Good clip of Farage answering questions. The arrogant swagger hadn't completely disappeared but he sounded diminished. He also compared himself to Enoch Powell who was apparently saying the same things at the same time. Not the coolest move in my opinion! It didn't feel like he was putting things into context as much as reminding people what very ugly views he holds
Enoch was also going around racially abusing boys at school? That's a new one on me.
Why can’t we have a Brexit benefit? Now we are free of EU competition rules, why can’t we have a 50% reduction in road tax for UK manufactured cars? Encourage people to buy Nissan, Land Rover, Range Rover, Mini, Honda and Toyota as long as they are built here. (More expensive manufacturers are available).
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I suspect that the increase is due to the fact that private school fees are increasing much faster than inflation (thus generating more VAT) as private schools struggle with a tsunami of additional costs as well as falling rolls. I also suspect that the Treasury are underestimating the long term damage as many parents struggle desperately to let kids near the end of their education finish. Many will not be replaced. My kid's former school has had wave after wave of redundancies and assets sales. I don't believe that they are alone. The estimates do not include any provision for the extra costs borne by local authorities for children who have transferred, many of whom have significant SENDs.
Why can’t we have a Brexit benefit? Now we are free of EU competition rules, why can’t we have a 50% reduction in road tax for UK manufactured cars? Encourage people to buy Nissan, Land Rover, Range Rover, Mini, Honda and Toyota as long as they are built here. (More expensive manufacturers are available).
Bit Lexity that. A rare, elusive animal the Lexit.
I can't get over how poor an idea the mileage thing is. SNP will be delighted though - hammers rural Scotland, which happens to also be the part of the UK generating all the electricity that powers these EVs. The leaflets write themselves.
At least C2W wasn't binned. Phew.
Labour never win rural Scotland anyway though, only the SNP, Tories or LDs and maybe now Reform do. The seats that swing between Labour and SNP are the towns, cities and suburbs in the central belt and Reeves announced £850 million extra for Scotland and them
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I suspect that the increase is due to the fact that private school fees are increasing much faster than inflation (thus generating more VAT) as private schools struggle with a tsunami of additional costs as well as falling rolls. I also suspect that the Treasury are underestimating the long term damage as many parents struggle desperately to let kids near the end of their education finish. Many will not be replaced. My kid's former school has had wave after wave of redundancies and assets sales. I don't believe that they are alone. The estimates do not include any provision for the extra costs borne by local authorities for children who have transferred, many of whom have significant SENDs.
The OBR do explain it - they've just linked their revision to the increase in wages, which is simple and defendable I guess. Their main assumption is a reduction in rolls of 5% in the long term - will be interesting to see if demand really is that inelastic.
On SEND - Labour has increased funding by £1 billion south of the border. I don't think there's much to criticise there (though it's never enough).
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I haven't suggested they've "reduced by 98%" - that was you, not me. I said the original forecast of it raising money for the Exchequer was bollocks and always has been.
It excludes the cost of provision in the State sector both from an Opex and extra Capex perspective.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I suspect that the increase is due to the fact that private school fees are increasing much faster than inflation (thus generating more VAT) as private schools struggle with a tsunami of additional costs as well as falling rolls. I also suspect that the Treasury are underestimating the long term damage as many parents struggle desperately to let kids near the end of their education finish. Many will not be replaced. My kid's former school has had wave after wave of redundancies and assets sales. I don't believe that they are alone. The estimates do not include any provision for the extra costs borne by local authorities for children who have transferred, many of whom have significant SENDs.
Yes, a third of my daughter's class left her school this year.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I haven't suggested they've "reduced by 98%" - that was you, not me. I said the original forecast of it raising money for the Exchequer was bollocks and always has been.
It excludes the cost of provision in the State sector both from an Opex and extra Capex perspective.
You're not seriously going to dig in on this? You suggested it had been revised from £1.75 billion to £40 million. I just divided the numbers you came out with.
Why can’t we have a Brexit benefit? Now we are free of EU competition rules, why can’t we have a 50% reduction in road tax for UK manufactured cars? Encourage people to buy Nissan, Land Rover, Range Rover, Mini, Honda and Toyota as long as they are built here. (More expensive manufacturers are available).
