UK Budget 2007

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

This is far from the snoozefest predicted.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/budget2007

Cuts in basic rate income tax and corporation tax.

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:25 (nineteen years ago)

when's the next election?

― koogs, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:30 (nineteen years ago)

That, my friend, is now a very interesting question.

Do you think GB will go for a snap autumn election, quick mandate for 5 more years of Labour?

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:31 (nineteen years ago)

Check this choice quote from the BBC's comment section on the budget:

The 4x4 tax has hit me hard. I have a Discovery because I have four young children. What else am I supposed to put them in? Don't tell me a people carrier as I want my children to survive an accident if they're ever unfortunate to be in one. I fear many drivers will now break rules and squeeze kids into the backs of cars or put them in the front with an airbag. Well done Mr Brown, their blood is on your hands.

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:38 (nineteen years ago)

BUY YR KIDS BICYCLES.

― Grandpont Genie, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:40 (nineteen years ago)

Don't worry Ed, that was just me.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

What really fucks me off about 4x4 drivers going on about the safety of their children is the fact that they are actually part of the dwindling resources/ pollution/ climate change problem that will really screw their children as adults.

― Anna, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:43 (nineteen years ago)

I'll stuff a lemon up your exhaust pipe.

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

Also only safer for the children inside, not any outside or in other vehicles.

(I was xposting to MC) above

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:45 (nineteen years ago)

Where's the stamp tax thing, I don't see that - I only see the inheritance threshold going up with the median houseprice.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

i like that 22p->20p basic tax cut thing too.

― emsk, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:49 (nineteen years ago)

I thought there was a general rebalancing flagged up somewhere but all I can find is stuff about zero stamp duty on zer emission homes.

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:49 (nineteen years ago)

Funnily enough Suzy said the same thing to me at the last FAP. I told her that unfortunately it didn't float my boat (Ed xpost).

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:50 (nineteen years ago)

Those BBC Have Your Say comments are extremely depressing. Obv I'm not a big fan of New Labour but I'm not looking forward to them being replaced by Tories :(

― Colonel Poo, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:54 (nineteen years ago)

No, that's all we can find - the zero carbon homes thing. That's a bit rub - raising the threshold on interhitance tax, but not on stamp duty. Country Life will be happy though - though GB is public enemy number one around those parts.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:54 (nineteen years ago)

hold on, he's scrapping the 10p income tax threshold? does this mean 0 income tax up to the current 22p level or everyone currently on 10p will now be paying 20p?

― CarsmileSteve, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:00 (nineteen years ago)

Not sure.

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:01 (nineteen years ago)

[Removed Illegal Link]

― CarsmileSteve, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:01 (nineteen years ago)

No it appears to be 20p all the way up. from the allowance.

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:01 (nineteen years ago)

sod it.

[Removed Illegal Link]

― CarsmileSteve, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:02 (nineteen years ago)

one more time

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:02 (nineteen years ago)

what am i doing wrong????

arse

― CarsmileSteve, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:03 (nineteen years ago)

i've not been paying attention to this, is it because i was using more than one word in the link?

― CarsmileSteve, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:03 (nineteen years ago)

did you use an apostrophe? those are the killers

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:05 (nineteen years ago)

> i like that 22p->20p basic tax cut thing too.

but that's not until *next* april. jam tomorrow. and they're abolishing marmalade at the same time.

― koogs, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

oh right, that'll be it then.

― CarsmileSteve, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:19 (nineteen years ago)

That was such a Steve Jobs moment. "My budget is great, lotta good stuff in that. But I have one more announcement ...2p cut in tax [everyone go nuts]".

― .stet., Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:08 (nineteen years ago)

Indeed, I thought that watching the news, shame he didn't announce free iPhones on the NHS.

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:10 (nineteen years ago)

That 22p -> 20p thing's a fucker for folk on lower wages due to the abolition of the 10p threshold. Some wanky detached-from-reality pro-nu-Labour dude was on the radio earlier saying it would only affect a few people on lower income working a few hours a week at a low wage, i.e. (and this is where I doubted his grasp on reality) those "only" earning around £14k or so. Fucker. That's a decent fucking wage up here - we're not all on London salaries. The national minimum wage is currently £5.35 per hour. Work 35 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, with no holidays, on that and you aren't even touching £10k.

I think it's only on salaries of around £17k+ that you'll start to see any (minimal) increase in your pay packet. According to the suits, below that you can make it up with tax credits, but basically that's bollocks. Tax credits are a rare fucking beast for yr average low earner.

― ailsa, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:16 (nineteen years ago)

I managed quite happily for years on 15K. I am disappoointed to discover that as it turns out I was incredibly poor all that time.

