years ago and it has taken until now for the UK to do something about using the VAT yield for a relevant purpose.

The list of products that are zero rated, like incontinence products, or exempt from VAT, shows that there is no consistency of treatment. The EU’s argument has always been that sanitary towels and tampons cannot be essentially discriminated from other personal hygiene and health products that are liable to VAT but that is a very specious argument.

This tax bears particularly harshly on women who are past the age of parental support but have no income [like students] or are dependent on benefits. Women have a choice over make-up but not over sanitary requisites.

I also suspect that manufacturers and retailers are making substantial profits out of these necessities.

If we can’t abolish 5% vat on domestic gas and electricity, what hope is there for these sorts of items?

I wouldn’t trust Mr O as far as I could push him with a piece of wet string – I’m waiting for the equivalent of the Budget ”Red Book”.

@ John Ward
”The decision not to reduce tax credits will leave more money in people’s pockets and a large slice will come back in VAT and excise duties.”
MAGIK !
Do you mean
The decision not to reduce tax credits will leave **that** money in people’s pockets and ** the same** slice will come back in VAT and excise duties….. rather than less.
? ?

What I meant was that most people on tax credits were expecting a drop in income. This will not now happen and they will have more to spend than they thought they would. I assumed that a percentage of that would be liable to VAT and excise duties so the nett cost to the Treasury of this U-turn is moderated. It makes virtually no difference overall but the Chancellor’s decision is not the bonanza that is being portrayed.

The Chancellor could have used the better economic position to reduce VAT [for instance] instead of scrapping the tax credit reductions but that would have been very thinly spread and would not have equitably compensated the losers.

Since the intended reduction in tax credits was a major plank in the mission to achieve a “low welfare/high wage economy” this outcome is a huge policy reversal but I don’t think George Osborne has given up on the project. It seems to me to be highly likely that the Chancellor will freeze the tax credit thresholds indefinitely and not raise them in line with inflation or growth in incomes. Since he is also banking on the economy growing and more people moving into work and obtaining higher wages [as is bound to happen if the capital expenditure plans announced recently come to pass], more and more people will move out of tax credits or into higher brackets so he will achieve his objective quietly and almost invisibly.

I think tax credits disappear when, and if, the revised benefits system is introduced.

As the economy grows there is more to spend from taxes. Much of this is a redistribution of wealth, so a good thing. Let us hope the economy does keep on growing. One problem with vat is that it affects everyone. I’d like to see those with the most genuine needs benefited – the same as I feel with the winter fuel allowance.

What I meant was that most people on tax credits were expecting a drop in income. This will not now happen and they will have more to spend than they thought they would.
—————-
Oh, it’s that ‘old’ trick that Mr O has played.
Sentence the prisoner to death
Keep them on death row for a a week or two
Commute the sentence to life

Singing and dancing !
—
”You (not ”you”) can fool ……..
But North of Watford …..
————
The real way to cut *** Working *** Tax Credits is to stop those of us who DO pay our taxes subsidizing the spivs paying non-viable wages so they can:
** line their offshore pockets,
** ramp up house prices by using them as Commodities, not dwellings,
and soon
** assert strip our NHS.

And as for forcing prospective nurses and others in such short supply – high demand areas into massive post training/education, debt ……. ‘planet Zogg ??

+ 1

Coo
Lookie, lookie
Minus 4
And not a word to say why.

Why?
.

Lee check up your basic Human Rights which will become law because of “terrorists ” even Obommer admitted a day or two ago the US is not full of “terrorists ” 10000 UK armed forces deployed to the streets as in the US where Congress changed the US Bill of Rights to allow US military shoot dead US citizens,every US State institution has a storeroom with hollow-point bullets-small hole in -large hole out -dead in one shot /save money exercise. I have a wealth of info on World politics.

+ 1

Not quite in regard to the US. The US has the Posse Comitatus Act which actively prevents the US Army from acting on US soil. I suspect you’re thinking of the National Defense amendment signed by Obama in 2012 but the issue on the legality of what’s permitted under that amendment is far from clear, and will possibly have to be tested in court.

Ian I post on several US radical websites over years spoken to literally 1000,s of US citizens . US troops are already on the ground in the US and have confirmed what I said .The con is -its “terrorist ” ,in reality they are dead scared of American citizens rising up in revolt at the harsh treatment of the poorer ones /working 2 jobs for peanuts / up to their eyes in medical debt -the largest single debt of the 99 % in the US NOT the mortgage / its so bad that the vets welfare has been cut back in both medical and psychiatric care because $trillions of tax dollars go to another country. Infrastructure is crumbling /city council are going bankrupt and still the US dollar printing machine churns out worthless $$$ (in real terms /not backed up with gold ) as well as worthless US government bonds. They dont like it Ian and thats why —its – captain KIrk to Scotty- its gonna be war with the “Klingons ” Scotty fire up the photon torpedoes -aka -nukes .

