Still not convinced this is all adding up….. but difficult to say at this point
Beeb are saying that the reduction in employer NI threshold raises £25 billion. (It's 15% on another £4000 of pay, so that's about £600 per worker, which is a hefty slice of the amount needed.)
True, but there’s a lot of heavy lifting in the small print, it feels to me. I may be wrong…
For Tesco that's about £200m in NI just for that plus the increase in Employer's NI. Anyone who thinks this won't hit business investment and pay growth is kidding themselves. Two of the most reliable ways to increase GDP - business investment and real terms pay rises - are now off the table for at least 3-4 years while business recover the money elsewhere in the P&L.
Ah! But it’ll be the business’ fault, not the government’s. That’s the calculation anyway. Grossly political but then we are now well versed in grossly political budgets.
The government will definitely get the blame when unemployment starts to go up. The bigger issue here is that this hurts hiring at the bottom of the pay scale where the extra £600 is a much larger proportion of the overall package so it's lower skilled workers who will now end up on the dole or live without pay rises for 3-4 years.
There will be a lot of companies where expanding beyond say 3 employees no longer makes any sense...
This was already a huge issue in the UK compared to other leading nations. We are absolutely dominated by the two ends of the extreme, massive multi-national employers and micro-businesses with a handful of employees.
We have very few independent companies that employ 100s / 1000s of people and its really bad for the balance of the economy, the ability to service worldwide markets etc.
Still not convinced this is all adding up….. but difficult to say at this point
Beeb are saying that the reduction in employer NI threshold raises £25 billion. (It's 15% on another £4000 of pay, so that's about £600 per worker, which is a hefty slice of the amount needed.)
True, but there’s a lot of heavy lifting in the small print, it feels to me. I may be wrong…
For Tesco that's about £200m in NI just for that plus the increase in Employer's NI. Anyone who thinks this won't hit business investment and pay growth is kidding themselves. Two of the most reliable ways to increase GDP - business investment and real terms pay rises - are now off the table for at least 3-4 years while business recover the money elsewhere in the P&L.
With respect to the likes of Tesco, its about time that they pay more and get subsidised less.
Yeah, lots of people have been calling for big business to be less subsidised by the state. Some of those people are complaining now.
And over a million micro and small businesses benefit from the increase in employment allowance so will be paying less to employ people.
Big business vs small business, which side should they be on?
This is a terrible budget for business. The cost of employing someone is going to become a lot higher, it's a lot easier to replace a person making widgets with an automated widget machine, a person doing knowledge work in an office much less. This is a bad budget for jobs, a bad budget for businesses that rely on knowledge workers.
CGT up to 24%. Right on the threshold where I will have some big decisions to make in the new year. At 25%, rebasing myself in a country with 0% CGT would save me more per year over 5 years than my current yearly income from working. If I do decide to stay in the UK, I'll probably make half the disposals I originally planned to, so it will reduce the amount of tax I was planning to pay. More broadly I can imagine a lot more startups and entrepreneurs making the move to Dubai et al.
VAT on private schools will make nothing like the Chancellor imagines. Figures plucked from thin air.
Decision to not raise fuel duty a huge surprise. Obviously it would be very inflationary (even if you don't drive, your shopping arrives at Tescos etc by truck) Presumably she's also aware that this could lead to protests at the pumps again and would be deeply unpopular.
Non-dom regime axed. Non-doms have been fleeing for months now, again, I don't think this will raise as much as she expects.
Very poor growth projections. And I suspect the anti-business elements of the budget will make things worse.
Overall I'm not sure the numbers add up here. Expecting the Chancellor to come looking for more money in the next year or two.
Still not convinced this is all adding up….. but difficult to say at this point
Beeb are saying that the reduction in employer NI threshold raises £25 billion. (It's 15% on another £4000 of pay, so that's about £600 per worker, which is a hefty slice of the amount needed.)