I think discriminatory taxes are banned under WTO rules. It's possible bilateral agreements with the EU also ban them.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I suspect that the increase is due to the fact that private school fees are increasing much faster than inflation (thus generating more VAT) as private schools struggle with a tsunami of additional costs as well as falling rolls. I also suspect that the Treasury are underestimating the long term damage as many parents struggle desperately to let kids near the end of their education finish. Many will not be replaced. My kid's former school has had wave after wave of redundancies and assets sales. I don't believe that they are alone. The estimates do not include any provision for the extra costs borne by local authorities for children who have transferred, many of whom have significant SENDs.
Yes, a third of my daughter's class left her school this year.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
That £1.75bn was supposed to be used for a raft of new teachers, if I recall correctly.
Hmmmm. Doesn't augur too well for education standards under this Government.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
Yep - "The yield from the October 2024 measure to charge VAT on private school fees has been revised up slightly by an average of £40 million per year, driven by the updated forecast for average earnings that is used to project fee growth."
I've checked and, yes, you're right - it's a change to the previous OBR forecast.
However, I still don't credit their forecast for it - the damage being done is much more visible, and the costs dramatically undercooked.
Even they admit their assumptions on pupil numbers remain untested.
Good clip of Farage answering questions. The arrogant swagger hadn't completely disappeared but he sounded diminished. He also compared himself to Enoch Powell who was apparently saying the same things at the same time. Not the coolest move in my opinion! It didn't feel like he was putting things into context as much as reminding people what very ugly views he holds
Enoch was also going around racially abusing boys at school? That's a new one on me.
Enoch was more likely to be writing poems about them
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I haven't suggested they've "reduced by 98%" - that was you, not me. I said the original forecast of it raising money for the Exchequer was bollocks and always has been.
It excludes the cost of provision in the State sector both from an Opex and extra Capex perspective.
You're not seriously going to dig in on this? You suggested it had been revised from £1.75 billion to £40 million. I just divided the numbers you came out with.
It's not a reduction by 98% if the original forecast was bollocks. I was comparing the propaganda with the reality.
If you're saying £40 million is 2% of 1.75bn then, um, sure, but that's taking pedantry to another level.
As it happens I misread it and the fact you were right is extremely annoying.
Kemi Badenoch - like Starmer - suffers from the 'you had your chance - now noone is listening' issue. I can't comment on her response to the budget as I haven't noticed it. Even Starmer has the advantage of being PM so you have to take some notice. What's the point of Ms Badenoch - she's hardly doing to Starmer what Starmer did to Johnson and Truss is she. Andy Burnham is doing a better job as Leader of the Opposition!
Badenoch was excellent at the despatch box today
Kemi's response was great as parliamentary knockabout and will greatly have cheered her backbenchers. Whether there was any great political or economic philosophy behind it, I am not so sure, but there will be other days for that.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
Yep - "The yield from the October 2024 measure to charge VAT on private school fees has been revised up slightly by an average of £40 million per year, driven by the updated forecast for average earnings that is used to project fee growth."
I've checked and, yes, you're right - it's a change to the previous OBR forecast.
However, I still don't credit their forecast for it - the damage being done is much more visible, and the costs dramatically undercooked.
Even they admit their assumptions on pupil numbers remain untested.
Fair enough. And yes, will be interesting (apols for the formatting):
We have not changed the estimate made in October 2024 of a long-term decrease in total pupil numbers of 6 per cent (around 35,000 pupils), most of which we project will have been realised by 2029-30. A May 2025 Independent Schools Council (ISC) census finds a 5 per cent decline in pupil numbers at key entry points (Reception, Year 3, and Year 7) for the 2024-25 school year,17 which provides initial support for this assumption.
judging by reaction in my usual haunts the salary sacrifice thing has absolutely confused everyone and millions of voters now think they gonna get taxed on pension contributions. I'm sure the telegraph will be around to correct everyone of this misconception
Presumably anything above £2,000 is topped up a few weeks later, the same as if you put it in a SIPP, and the main impact is you pay NI and tax on the wages for anything above the £2K so effectively you pay more NI ?
You just pay NI on the pension contribution above £2k.
So for higher rate tax payers the marginal Employee NI rate is 2%. The Employer one is 15%.
So if you contribute £7k pa to your pension, you pay an extra £100 pa in tax. And your Employer pays an extra £750.