Are you a Mod, plz?
I have suggested elsewhere that as a new contributor to these columns it would be helpful if ”Official” Mods could identify themselves, and thus differentiate themselves from others who wish they were Mods.
Thank you

Guess what?
I had.
And that’s why I posted that which I posted.
—
Now
Are you going to add what other ”community members” have kindly contributed to that incomplete FAQ list?

And what’s this COMMUNITY guff – this is a commercial enterprize.
Some supermarkets hang out banners announcing things like.
”We’re making improvements to YOUR Store.”
It ain’t, it’s THEIR’s.
The only stores which are even remotely ‘ours’ are Co-ops, and that’s debatable.
This faux ”community-ization” is Cameroon-ish propaganda of the
”We’re all in this together.” kind.
Which can then be used in the context of
”If you’re not with us, then you’re against us.”
And that leads to ………. Salem

Now thats a philosophical comment I can accept Mr Watkins !

Did you send this to No. 11, DeeKay? It would interesting to see the reply.

Hi John, I would’nt know how. Feel free if you wish!!! Its only a lot of heart felt sentiment

Hi John having thought about your post/suggestion I wonder if Ozzy could restrain from using expletives in reply.
Many’s a day I have used many such words to describe the policies and antics

Sound, and short Vid, of hat being thrown in the air.

Ye Haw, ride em cowboy, there’s maybe more to come

+ 1

”I would rather we were in the present position than where we were in 2009-10.”
————
Errrr

WHY, plz ?

One misconception, perhaps, about cuts in welfare spending is that nothing else changes. One factor is that as the country’s economy recovers more people will be on wages that take them out of the need for state welfare – hence a reduction in welfare spending. However what we must ensure is that all those deserving of state help do get it – whether they are working poor, disabled, those who cannot work etc.

It is worth bearing in mind that a single pensioner with no other source of income only gets £7862 a year (including pension credit). The capped benefits of others are, as I understand it, £23000 (£20k ouside London) and are not subject to tax – whereas the state pension is, of course if you reach the threshold of £10 600). I think there is inequity in how we treat pensioners in comparison with others.

I fully agree. When presented as you have done in your second para, Malcolm, the distribution of financial support from taxpayers looks distinctly skewed and it makes me wonder how we managed to get to this position, such that now it cannot even be put into reverse.

It is another misconception that every pensioner gets the £200 winter fuel payment: where there are two pensioners in the same dwelling it is split between them which theoretically seems fair – as it is a heating allowance not an income supplement – but it reinforces the case for abolishing this payment, transferring its value to the benefits system, charging the cost to direct taxation, and ensuring that those who need additional financial support get it while those who don’t need it can forget about it. I received a letter from the DWP yesterday telling me I am about to have £200 slipped into my bank account; that is a cost in itself that could clearly be avoided. If any communication were required at all, I would be prepared to accept an e-mail, and so would most pensioners I expect.

But that could afford yet another opportunity to the spammers.

True, but I would probably not fall for a letter addressed to “Dear respected pensioner”. Obviously there would have to be some tight security controls such as the HMRC have for dealing with on-line tax returns. The strategic solution is to ditch the payment as I and many others here have proposed.

Excellent idea.

It can be entertaining to explain all the injuries you have suffered in the accident to which they refer. You could explain that the accident involved your own fatality and you have had great trouble trying to communicate with someone to claim death benefits. You are very grateful that they have managed to contact you. Where shall we start?

It seems that insurance companies take your word for it that you have suffered whiplash injury, without requiring any proof that it has either happened or that it has caused any real disability. My daughter’s car was run into from behind, but very slowly, and she made a claim for repairs to the bumper. Some while afterwards a solicitors letter arrived encouraging her to claim for whiplash injury for herself and the occupants (two children) pointing out that the other driver had claimed around £2000. She had no injury and made no claim but to many the ease of extracting a couple of thousand pounds must be tempting.

Such claims should be supported with medical evidence. I believe in future they will?

I like your tactic Malcolm. I wil have to try that one sometime.

Another fraudulent type of claim is where someone deliberately causes an accident so they can claim injury damages.