True, but there’s a lot of heavy lifting in the small print, it feels to me. I may be wrong…
For Tesco that's about £200m in NI just for that plus the increase in Employer's NI. Anyone who thinks this won't hit business investment and pay growth is kidding themselves. Two of the most reliable ways to increase GDP - business investment and real terms pay rises - are now off the table for at least 3-4 years while business recover the money elsewhere in the P&L.
With respect to the likes of Tesco, its about time that they pay more and get subsidised less.
Maybe, but this will only serve to hurt the actual employees who will have to live with 3-4 years of no pay growth and it also means that without the pay growth lower paid employees will still need in working benefit top ups.
We are definitely going to be seeing more jobs fall into the minimum wage trap...
Still not convinced this is all adding up….. but difficult to say at this point
Beeb are saying that the reduction in employer NI threshold raises £25 billion. (It's 15% on another £4000 of pay, so that's about £600 per worker, which is a hefty slice of the amount needed.)
True, but there’s a lot of heavy lifting in the small print, it feels to me. I may be wrong…
For Tesco that's about £200m in NI just for that plus the increase in Employer's NI. Anyone who thinks this won't hit business investment and pay growth is kidding themselves. Two of the most reliable ways to increase GDP - business investment and real terms pay rises - are now off the table for at least 3-4 years while business recover the money elsewhere in the P&L.
With respect to the likes of Tesco, its about time that they pay more and get subsidised less.
Indeed.
The minimum wage increases have reduced this but until a few years ago there was a peverse incentive to offer people no more than 16 hours a week.
May suit some but meant frequently the poorest workers in society were having to work 2 or 3 jobs.
Another Quango that will deliver little apart from nice salaries for those who are employed by it.
What will they achieve that has not been looked at? Seriously? Have the police NOT looked at what has happened (or is someone else's role?)
It is all just performative. It is unlikely to achieve anything.
SFO remit, but IIRC were given a much smaller investigation budget than they asked for... Probably a smaller budget than was spent on trying to obstruct curious journalists / GLP from seeing details of the covid contracts
I don't know what she means by unlocking the potential of Cambridge. The whole of greater Cambridge is a bloody building site already.
I hope she's referring to things like East-West Rail. Although that's usually promoted as being 'unlocking the potential of the Oxford to Cambridge corridor."
Still not convinced this is all adding up….. but difficult to say at this point
Beeb are saying that the reduction in employer NI threshold raises £25 billion. (It's 15% on another £4000 of pay, so that's about £600 per worker, which is a hefty slice of the amount needed.)
True, but there’s a lot of heavy lifting in the small print, it feels to me. I may be wrong…
For Tesco that's about £200m in NI just for that plus the increase in Employer's NI. Anyone who thinks this won't hit business investment and pay growth is kidding themselves. Two of the most reliable ways to increase GDP - business investment and real terms pay rises - are now off the table for at least 3-4 years while business recover the money elsewhere in the P&L.
With respect to the likes of Tesco, its about time that they pay more and get subsidised less.
Indeed.
The minimum wage increases have reduced this but until a few years ago there was a peverse incentive to offer people no more than 16 hours a week.
May suit some but meant frequently the poorest workers in society were having to work 2 or 3 jobs.
The drop to 5k threshold probably a response to that 16 hour a week economy.
Don't worry, drivers will pay for it with Pay-Per-Mile in a couple of years...
A good way to kill their political chances with anyone not living in a metropolitan centre.
Fuel duty is going to bring in less and less in not all that long with EVs, so unless you ramp up tax on electricity (with all the side-effects that brings), then road charging is the only sensible way to replace it. But that runs into the problem of simplicity v fairness. You'd also need a comprehensive and effective monitoring network to process all the fees. But it could, in principle, be done.
I don't know what she means by unlocking the potential of Cambridge. The whole of greater Cambridge is a bloody building site already.
I hope she's referring to things like East-West Rail. Although that's usually promoted as being 'unlocking the potential of the Oxford to Cambridge corridor."
Yes, but Oxford's a dump.
Quite gracious to give them a corridor out, really.
There's a lot of retail politics around the edges, but I'm not hearing a significant change in the direction of travel.