I think it's been poorly explained and people are overestimating how little this hits them in direct taxation.
Also I’m reading the NI part actually happens in 2028 and not 2026.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I suspect that the increase is due to the fact that private school fees are increasing much faster than inflation (thus generating more VAT) as private schools struggle with a tsunami of additional costs as well as falling rolls. I also suspect that the Treasury are underestimating the long term damage as many parents struggle desperately to let kids near the end of their education finish. Many will not be replaced. My kid's former school has had wave after wave of redundancies and assets sales. I don't believe that they are alone. The estimates do not include any provision for the extra costs borne by local authorities for children who have transferred, many of whom have significant SENDs.
I saw a former school come up for sale (buildings) recently.
50,000 square foot and 20 acres for £2.5m (down from £4m). That’s pretty cheap on a psf basis
Kemi Badenoch - like Starmer - suffers from the 'you had your chance - now noone is listening' issue. I can't comment on her response to the budget as I haven't noticed it. Even Starmer has the advantage of being PM so you have to take some notice. What's the point of Ms Badenoch - she's hardly doing to Starmer what Starmer did to Johnson and Truss is she. Andy Burnham is doing a better job as Leader of the Opposition!
Badenoch was excellent at the despatch box today
Kemi's response was great as parliamentary knockabout and will greatly have cheered her backbenchers. Whether there was any great political or economic philosophy behind it, I am not so sure, but there will be other days for that.
Badenoch is a very aggressive politician in an era when none of her peers are. There's probably a market for it and I think it was a significant reason for her being elected Tory leader. She has been a bit subdued since being LotO possibly due a crisis of confidence but she has certainly reasserted herself today.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I haven't suggested they've "reduced by 98%" - that was you, not me. I said the original forecast of it raising money for the Exchequer was bollocks and always has been.
It excludes the cost of provision in the State sector both from an Opex and extra Capex perspective.
You're not seriously going to dig in on this? You suggested it had been revised from £1.75 billion to £40 million. I just divided the numbers you came out with.
It's not a reduction by 98% if the original forecast was bollocks. I was comparing the propaganda with the reality.
If you're saying £40 million is 2% of 1.75bn then, um, sure, but that's taking pedantry to another level.
As it happens I misread it and the fact you were right is extremely annoying.
Kemi Badenoch - like Starmer - suffers from the 'you had your chance - now noone is listening' issue. I can't comment on her response to the budget as I haven't noticed it. Even Starmer has the advantage of being PM so you have to take some notice. What's the point of Ms Badenoch - she's hardly doing to Starmer what Starmer did to Johnson and Truss is she. Andy Burnham is doing a better job as Leader of the Opposition!
Badenoch was excellent at the despatch box today
Kemi's response was great as parliamentary knockabout and will greatly have cheered her backbenchers. Whether there was any great political or economic philosophy behind it, I am not so sure, but there will be other days for that.
Yes, I thought she carried it off with aplomb.
It was very helpful getting the OBR leak. It meant we could focus on analysing the measures while the chancellor was speaking, saving us valuable time. And have the luxury of watching the LOTO response when normally we’re all going into a huddle to try to work out what has been announced.
General consensus on the budget in the “city” and “business community” today has been meh. Uninspiring. Not as tasty as a smorgasbord.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I suspect that the increase is due to the fact that private school fees are increasing much faster than inflation (thus generating more VAT) as private schools struggle with a tsunami of additional costs as well as falling rolls. I also suspect that the Treasury are underestimating the long term damage as many parents struggle desperately to let kids near the end of their education finish. Many will not be replaced. My kid's former school has had wave after wave of redundancies and assets sales. I don't believe that they are alone. The estimates do not include any provision for the extra costs borne by local authorities for children who have transferred, many of whom have significant SENDs.
I saw a former school come up for sale (buildings) recently.
50,000 square foot and 20 acres for £2.5m (down from £4m). That’s pretty cheap on a psf basis
Is\ it possible there are restrictive conditions on the grounds, for instance from previous donors of the playing fields?
judging by reaction in my usual haunts the salary sacrifice thing has absolutely confused everyone and millions of voters now think they gonna get taxed on pension contributions. I'm sure the telegraph will be around to correct everyone of this misconception
Presumably anything above £2,000 is topped up a few weeks later, the same as if you put it in a SIPP, and the main impact is you pay NI and tax on the wages for anything above the £2K so effectively you pay more NI ?