I heard of someone where the car in front braked suddenly in the middle of a roundabout at slow speed for no reason. The cars barely touched but all 4 passengers claimed they were badly hurt and claimed damages

Malcolm your fist para is just magic. I enjoy that type of thing. And yes we are far. far too soft here.

”It can be entertaining to explain all the injuries you have suffered in the accident to which they refer. You could explain that the accident involved your own fatality and you have had great trouble trying to communicate with someone to claim death benefits. You are very grateful that they have managed to contact you. Where shall we start?”
============
ROFL………………RIP…………………….ROFL…………………………….RIP-ROFL………………
Oooops, I think I’ve sprung a leak !

I did once decide to waste a caller’s time when they asked if I had suffered a motor accident. Eventually they lost interest when I told them it was in 1975 and I had made a successful claim against the insurance company of the person who had driven their car out of a side road without giving way. This reminds me that the medical chap who had assessed my injuries, several months later, wanted me to claim that I could no longer play squash (which I had never played in my life) as a result of my injuries. I wonder how much additional compensation I could have gained by making a fraudulent claim. I know others who have similar experiences to ours, Malcolm.

This is long overdue. I believe the Chancellor said that “minor whiplash” claims would no longer be covered by motor-insurance policies. These are almost impossible to prove or disprove as there is little physical evidence. With properly adjusted head restraints and seats belts worn there should be very few minor whiplash injuries caused by low speed impacts. With serious crashes there will be physical evidence and óther indicators of the severity of impact. Unfortunately many people do not adjust their headrests correctly even though this is a legal requirement.

I read that Aviva estimated that UK motorists were collectively charged over £1 billion a year to cover fraudulent claims. The chancellor forecast that there should be a reduction in insurance premiums of £40-50. Anything that disrupts the parasitic claims harvesters is a good thing.

Malcolm – I trust you affect a suitably sepulchral Lurch-type voice when you answer the phone: “You rangggg?”

When that becomes the case, will such calls then be classified as attempted conspiracy; incitement; or some other act of criminality……. hope so.

Somebody tried that with me 2MPH zero damage BUT I called the police they checked out my car couldnt find any damage on it or the other car so they lost their case.

Hi Duncan, I wished afterwards that I had done the same and called the police but everyone was so nice and maybe they were nice but then someone will see an opportunity and advise them.
Now the police dont want to attend unless there’s and injury so what do we do now.
It takes a thief a thief to catch a thief and despite having had several injuries outside of my driving career I never once claimed for anything.
I reckoned I had had the choice of being there or not or had the choice of staying in the job or not so why grump after the milk is spilled.
Even in employment my motto was if you dont like the heat get out of the fire. No one is forcing you to stay and no one was bullying me. It was me who worked too hard. Yes my boss should have known better but I was old enough to have known better and what would it have gained a few bob and another enemy in a man I’d rather remain friends with.
Honour was gone with the wind it seems. Claim, claim, claim.

I can see your point Dee,makes you think of investing in one of those new car cameras that record your driving -forward/back .Now that claims are flying everywhere the companies selling them are doing great business.

We have one about two years. A dirt cheap Fleabay Chinese model Must’ve done about 12k miles by now. There’s a great little red triangle on it and if seen something hit the triangle and it’ll store so many seconds before and after event
Brilliant toy

” … Fleabay Chinese model … ”

I trust it was the Which? Best Buy one ? ?

Josef, Na it was the cheapest thing with bump detect and the red triangle.
I have a camper and there is a well branded reverse camera on the thing. It has had two replacements at 100s of pounds.
I decided to try the nasty and it has been perfect to a tee.
Hate to say it but the cheapy worked fine.
I’m actually getting pretty anti big brand one thing at a time

If someone puts a point Beryl then are you not allowed to reply even if that point is not on topic ? Ve hav vays of making you not talk -sieg heil .Gibberish is in the eye of the beholder I can actually translate gibberish easily and inner meaning comes easily to me. Daleks =irregular thought patterns are not allowed -Exterminate ! -Exterminate !.

Duncan if you were close we could have a beer and I’ll bet there’d be some laughs
Ah we just went off topic

Thank god somebody here understands where I am coming from Dee I am not as evil as some might think. Thanks for that Dee.

In recent years I have been surprised to learn that quite a number of my friends have bought property intending to supplement their income through letting. The most successful couple have turned what was a hobby into a successful business and have built up a team of contractors covering building, plumbing, electrical work, kitchen fitting and gardening. Having stayed in several of their recently refurbished properties for reunions with a group of friends who met at university, I see how much they have achieved through hard work and careful organisation. Others involved with buy-to-let have had less success, but it still seems lucrative. I am not surprised that the government is looking at the sector.