I'm just out of court and heading back but there is certainly an element of rebalancing to the extent that these tax increases should set the deficit on a lower trajectory. Some of the assumptions about the additional money raised look pretty heroic though.
Other than that I am seeing a lot of changes but not much of an overarching narrative.
The question for the opposition parties, particularly the conservatives, is: how much of this do they opportunistically oppose - and what do they hold their nose over.
Risks and benefits to both strategies.
Cameron managed to get the tories back into power using the second strategy, but I sense the former strategy is the one the right will go for.
That’s if they’re thinking of strategy at all.
They can do one and then the other, they have time on their side.
Still not convinced this is all adding up….. but difficult to say at this point
Beeb are saying that the reduction in employer NI threshold raises £25 billion. (It's 15% on another £4000 of pay, so that's about £600 per worker, which is a hefty slice of the amount needed.)
True, but there’s a lot of heavy lifting in the small print, it feels to me. I may be wrong…
For Tesco that's about £200m in NI just for that plus the increase in Employer's NI. Anyone who thinks this won't hit business investment and pay growth is kidding themselves. Two of the most reliable ways to increase GDP - business investment and real terms pay rises - are now off the table for at least 3-4 years while business recover the money elsewhere in the P&L.
I am sure we were told the government was uniquely focused upon growth, growth, growth....
Still not convinced this is all adding up….. but difficult to say at this point
Beeb are saying that the reduction in employer NI threshold raises £25 billion. (It's 15% on another £4000 of pay, so that's about £600 per worker, which is a hefty slice of the amount needed.)
True, but there’s a lot of heavy lifting in the small print, it feels to me. I may be wrong…
For Tesco that's about £200m in NI just for that plus the increase in Employer's NI. Anyone who thinks this won't hit business investment and pay growth is kidding themselves. Two of the most reliable ways to increase GDP - business investment and real terms pay rises - are now off the table for at least 3-4 years while business recover the money elsewhere in the P&L.
With respect to the likes of Tesco, its about time that they pay more and get subsidised less.
Indeed.
The minimum wage increases have reduced this but until a few years ago there was a peverse incentive to offer people no more than 16 hours a week.
May suit some but meant frequently the poorest workers in society were having to work 2 or 3 jobs.
The drop to 5k threshold probably a response to that 16 hour a week economy.
But the 16h per week economy exists because of tax credits eligibility. It's specifically due to the government, not companies who really don't care if they have two people working 16 hours or one person doing 32h.
I don't know what she means by unlocking the potential of Cambridge. The whole of greater Cambridge is a bloody building site already.
I hope she's referring to things like East-West Rail. Although that's usually promoted as being 'unlocking the potential of the Oxford to Cambridge corridor."
I was selfishly hoping that East-West rail would be dumped as it's going to result in another half decade of building noise outside my flat and the proposed station for St Neots is actually out in the middle of nowhere so won't be very convenient for me anyway.
Birmingham tram extension gets funding. Anything for Nottingham, Manchester metros etc?
Nothing for North East transport either.
She announced that she is to fund the electrification of Church Fenton to York - which is already funded and underway. And various other existing live being delivered schemes.
Would you have been happier had she announced funding of rail services to Ashington in a similar vein...?
Still not convinced this is all adding up….. but difficult to say at this point
Beeb are saying that the reduction in employer NI threshold raises £25 billion. (It's 15% on another £4000 of pay, so that's about £600 per worker, which is a hefty slice of the amount needed.)
True, but there’s a lot of heavy lifting in the small print, it feels to me. I may be wrong…
For Tesco that's about £200m in NI just for that plus the increase in Employer's NI. Anyone who thinks this won't hit business investment and pay growth is kidding themselves. Two of the most reliable ways to increase GDP - business investment and real terms pay rises - are now off the table for at least 3-4 years while business recover the money elsewhere in the P&L.
With respect to the likes of Tesco, its about time that they pay more and get subsidised less.
Indeed.