You just pay NI on the pension contribution above £2k.
So for higher rate tax payers the marginal Employee NI rate is 2%. The Employer one is 15%.
So if you contribute £7k pa to your pension, you pay an extra £100 pa in tax. And your Employer pays an extra £750.
I think it's been poorly explained and people are overestimating how little this hits them in direct taxation.
Also I’m reading the NI part actually happens in 2028 and not 2026.
Kemi Badenoch - like Starmer - suffers from the 'you had your chance - now noone is listening' issue. I can't comment on her response to the budget as I haven't noticed it. Even Starmer has the advantage of being PM so you have to take some notice. What's the point of Ms Badenoch - she's hardly doing to Starmer what Starmer did to Johnson and Truss is she. Andy Burnham is doing a better job as Leader of the Opposition!
Badenoch was excellent at the despatch box today
Kemi's response was great as parliamentary knockabout and will greatly have cheered her backbenchers. Whether there was any great political or economic philosophy behind it, I am not so sure, but there will be other days for that.
Badenoch is a very aggressive politician in an era when none of her peers are. There's probably a market for it and I think it was a significant reason for her being elected Tory leader. She has been a bit subdued since being LotO possibly due a crisis of confidence but she has certainly reasserted herself today.
I thought it was utterly pathetic. And I say that as someone flirting with conservatism for the first time in my life, because I’m crying out for a party that’s going to take deficit reduction seriously. Missed opportunity. There was so much she could have said.
Can anyone explain to me why the driver in Liverpool wasn't charged with attempted murder? According to the CPS it was an "act of calculated violence" - I would have thought that + the use of a 2-tonne vehicle would be enough. How's it different to stabbing someone?
I can’t adequately explain why but I have a very weird feeling of sympathy for the chap. Clearly something has just snapped in him when he did what he did. From the limited amount I read he seems to have had a normal existence, served the country and then done something extraordinary that’s resulted in many people’s lives and his, and his families, being devastated by his bizarre action. I can’t imagine that there isn’t something deeper that triggered it.
I have to point out that my brother and his sons were there in the crowd as he was there seeing one off to university and joined in the fun, literally around the corner, and they could have been hurt. I do still just find this an immensely odd and tragic situation.
It will be interesting if there is any PTSD issue or substances but it’s a sad tale for the man, his family and the victims and their families. The only upside is that nobody died.
Why can’t we have a Brexit benefit? Now we are free of EU competition rules, why can’t we have a 50% reduction in road tax for UK manufactured cars? Encourage people to buy Nissan, Land Rover, Range Rover, Mini, Honda and Toyota as long as they are built here. (More expensive manufacturers are available).
I think discriminatory taxes are banned under WTO rules. It's possible bilateral agreements with the EU also ban them.
You can't discriminate between MFN trade partners but you can discriminate against imports in general. The question would be whether it's classed as a disguised subsidy.
“The animal that shot the two National Guardsmen, with both being critically wounded, and now in two separate hospitals, is also severely wounded, but regardless, will pay a very steep price. God bless our Great National Guard, and all of our Military and Law Enforcement. These are truly Great People. I, as President of the United States, and everyone associated with the Office of the Presidency, am with you!” - President Donald J. Trump
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
Yep - "The yield from the October 2024 measure to charge VAT on private school fees has been revised up slightly by an average of £40 million per year, driven by the updated forecast for average earnings that is used to project fee growth."
I've checked and, yes, you're right - it's a change to the previous OBR forecast.
However, I still don't credit their forecast for it - the damage being done is much more visible, and the costs dramatically undercooked.
Even they admit their assumptions on pupil numbers remain untested.
Fair enough. And yes, will be interesting (apols for the formatting):
We have not changed the estimate made in October 2024 of a long-term decrease in total pupil numbers of 6 per cent (around 35,000 pupils), most of which we project will have been realised by 2029-30. A May 2025 Independent Schools Council (ISC) census finds a 5 per cent decline in pupil numbers at key entry points (Reception, Year 3, and Year 7) for the 2024-25 school year,17 which provides initial support for this assumption.