― Matt, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:41 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, me too. That's why I don't need patronising cnuts on the radio patting me on the head and telling me that's the stuff of the impoverished minority.

― ailsa, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:44 (nineteen years ago)

Still, we can always queue up for tax credits. And possibly some gruel.

― Matt, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:46 (nineteen years ago)

My, Stephen Timms is an odd looking cove.

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:54 (nineteen years ago)

Where are the tax thresholds nowadays?

― Keith, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:03 (nineteen years ago)

On the HMRC website, amongst other places.

Here you go http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm

― ailsa, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:05 (nineteen years ago)

Cheers.

That 10% band hasn't gone up much in line with John Major's plan too much in 15 or so years. Did it not start at 1500 quid?

― Keith, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:07 (nineteen years ago)

I am a gas guzzler. I wonder how much I can save if I stop drinking petrol.

― Keith, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:10 (nineteen years ago)

Budget Calculator

Throw yr numbers at the BBC and they'll tell you how the budget affects your earns:booze affordability.

― onimo, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:17 (nineteen years ago)

earnings*

― onimo, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:18 (nineteen years ago)

I win, but only if I continue to get my wine from france.

― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:18 (nineteen years ago)

I win too, if I lie about my drinking habits :)

― onimo, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

It seems as though I will be better off. I didn't fill in petrol, as it was all to do with driving cars.

― Keith, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:21 (nineteen years ago)

5 quid down. stupid flights!

― toby, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:23 (nineteen years ago)

£36 better off. Funny seeing who earns more than £34k in my office, going by the "top!"s I heard to the moving of the top tax band to £43k.

― .stet., Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:26 (nineteen years ago)

What?

― Keith, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:27 (nineteen years ago)

I mean... Higher rate tax hasn't been moved to 43K has it?

― Keith, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:28 (nineteen years ago)

NI contributions isn't it... That means paying more NI at that rate.

― Keith, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:29 (nineteen years ago)

yes it has, or at least it will be within the next two years.

― ailsa, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:30 (nineteen years ago)

Yeh, the higher rate band is moving to start at £43,000 from April 2009

― .stet., Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:30 (nineteen years ago)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6474997.stm

― ailsa, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 23:31 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 36 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

How hard should they try? I think tax credits have been well publicised. Shouldn't people be able to work out for themselves what they can claim?
I think it's also worth bearing in mind that the lowly paid workers were even more lowly paid before the minimum wage came in.

I've still to hear his justification for lopping off the 10p rate. He was rather proud of introducing it iirc.

― onimo, Thursday, 22 March 2007 10:47 (nineteen years ago)

Labour out

― Tom D., Thursday, 22 March 2007 10:50 (nineteen years ago)

I'd like to take issue with the very first sentence of this thread.

― Noodle Vague, Thursday, 22 March 2007 10:52 (nineteen years ago)

>> You get married persons' allowance!

Wait, there's a married persons' allowance again now? I missed that.

>> AKA robbing from the poor to bribe selfish middle class cunts into voting Labour again?

OTM x1000.

― Colonel Poo, Thursday, 22 March 2007 12:20 (nineteen years ago)

there is no married persons allowance.

― Ed, Thursday, 22 March 2007 12:27 (nineteen years ago)

The justification for getting rid of the 10% rate is that it was a holding measure until they could introduce a framework for targeted tax credits which they say they have now done. I don't have the skillz to have any idea whether this is just self-serving blether or what. Brown has purportedly had all this in mind for years with a further roadmap to come. For all the weak "Stalin" gibes this notion that he has some 15-year plan for the nation seems closest to that mark.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

I thought Norman Lamont introduced the 10p rate.

― Keith, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:25 (nineteen years ago)

.. he would have, for people earning over £100,000 per year, if he could have gotten away with it

― Tom D., Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:30 (nineteen years ago)

Ha! He wasn't in a position to get away with much, right enough.

― Keith, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

> there is no married persons allowance.

there is, but you have to be born before 1935:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxback/info49.htm

"If you are married and either you or your husband or wife were born before 6 April 1935, you can claim Married Couple's Allowance. You can also claim the allowance if either you or your civil partner were born before 6 April 1935."

£72 better off. woot!

― koogs, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:33 (nineteen years ago)

I'm £16.25 better off. But I stil think scarping the lower band is pretty fucking difficult to justify.

― Anna, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

Going by salary alone I am worse off, I obviously get paid too much. According to the BBC calculator there's a band of salary that means you end up paying more, that covers about £9K before you start saving money again once you rise above it.

― Vicky, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

they scrapped the married couples allowance for non-pensioners a MONTH before i got married, the bvggers...