The minimum wage increases have reduced this but until a few years ago there was a peverse incentive to offer people no more than 16 hours a week.
May suit some but meant frequently the poorest workers in society were having to work 2 or 3 jobs.
The drop to 5k threshold probably a response to that 16 hour a week economy.
I'm not an employer - can someone explain the NI changes including the threshold thing please?
Not seen anything I was particularly worried about happen yet, the inevitable pain ain't too bad. I'd imagine others will be feeling the same way. The months of daily mail fear mongering is going to backfire probably.
Don't worry, drivers will pay for it with Pay-Per-Mile in a couple of years...
A good way to kill their political chances with anyone not living in a metropolitan centre.
Fuel duty is going to bring in less and less in not all that long with EVs, so unless you ramp up tax on electricity (with all the side-effects that brings), then road charging is the only sensible way to replace it. But that runs into the problem of simplicity v fairness. You'd also need a comprehensive and effective monitoring network to process all the fees. But it could, in principle, be done.
Drivers have been the golden goose that were fleeced but that should come to an end now.
For drivers who need to pay commercial rates to recharge vehicles its not remotely plausible or reasonable to do that and pay road fees too.
Birmingham tram extension gets funding. Anything for Nottingham, Manchester metros etc?
Nothing for North East transport either.
She announced that she is to fund the electrification of Church Fenton to York - which is already funded and underway. And various other existing live being delivered schemes.
Would you have been happier had she announced funding of rail services to Ashington in a similar vein...?
Did she really? In which case, this is very much a government doing politics in the manner of the old.
Still not convinced this is all adding up….. but difficult to say at this point
Beeb are saying that the reduction in employer NI threshold raises £25 billion. (It's 15% on another £4000 of pay, so that's about £600 per worker, which is a hefty slice of the amount needed.)
True, but there’s a lot of heavy lifting in the small print, it feels to me. I may be wrong…
For Tesco that's about £200m in NI just for that plus the increase in Employer's NI. Anyone who thinks this won't hit business investment and pay growth is kidding themselves. Two of the most reliable ways to increase GDP - business investment and real terms pay rises - are now off the table for at least 3-4 years while business recover the money elsewhere in the P&L.
With respect to the likes of Tesco, its about time that they pay more and get subsidised less.
Indeed.
The minimum wage increases have reduced this but until a few years ago there was a peverse incentive to offer people no more than 16 hours a week.
May suit some but meant frequently the poorest workers in society were having to work 2 or 3 jobs.
The drop to 5k threshold probably a response to that 16 hour a week economy.
But the 16h per week economy exists because of tax credits eligibility. It's specifically due to the government, not companies who really don't care if they have two people working 16 hours or one person doing 32h.
16 hrs @ min wage is almost exactly the point at which employers national insurance starts.
So no or minimal employers for 2 x 16 hrs whereas it is paid on one person doing 32 hours.
Still not convinced this is all adding up….. but difficult to say at this point
Beeb are saying that the reduction in employer NI threshold raises £25 billion. (It's 15% on another £4000 of pay, so that's about £600 per worker, which is a hefty slice of the amount needed.)
True, but there’s a lot of heavy lifting in the small print, it feels to me. I may be wrong…
For Tesco that's about £200m in NI just for that plus the increase in Employer's NI. Anyone who thinks this won't hit business investment and pay growth is kidding themselves. Two of the most reliable ways to increase GDP - business investment and real terms pay rises - are now off the table for at least 3-4 years while business recover the money elsewhere in the P&L.
With respect to the likes of Tesco, its about time that they pay more and get subsidised less.
Indeed.
The minimum wage increases have reduced this but until a few years ago there was a peverse incentive to offer people no more than 16 hours a week.
May suit some but meant frequently the poorest workers in society were having to work 2 or 3 jobs.
The drop to 5k threshold probably a response to that 16 hour a week economy.
But the 16h per week economy exists because of tax credits eligibility. It's specifically due to the government, not companies who really don't care if they have two people working 16 hours or one person doing 32h.