I wonder if they've accounted for the impact of the extra 6% levy on overseas students?
That's going to be an absolute killer for much of the middle market that survives on them. The overseas market was struggling as it is (Chase Grammar in Cannock was already one victim, although it has to be said that it was probably doomed for other reasons anyway).
And if that craters, it will take a lot of schools (and day pupils paying VAT) with it.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
Yep - "The yield from the October 2024 measure to charge VAT on private school fees has been revised up slightly by an average of £40 million per year, driven by the updated forecast for average earnings that is used to project fee growth."
I've checked and, yes, you're right - it's a change to the previous OBR forecast.
However, I still don't credit their forecast for it - the damage being done is much more visible, and the costs dramatically undercooked.
Even they admit their assumptions on pupil numbers remain untested.
Fair enough. And yes, will be interesting (apols for the formatting):
We have not changed the estimate made in October 2024 of a long-term decrease in total pupil numbers of 6 per cent (around 35,000 pupils), most of which we project will have been realised by 2029-30. A May 2025 Independent Schools Council (ISC) census finds a 5 per cent decline in pupil numbers at key entry points (Reception, Year 3, and Year 7) for the 2024-25 school year,17 which provides initial support for this assumption.
I wonder if they've accounted for the impact of the extra 6% levy on overseas students?
That's going to be an absolute killer for much of the middle market that survives on them. The overseas market was struggling as it is (Chase Grammar in Cannock was already one victim, although it has to be said that it was probably doomed for other reasons anyway).
And if that craters, it will take a lot of schools (and day pupils paying VAT) with it.
Good clip of Farage answering questions. The arrogant swagger hadn't completely disappeared but he sounded diminished. He also compared himself to Enoch Powell who was apparently saying the same things at the same time. Not the coolest move in my opinion! It didn't feel like he was putting things into context as much as reminding people what very ugly views he holds
Enoch was also going around racially abusing boys at school? That's a new one on me.
Enoch was more likely to be writing poems about them
He was. He was a man consumed by his passions. Only one of these was a belief that England was for white people. Lots more to him than that.
Can anyone explain to me why the driver in Liverpool wasn't charged with attempted murder? According to the CPS it was an "act of calculated violence" - I would have thought that + the use of a 2-tonne vehicle would be enough. How's it different to stabbing someone?
I can’t adequately explain why but I have a very weird feeling of sympathy for the chap. Clearly something has just snapped in him when he did what he did. From the limited amount I read he seems to have had a normal existence, served the country and then done something extraordinary that’s resulted in many people’s lives and his, and his families, being devastated by his bizarre action. I can’t imagine that there isn’t something deeper that triggered it.
I have to point out that my brother and his sons were there in the crowd as he was there seeing one off to university and joined in the fun, literally around the corner, and they could have been hurt. I do still just find this an immensely odd and tragic situation.
It will be interesting if there is any PTSD issue or substances but it’s a sad tale for the man, his family and the victims and their families. The only upside is that nobody died.
It sounds like an astonishing case of road rage. The guy was driving through red lights and shouting at people even before he followed the ambulance through the barrier. It looks like he plead guilty because the CPS had access to his dashcam and it showed it wasn't in self-defence or panic whatsoever. Pure rage.
It's think it's worth reflecting on whether you'd have the same reaction if he came from a different demographic. The coverage has been generous, to say the least. It's attempted mass murder and he's lucky it's not been charged as such.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
Yep - "The yield from the October 2024 measure to charge VAT on private school fees has been revised up slightly by an average of £40 million per year, driven by the updated forecast for average earnings that is used to project fee growth."
I've checked and, yes, you're right - it's a change to the previous OBR forecast.
However, I still don't credit their forecast for it - the damage being done is much more visible, and the costs dramatically undercooked.
Even they admit their assumptions on pupil numbers remain untested.
Fair enough. And yes, will be interesting (apols for the formatting):
We have not changed the estimate made in October 2024 of a long-term decrease in total pupil numbers of 6 per cent (around 35,000 pupils), most of which we project will have been realised by 2029-30. A May 2025 Independent Schools Council (ISC) census finds a 5 per cent decline in pupil numbers at key entry points (Reception, Year 3, and Year 7) for the 2024-25 school year,17 which provides initial support for this assumption.