― CarsmileSteve, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:51 (nineteen years ago)

The Beeb has a PriceWaterhouseCoopers thing that says:

Anyone earning between about £17,000 and £40,000 a year will be better off
Those earning less than about £17,000 will lose from the abolition of the 10p tax rate but they should more than claw it back from working tax credit
Those on £43,000 will pay £20 a year more in tax

Under GB, there has been a MASSIVE redistribution of wealth from the quite-but-not-that well off to the quite-but-not-that poor, especially those with children through tax credits and that. This does seem to be giving a little back to that group, so is not that progressive really (although I am 267 quid a year better off - yay!). However, that redistribution (which they haven't really put about) has been HUGE, really BIG and much more significant than anything any previous labour government has ever done. The fact that the people at the very bottom (single people on benefits) haven't done very well and the people at the top are LAUGHING disguises this fact.

Anyway, it's all cobblers to most people. The biggest factor affecting your finances if you are available for work is the health of the economy, and you can't knock it. 10 years of growth, low interest rates and low inflation. It's just become normal, but people don't realise what an achievement that is.

(I vote Green or for whatever hard-left shower can be bothered to put their heads up above the parapet, normally, but if htere's any chance of a Tory victory, damn straight I'm voting Labour next time).

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:51 (nineteen years ago)

the idea of that BBC calculator is a bad one

― RJG, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:52 (nineteen years ago)

"I've made £15 out of this!!"

― RJG, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:53 (nineteen years ago)

The 4x4 tax has hit me hard. I have a Discovery because I have four young children. What else am I supposed to put them in? Don't tell me a people carrier as I want my children to survive an accident if they're ever unfortunate to be in one. I fear many drivers will now break rules and squeeze kids into the backs of cars or put them in the front with an airbag. Well done Mr Brown, their blood is on your hands.

hahaha STOP CRASHING YOUR CAR ALL THE TIME THEN STUPID.

― ken c, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:56 (nineteen years ago)

I fear many drivers will now break rules and squeeze kids into the backs of cars or put them in the front with an airbag

Awwwwwwwwwwww, can't they get a teddy to hold instead of an airbag?

― Tom D., Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:58 (nineteen years ago)

and tax credits, while they have done a lot of good, basically suck. It's too complicated! And take-up is lower than it should be,as noted above. And you get very high rates of marginal tax when people come off them. And they don't work very well for people whose earnings vary a lot, which is exactly the case for people in marginal economic situations.

I can see why he did it that way, to target the help on the neediest, but I'd rather have much higher tax-free allowances that everyone benefits from and then claw the money back by having a higher rate, or by continuing to draw more people into the current higher rate, rather than adjusting it.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 22 March 2007 13:58 (nineteen years ago)

I'm £55 a year better off, but my job is most definitely not. With the drop in the basic rate of tax, Gift Aid isn't going to be worth as much to charities, and there will be fewer higher-rate taxpayers in the pool, so the incentive of a little tax break won't be there for as many people. Last month, the government announced matched funding for *English* universities. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? etc.

― Madchen, Thursday, 22 March 2007 14:08 (nineteen years ago)

Gift Aid isn't going to be worth as much to charities...

Don't worry, charities will be running large chunks of public sector pretty soon anyway

― Tom D., Thursday, 22 March 2007 14:10 (nineteen years ago)

i like that 22p->20p basic tax cut thing too.

AKA robbing from the poor to bribe selfish middle class cunts into voting Labour again?

yeah, i didn't know about chopping the 10p rate when i wrote that :/

i am well confused about this though: Those earning less than about £17,000 will lose from the abolition of the 10p tax rate but they should more than claw it back from working tax credit - as mentioned on another thread my earnings have never topped around £11,500 or so (gross) but i have been paying 22% tax. i thought this was wrong and sent off to the tax whatever to get them to check everything and make sure i was paying the right amount of tax and they said i was. anyone understand wtf was going on? i was on a weekly wage of £220 gross.

― emsk, Thursday, 22 March 2007 14:55 (nineteen years ago)

You get a tax free allowance then pay 10% on a wee drop above that then pay 22% on the rest.

― onimo, Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:06 (nineteen years ago)

An easy yet radical redistribution tax plan, introduce a top rate of 50p in the pound for over 100K and use some of that money to raise the tax free allowance for everyone.

― djmartian, Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

Are you some kind of communist?

― Ed, Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:24 (nineteen years ago)

Lock him up... give him an ASBO at least

― Tom D., Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:25 (nineteen years ago)

No, I vote Liberal Democrat.

― djmartian, Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:25 (nineteen years ago)

Lock him up... give him an ASBO at least

― Tom D., Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

Kill the Liberal!

― Ed, Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

Move house so our children don't have to go to school with his!