16 hrs @ min wage is almost exactly the point at which employers national insurance starts.
So no or minimal employers for 2 x 16 hrs whereas it is paid on one person doing 32 hours.
VAT on private schools from 1st Jan 2025 confirmed and to remove business rate relief
Bitch
I’ve flagged this. Just totally unnecessary language.
Totally necessary. She is a bitch.
And you are a sad fuckwit.
Grow up, incel
Have more sex than you'll have in a million years mate, you sad Lefty twat
The funny thing about this forum is that you tend imagine the posters look like their human avatars. I used to think you looked like the side of a cow but now you're a moustachioed sex god.
As previously discussed, I used to think Casino looked like a very stylised map of the US
I, myself, do indeed sport a strawberry-blonde bob cut and a three-starred shield-shaped full-face mask.
Birmingham tram extension gets funding. Anything for Nottingham, Manchester metros etc?
Nothing for North East transport either.
She announced that she is to fund the electrification of Church Fenton to York - which is already funded and underway. And various other existing live being delivered schemes.
Would you have been happier had she announced funding of rail services to Ashington in a similar vein...?
Electrifying Church Fenton to York is completely pointless unless the programme is continued through to Leeds (at least), now that HS2(Yorks) has been binned.
So, Labour are gambling that an increase in health spending will improve the NHS enough to win the next election. That's the play. Pretty much that absorbs all the money raised by the NI increase.
Everything else is fiddling at the margins, more borrowing to pay for infrastructure investment, but I'm not sure if it's enough. It's not convinced the OBR to improve the growth forecasts - looks like the opposite.
The decision to commit to spending money on compensation near the beginning feels like a welcome clearing of the decks compared to deferring decisions under the previous government.
Big picture - no fundamental change in course for Britain, but, fingers crossed, the health service will be better.
Don't worry, drivers will pay for it with Pay-Per-Mile in a couple of years...
A good way to kill their political chances with anyone not living in a metropolitan centre.
Fuel duty is going to bring in less and less in not all that long with EVs, so unless you ramp up tax on electricity (with all the side-effects that brings), then road charging is the only sensible way to replace it. But that runs into the problem of simplicity v fairness. You'd also need a comprehensive and effective monitoring network to process all the fees. But it could, in principle, be done.
Surely the simplest way would be some combination of mileage at MOT time and address of registered keeper.
The big one was the bringing in pension funds to IHT. Massive.
This will not affect public sector workers with DB schemes.
So the balance once more from private sector to public.
Details to come but thoughts include:
What about inheritance by spouse?
At what rate - 40%?!
Death below age 75 too?
What about tax on withdrawals*?
* people think that unexhausted pension funds can pass down tax free. This is not true - IHT free yes but withdrawals are taxed at withdrawer's marginal rate of income tax as earned income (assuming deceased was over 75 on death). If these unexhausted funds are to be brought into the estate for IHT calculation, does this mean no further tax on withdrawals by the beneficiaries. Or will the fund be taxed twice?
Very impressed with Rachel Reeves even disregarding the content
Yep. It was a sound performance, but the devil is always in the detail. Not too much sounding awful to me.
The cut in employees NI followed by the rise in Employers NI is like a compulsory payrise for everyone at their employers expense when looked at overall.
I don't know what she means by unlocking the potential of Cambridge. The whole of greater Cambridge is a bloody building site already.
I hope she's referring to things like East-West Rail. Although that's usually promoted as being 'unlocking the potential of the Oxford to Cambridge corridor."
I was selfishly hoping that East-West rail would be dumped as it's going to result in another half decade of building noise outside my flat and the proposed station for St Neots is actually out in the middle of nowhere so won't be very convenient for me anyway.
But Cambourne station will be very convenient for me.
I wonder where your flat is... Central Cambridge shouldn't be too affected by EWR AIUI (though I might be wrong, and the plans are still flexible). The first impact further south will be where the four tracks from Shepreth Junction become two, I *think* south of the new Cambridge South station?