I wonder if they've accounted for the impact of the extra 6% levy on overseas students?
That's going to be an absolute killer for much of the middle market that survives on them. The overseas market was struggling as it is (Chase Grammar in Cannock was already one victim, although it has to be said that it was probably doomed for other reasons anyway).
And if that craters, it will take a lot of schools (and day pupils paying VAT) with it.
Thought that was just for university students?
It's been announced that way, but there are two considerations:
(1) what is announced and what will happen are two different things. At the moment, what I can see suggests private schools think it will be applied to them if only because that will make it more politically palatable to Labour MPs when the unis start squealing.
(2) Even if it doesn't, as the key reason for coming to a UK school is to learn English to get into a UK uni, it will have a knock-on effect.
The second is probably not great news for me either, but at the moment I'm getting more work domestically than from abroad anyway.
Kemi Badenoch - like Starmer - suffers from the 'you had your chance - now noone is listening' issue. I can't comment on her response to the budget as I haven't noticed it. Even Starmer has the advantage of being PM so you have to take some notice. What's the point of Ms Badenoch - she's hardly doing to Starmer what Starmer did to Johnson and Truss is she. Andy Burnham is doing a better job as Leader of the Opposition!
Badenoch was excellent at the despatch box today
Kemi's response was great as parliamentary knockabout and will greatly have cheered her backbenchers. Whether there was any great political or economic philosophy behind it, I am not so sure, but there will be other days for that.
Badenoch is a very aggressive politician in an era when none of her peers are. There's probably a market for it and I think it was a significant reason for her being elected Tory leader. She has been a bit subdued since being LotO possibly due a crisis of confidence but she has certainly reasserted herself today.
I thought it was utterly pathetic. And I say that as someone flirting with conservatism for the first time in my life, because I’m crying out for a party that’s going to take deficit reduction seriously. Missed opportunity. There was so much she could have said.
Well, yes, so do I, but it seemed to go down well in the galleries. On my particular hobby horse I noted Badenoch dismissed the ending of the two child cap as handouts by Rachel Reeves to keep her backbenchers quiet. She didn't have the moral courage to mention the policy by name.
Can anyone explain to me why the driver in Liverpool wasn't charged with attempted murder? According to the CPS it was an "act of calculated violence" - I would have thought that + the use of a 2-tonne vehicle would be enough. How's it different to stabbing someone?
I can’t adequately explain why but I have a very weird feeling of sympathy for the chap. Clearly something has just snapped in him when he did what he did. From the limited amount I read he seems to have had a normal existence, served the country and then done something extraordinary that’s resulted in many people’s lives and his, and his families, being devastated by his bizarre action. I can’t imagine that there isn’t something deeper that triggered it.
I have to point out that my brother and his sons were there in the crowd as he was there seeing one off to university and joined in the fun, literally around the corner, and they could have been hurt. I do still just find this an immensely odd and tragic situation.
It will be interesting if there is any PTSD issue or substances but it’s a sad tale for the man, his family and the victims and their families. The only upside is that nobody died.
It sounds like an astonishing case of road rage. The guy was driving through red lights and shouting at people even before he followed the ambulance through the barrier. It looks like he plead guilty because the CPS had access to his dashcam and it showed it wasn't in self-defence or panic whatsoever. Pure rage.
It's think it's worth reflecting on whether you'd have the same reaction if he came from a different demographic. The coverage has been generous, to say the least. It's attempted mass murder and he's lucky it's not been charged as such.
Yes, I have asked myself that and I don’t have an answer.
judging by reaction in my usual haunts the salary sacrifice thing has absolutely confused everyone and millions of voters now think they gonna get taxed on pension contributions. I'm sure the telegraph will be around to correct everyone of this misconception
Presumably anything above £2,000 is topped up a few weeks later, the same as if you put it in a SIPP, and the main impact is you pay NI and tax on the wages for anything above the £2K so effectively you pay more NI ?
You just pay NI on the pension contribution above £2k.
So for higher rate tax payers the marginal Employee NI rate is 2%. The Employer one is 15%.
So if you contribute £7k pa to your pension, you pay an extra £100 pa in tax. And your Employer pays an extra £750.
I think it's been poorly explained and people are overestimating how little this hits them in direct taxation.