”Providing” one of life’s MOST essential needs – housing – as a Hobby / Amateur pass-time, never mind the neo-Rachmanite Spivs who jumped on the bandwagon as soon as it was a gleam in the Milk Snatcher’s eyes.
One of thatcher’s main supporters in this day-light robbery was Ian Gow MP, who’s son, using Insider Trading Knowledge – still legal then, bought up hectares of council houses in parts of London which were ripe for re-development – he almost rivaled Dame Shirley Porter, Lady Porter, DBE, née Cohen [Tesco heiress] in his alleged dirty dealings over other people’s treasured and loved HOMES.
A genuine gesture from Mr O would be to take the 3% and use it to pay off the debts that near destitute people have run into to stay in their memory filled, and much treasured, homes until the end of their days.
Not houses = HOMES.
Not a commodity = HOMES.
Good idea?

Josef -Maybe you were thinking of the action group I was in contact with in London ,signed petitions etc. It was called =The Sweets Way estate action group kicking out poor council tenants to make way for $1million executive flats-Last tenant a wheel-chair victim evicted 2 months back ,nice one Cameron !

I remember that one too – didn’t a # of ”Celebs” get involved, including Russell Brand (Where’s he gone?) – ‘coz it was in Yer Lunnen, the campaign got lots of news coverage – I think that there was a Tory party connexion somewhere, and the nice Mr Cameroooon kicked a few bottoms, and the Spivs moved away, until afterb the Gen’l election.
The Gow Minor Spivery was way back when the Flogging off of The People’s Housing Heritage was just starting up. When that soon to be jail-bird, born -again-Xtian-Spiv, Aitken was slipping brown envelopes to Council tenants to buy their homes, in their names, but with his name on the deeds.

The profit from buy-to-let seems to be around 5% for many, which is not a lot considering the responsibilities of renting out property – safety checks, landlords insurance and certificates, loss of income from empty properties, damages and repairs and so on. I suspect many smaller landlords (portfolio, not stature) will be looking to make the main gain at some point from the increase in property values. A pretty good earner in the long term.

However, i have to admire people who set up and run successful businesses with the risks involved. On the other hand I think they help to inflate property prices and I would much rather see individuals with sound finances helped to buy their own properties. I think it gives them more stability if they have a property of their own, they are likely to take more care of it and respect their neighbourhood, and make the gain for themselves as property prices inevitably rise. Help to buy schemes should always, in my view, recover an appropriate share of the gain in value if the property is sold to go back into the pot to help others (with our money).

Wavechange you can read up on the implications of new buy-to-let @ the guardian.com – Buying to let – Do new stamp duty taxes mean bye-bye buy to let? – Patrick Collinson – 28 Nov 2015.

Buy to let investors usually make a huge profit when buying as well as when selling. I have recently had a cash offer on my house at way below the market price by a local buy to let investor which I have declined. Buy to let investors who have mortgage loans also could find themselves in trouble when interest rates go up.

I think it’s quite tough on first time buyers who are being outsmarted by investors who have an unfair advantage as they can use the equity as collateral to satisfy mortgage lenders, especially those foreign investors who are buying expensive properties and leaving them unoccupied in the Capital just to cash in on the current low interest rates.

The rental market is under regulated in my area. Landlords are failing to maintain the exterior of their properties and tenants don’t bother with their gardens until the day they move out to ensure return of their large deposits. It’s a lose, lose situation all round affecting owner occupiers who live next to neglectful tenants and if tax increases are the only solution then I welcome the Chancellors move.

beryl, stamp duty for buy to let and second homes appears likely to be 3% above the normal rate. However it also appears likely that certain investors will be exempt – developers that build properties and fund managers. Does anyone know the logic behind this? Other than bringing in more tax revenue I don’t see how it can be expected to restrain the buy-to-let market.

Thanks Beryl. I think it will take more than the increase in stamp duty to stop the expansion of the buy-to-let market but anything that can make life easier for first-time buyers is to be welcomed.

Wavechange rents will have to increase to compensate investors which may price themselves out of the market altogether especially those with mortgages if interest rates go up as well.

Not good news for investors I don’t think, they may start selling off some of their
properties while the market is still buoyant.

”Which? Convo lately seems to have become under siege by some *** highly intelligent *** individuals …”

Phewwwww – that rules me out.