"businesses will see their business rates nearly double"
Not extending the discount or better, reforming it. This is really stupid. Its one of the big things that all small businesses and wannabe small businesses complain is a real killer for them. Tax them more on profit, not in just trying to operate.
"On HS2 - the high speed rail project - Reeves says they are committing the funding to begin tunnelling work to London Euston, meaning Old Oak Common in West London and Euston. It was one of the sections of the multi-billion pound rail project that had been scrapped by the Conservative government. Without the link to Euston, people travelling between Birmingham and London would arrive at Old Oak Common and have to take another train to travel into the centre of the capital."
Not a new announcement. The tunnelling to Euston has never been cancelled. It's the station that was delayed/cancelled:
Instant reaction: much more short-termist than I expected.
For a Chancellor at the height of her power and flexibility, a bit depressing. Consider the cost of maintaining the fuel duty freeze and triple lock - that's a huge amount of investment cash foregone. Nothing on council tax.
There is a difficult contrast to be made with bus fares and fuel duty. Together, that's a deeply regressive move.
Don't worry, drivers will pay for it with Pay-Per-Mile in a couple of years...
A good way to kill their political chances with anyone not living in a metropolitan centre.
Fuel duty is going to bring in less and less in not all that long with EVs, so unless you ramp up tax on electricity (with all the side-effects that brings), then road charging is the only sensible way to replace it. But that runs into the problem of simplicity v fairness. You'd also need a comprehensive and effective monitoring network to process all the fees. But it could, in principle, be done.
Surely the simplest way would be some combination of mileage at MOT time and address of registered keeper.
Simplest way is to find the money for general taxation from the general public and not fleece drivers.
Too many here take for grabted the beneftis of off road parking for EVs but millions don't have that. Paying to charge an EV at a public charging point costs more than filling a hybrid with petrol even though the petrol vehicle has fuel duty.
The idea that people should pay that and then road charges on top is preposterous.
Comments
We have very few independent companies that employ 100s / 1000s of people and its really bad for the balance of the economy, the ability to service worldwide markets etc.
And over a million micro and small businesses benefit from the increase in employment allowance so will be paying less to employ people.
Big business vs small business, which side should they be on?
This is a terrible budget for business. The cost of employing someone is going to become a lot higher, it's a lot easier to replace a person making widgets with an automated widget machine, a person doing knowledge work in an office much less. This is a bad budget for jobs, a bad budget for businesses that rely on knowledge workers.
CGT up to 24%. Right on the threshold where I will have some big decisions to make in the new year. At 25%, rebasing myself in a country with 0% CGT would save me more per year over 5 years than my current yearly income from working. If I do decide to stay in the UK, I'll probably make half the disposals I originally planned to, so it will reduce the amount of tax I was planning to pay. More broadly I can imagine a lot more startups and entrepreneurs making the move to Dubai et al.
VAT on private schools will make nothing like the Chancellor imagines. Figures plucked from thin air.
Decision to not raise fuel duty a huge surprise. Obviously it would be very inflationary (even if you don't drive, your shopping arrives at Tescos etc by truck) Presumably she's also aware that this could lead to protests at the pumps again and would be deeply unpopular.
Non-dom regime axed. Non-doms have been fleeing for months now, again, I don't think this will raise as much as she expects.
Very poor growth projections. And I suspect the anti-business elements of the budget will make things worse.
Overall I'm not sure the numbers add up here. Expecting the Chancellor to come looking for more money in the next year or two.
Great stuff from Rachel
The minimum wage increases have reduced this but until a few years ago there was a peverse incentive to offer people no more than 16 hours a week.
May suit some but meant frequently the poorest workers in society were having to work 2 or 3 jobs.
Probably a smaller budget than was spent on trying to obstruct curious journalists / GLP from seeing details of the covid contracts
Waves from Abu Dhabi.
I come here to be entertained more than anything, and it made me laugh. 😂
Quite gracious to give them a corridor out, really.
Nothing for the East Midlands, yet. Unless I blinked.
Other than that I am seeing a lot of changes but not much of an overarching narrative.