Also I’m reading the NI part actually happens in 2028 and not 2026.
I agree it’s been poorly explained.
2029. Election year.
I thought Nige had told us the election was going to be in 2027.
It is with great sorrow that we can confirm both members of the West Virginia National Guard who were shot earlier today in Washington, DC have passed away from their injuries. These brave West Virginians lost their lives in the service of their country. We are in ongoing contact with federal officials as the investigation continues.
Our entire state grieves with their families, their loved ones, and the Guard community. West Virginia will never forget their service or their sacrifice, and we will demand full accountability for this horrific act.
(Mathematically, he's probably right- Rozzer was about 1500 ahead of Labour and 5000 ahead of Reform in 2024. He's up for serving under PM Farage, because of course he is.)
Good clip of Farage answering questions. The arrogant swagger hadn't completely disappeared but he sounded diminished. He also compared himself to Enoch Powell who was apparently saying the same things at the same time. Not the coolest move in my opinion! It didn't feel like he was putting things into context as much as reminding people what very ugly views he holds
Enoch was also going around racially abusing boys at school? That's a new one on me.
Enoch was more likely to be writing poems about them
He was. He was a man consumed by his passions. Only one of these was a belief that England was for white people. Lots more to him than that.
I've posted this before I think - but a political debate from a different time (it feels like a different world) :
"From The Locket Restaurant: A debate about the future of the government. Hosted by Llew Gardner with guests Rt Hon Bob Mellish MP, Norman St John Stevas MP, John Pardoe MP, Dennis Skinner MP, Rt Hon Enoch Powell MP, Margaret Bain MP and Rt Hon Reginald Maulding MP "
Good clip of Farage answering questions. The arrogant swagger hadn't completely disappeared but he sounded diminished. He also compared himself to Enoch Powell who was apparently saying the same things at the same time. Not the coolest move in my opinion! It didn't feel like he was putting things into context as much as reminding people what very ugly views he holds
Enoch was also going around racially abusing boys at school? That's a new one on me.
Not that we know of! He was setting the scene for what it was like when he was jackbooting his way round Dulwich College. Others were marching with the ANL but it was all about choices.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I haven't suggested they've "reduced by 98%" - that was you, not me. I said the original forecast of it raising money for the Exchequer was bollocks and always has been.
It excludes the cost of provision in the State sector both from an Opex and extra Capex perspective.
You're not seriously going to dig in on this? You suggested it had been revised from £1.75 billion to £40 million. I just divided the numbers you came out with.
It's not a reduction by 98% if the original forecast was bollocks. I was comparing the propaganda with the reality.
If you're saying £40 million is 2% of 1.75bn then, um, sure, but that's taking pedantry to another level.
As it happens I misread it and the fact you were right is extremely annoying.
Happens to me sometimes a lot.
Usually with Mrs P.
Also often better to be right but pretend to be wrong, in my experience.
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford The pay-per-mile tax on electric cars sounds pretty complicated, to put it mildly
Whereas fuel duty is paid at the pump, the electric car tax requires you to estimate your mileage for the year ahead then pay an upfront charge
Here's the helpful consultation document from DfT:
'Alongside paying their VED each, under eVED motorists will be able to estimate their mileage for the year ahead, pay an upfront charge based on their estimate and spread their payment across the year, and then submit their actual mileage at the end of the year to trigger a reconciliation
'Motorists will have their mileage checked annually, typically during their MOT as is already the case, or for new cars, around their first and second registration anniversary'
Why can’t we have a Brexit benefit? Now we are free of EU competition rules, why can’t we have a 50% reduction in road tax for UK manufactured cars? Encourage people to buy Nissan, Land Rover, Range Rover, Mini, Honda and Toyota as long as they are built here. (More expensive manufacturers are available).
I think discriminatory taxes are banned under WTO rules. It's possible bilateral agreements with the EU also ban them.
You can't discriminate between MFN trade partners but you can discriminate against imports in general. The question would be whether it's classed as a disguised subsidy.