― Tom D., Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

£92 better off.

(I just called the tax office - Film Industry Unit in Sunderland where the accents make even the hold message worth listening to - to complain about my reduced tax allowance. Turns out they thought I still had private medical insurance from my last job and were changing my tax code as a result; "Looks like you paid too much tax this year as a result of that as well - we'll sort that out." Bless 'em. I also got them to promise not to spend any of my tax on Trident. Nah, not really.)

― Michael Jones, Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:29 (nineteen years ago)

Nowt wrong with Trident!

http://www.masticationforthenation.com/NR/rdonlyres/6301FA27-5207-4565-84F1-7FBA288D33D9/0/ani_revolutionary_otm.gif

― onimo, Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:31 (nineteen years ago)

omg that ad is sooo eeugh

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

I'm £72 better off, guess there are advantages to quitting the fags and booze.

― leigh, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

quitting fags and booze is worth a lot more money than £72, too!

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

Does DJ Martian have concrete proof that Menzies Campbell is aware of current developments in darkcore, gabbanet and Shoreditch shanty?

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:30 (nineteen years ago)

10 years of growth, low interest rates and low inflation. It's just become normal, but people don't realise what an achievement that is.

Yeah, you're right here. We are living in privileged times in that respect. I asked Tim H recently who the best prime minister of our lifetime was. My conclusion was clearly Tony Blair. Except that Harold Wilson was supercool and smoked a pipe, but that in my lifetime at least, didn't really achieve much. It's something that does get you thinking long and hard.

― Keith, Friday, 23 March 2007 01:20 (nineteen years ago)

Every week I have a wank because growth, low interest rates and low inflation have given me such a bone-on.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 23 March 2007 01:41 (nineteen years ago)

I am confused by all this abolition of 10p rate stuff. Is that BBC tax calculator even right? I was thinking up to 5k-ish was tax-free and then about 5k-7k was taxed at 10% but will now be at 20% along with everything else, but if you type an income in that band into the calculator it still says you'll pay less on income tax. Surely that can't be right?

(Meanwhile I just tried to make myself an Excel spreadsheet of it which I guess I got wrong in the other direction because it puts the new system as worse all the way up. But I got very confused trying to do the formulae so I'm sure that's not right either)

― a passing spacecadet, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:41 (nineteen years ago)

10 years of growth, low interest rates and low inflation.

Inflation/RPI is at a 16 year high.

― onimo, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:49 (nineteen years ago)

i.e, you have to go back 16 years for it to be this high, and it is not that high compared to where it was 20 years ago.

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:46 (nineteen years ago)

It's higher than it has been at any point since Labour came to power and for almost the entire Major administration - the result of ten years of low inflation being a key economic driver. If 10 years of aiming for low inflation results in higher inflation than you inherited surely something isn't right?

― onimo, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:59 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, there are structural problems that are going to bite us in the arse, but the record is pretty good, and there is still time to claw it back.

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

> Is that BBC tax calculator even right? I was thinking up to 5k-ish was tax-free and then about 5k-7k was taxed at 10% but will now be at 20% along with everything else, but if you type an income in that band into the calculator it still says you'll pay less on income tax. Surely that can't be right?

jamie posted from the bbc yesterday:
> Anyone earning between about £17,000 and £40,000 a year will be better off
Those earning less than about £17,000 will lose from the abolition of the 10p tax rate but they should more than claw it back from working tax credit
Those on £43,000 will pay £20 a year more in tax

maybe the guardian factored in the working tax credit thing?

― koogs, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:21 (nineteen years ago)

That's not totally true though, people earning from about £31K - £37K are slightly worse off from next year, to the tune of £57.70 according to the BBC calculator

― Vicky, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

Those on £43,000 will pay £20 a year more in tax

It's a DISGRACE

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

Um, no., Vicky! I'm in that band, and I'm going to be over £70 better off (based purely on income - not counting how much I drink, which is the only thing that affects me.) apparently.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:31 (nineteen years ago)

I'm in the band just below that and I think I'm £200ish better off.

This is prompting me to think about getting off my arse and get my wife's housing benefit forms filled in this weekend. At the moment we're spending almost 50% of our (my) income on rent.

― Colonel Poo, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:34 (nineteen years ago)

Emsk - Onimo's explanation is correct, but I did the sums - on £11.5K you will have paid roughly £1.5k, which means that averaging it out, you have been paying tax at a 13% rate.

In comparison, someone earning £30k would pay roughly 18% if you averaged it out in the same way.

― Mark C, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:45 (nineteen years ago)

X-post I got the band wrong, it's £34,262K - £38,655K

― Vicky, Friday, 23 March 2007 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.