There's a lot of retail politics here.
And no changes to Council Tax - missed opportunity.
Risks and benefits to both strategies.
Cameron managed to get the tories back into power using the second strategy, but I sense the former strategy is the one the right will go for.
That’s if they’re thinking of strategy at all.
They can do one and then the other, they have time on their side.
10yr Gilts flat, btw.
BBC.
That’s right. Good stuff.
Leamside seems to be the solution to about 8 different problems so I can see why it's not being progressed at the moment...
Would you have been happier had she announced funding of rail services to Ashington in a similar vein...?
All that extra borrowing is getting spent, i mean "invested" fast.
Naughty. That's an extra 0.5%-1% per annum over CPI.
For drivers who need to pay commercial rates to recharge vehicles its not remotely plausible or reasonable to do that and pay road fees too.
Starmer said his number 1 priority is to raise growth.
And in this very first budget the growth foreacsts have been reduced.
So no or minimal employers for 2 x 16 hrs whereas it is paid on one person doing 32 hours.
From April it's 8 hours at minimum wage...
I, myself, do indeed sport a strawberry-blonde bob cut and a three-starred shield-shaped full-face mask.
Everything else is fiddling at the margins, more borrowing to pay for infrastructure investment, but I'm not sure if it's enough. It's not convinced the OBR to improve the growth forecasts - looks like the opposite.
The decision to commit to spending money on compensation near the beginning feels like a welcome clearing of the decks compared to deferring decisions under the previous government.
Big picture - no fundamental change in course for Britain, but, fingers crossed, the health service will be better.
This budget is only marginally less scary...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cp9zrg128get?post=asset:6130a566-4da8-4d43-a113-5db3819a84ba#post
This will not affect public sector workers with DB schemes.
So the balance once more from private sector to public.
Details to come but thoughts include:
What about inheritance by spouse?
At what rate - 40%?!
Death below age 75 too?
What about tax on withdrawals*?
* people think that unexhausted pension funds can pass down tax free. This is not true - IHT free yes but withdrawals are taxed at withdrawer's marginal rate of income tax as earned income (assuming deceased was over 75 on death).
If these unexhausted funds are to be brought into the estate for IHT calculation, does this mean no further tax on withdrawals by the beneficiaries. Or will the fund be taxed twice?
The cut in employees NI followed by the rise in Employers NI is like a compulsory payrise for everyone at their employers expense when looked at overall.
Savings: Maintain subscription limits at current levels for Adult ISAs, Junior ISAs and Child Trust Funds from 6 April 2025 to 5 April 2030
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/672156834da1c0d41942a8c9/Impact_on_households.pdf
I wonder where your flat is... Central Cambridge shouldn't be too affected by EWR AIUI (though I might be wrong, and the plans are still flexible). The first impact further south will be where the four tracks from Shepreth Junction become two, I *think* south of the new Cambridge South station?
Not extending the discount or better, reforming it. This is really stupid. Its one of the big things that all small businesses and wannabe small businesses complain is a real killer for them. Tax them more on profit, not in just trying to operate.
It was one of the sections of the multi-billion pound rail project that had been scrapped by the Conservative government.
Without the link to Euston, people travelling between Birmingham and London would arrive at Old Oak Common and have to take another train to travel into the centre of the capital."
Not a new announcement. The tunnelling to Euston has never been cancelled. It's the station that was delayed/cancelled:
https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/tunnels/tunnel-drives/euston-tunnel/
For a Chancellor at the height of her power and flexibility, a bit depressing. Consider the cost of maintaining the fuel duty freeze and triple lock - that's a huge amount of investment cash foregone. Nothing on council tax.
There is a difficult contrast to be made with bus fares and fuel duty. Together, that's a deeply regressive move.
Too many here take for grabted the beneftis of off road parking for EVs but millions don't have that. Paying to charge an EV at a public charging point costs more than filling a hybrid with petrol even though the petrol vehicle has fuel duty.
The idea that people should pay that and then road charges on top is preposterous.