It's not a question as far as I know; discriminating against imported goods is outright banned under WTO rules. You can sometimes get away with regulation that favours a type of good that is made in your country as long as you apply the same regulation to any imported goods of the same type. The UK can't apply import tariffs on EU goods because they are eliminated by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I suspect that the increase is due to the fact that private school fees are increasing much faster than inflation (thus generating more VAT) as private schools struggle with a tsunami of additional costs as well as falling rolls. I also suspect that the Treasury are underestimating the long term damage as many parents struggle desperately to let kids near the end of their education finish. Many will not be replaced. My kid's former school has had wave after wave of redundancies and assets sales. I don't believe that they are alone. The estimates do not include any provision for the extra costs borne by local authorities for children who have transferred, many of whom have significant SENDs.
I saw a former school come up for sale (buildings) recently.
50,000 square foot and 20 acres for £2.5m (down from £4m). That’s pretty cheap on a psf basis
The most obvious market for these kind of buildings was the University sector but it is rapidly consolidating too. Such reductions in price will result in several schools breaching their banking covenants.
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford The pay-per-mile tax on electric cars sounds pretty complicated, to put it mildly
Whereas fuel duty is paid at the pump, the electric car tax requires you to estimate your mileage for the year ahead then pay an upfront charge
Here's the helpful consultation document from DfT:
'Alongside paying their VED each, under eVED motorists will be able to estimate their mileage for the year ahead, pay an upfront charge based on their estimate and spread their payment across the year, and then submit their actual mileage at the end of the year to trigger a reconciliation
'Motorists will have their mileage checked annually, typically during their MOT as is already the case, or for new cars, around their first and second registration anniversary'
I listened to Kemi today and found her rather childish.
I know the budget is showtime but in her position if she wants to be taken seriously on one of the few occasions people might notice her she'd surely do better if she didn't sound like she was in a Christmas pantomime
Given you would never vote Tory anyway I doubt she cares. Tory voters thought she was good today, as I expect did many Reform voters and voters who voted Labour last year having voted Conservative in 2019
I doubt she does. It's difficult to know which way she should go. I'd tactically vote for her to keep Farage out though I believe she's a 'Leaver' which gives her a limited appeal for most tactical voters
Labour MPs and bond markets. 2 quite different stakeholders. But which led to the budget we got.
The budget seems to be criticized simultaneously for failing to make the difficult choices that Reeves' predecessors also failed to make, while loading up unpopular taxes. The criticism may turn out correct but it's a paradox on the face of it.
Why can’t we have a Brexit benefit? Now we are free of EU competition rules, why can’t we have a 50% reduction in road tax for UK manufactured cars? Encourage people to buy Nissan, Land Rover, Range Rover, Mini, Honda and Toyota as long as they are built here. (More expensive manufacturers are available).
I think discriminatory taxes are banned under WTO rules. It's possible bilateral agreements with the EU also ban them.
You can't discriminate between MFN trade partners but you can discriminate against imports in general. The question would be whether it's classed as a disguised subsidy.
It's not a question as far as I know; discriminating against imported goods is outright banned under WTO rules. You can sometimes get away with regulation that favours a type of good that is made in your country as long as you apply the same regulation to any imported goods of the same type. The UK can't apply import tariffs on EU goods because they are eliminated by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU
But is an arms-length body like Motability having an announced target for UK-built vehicles susceptible to legal challenge?
Government says it will spend £1.8 billion on Digital ID, a proposal which was not in Labour's manifesto.
But cannot apparently find the money to reduce the backlog in the criminal justice system.
Of course, it bloody can. The total budget for the Courts and Tribunals service is £3.1 billion. So that £1.8 billion or a significant proportion of it would do a great deal to reduce and probably eliminate the backlog in pretty short order.
I listened to Kemi today and found her rather childish.
I know the budget is showtime but in her position if she wants to be taken seriously on one of the few occasions people might notice her she'd surely do better if she didn't sound like she was in a Christmas pantomime
Given you would never vote Tory anyway I doubt she cares. Tory voters thought she was good today, as I expect did many Reform voters and voters who voted Labour last year having voted Conservative in 2019
I doubt she does. It's difficult to know which way she should go. I'd tactically vote for her to keep Farage out though I believe she's a 'Leaver' which gives her a limited appeal for most tactical voters
Though even 28% of Labour voters and 27% of Green voters voted Leave in 2016. Plus while you might vote Tory in a Tory held seat to keep out Reform you wouldn’t vote Tory anywhere else
— Labour MPs say Rachel Reeves has done enough to help her and Keir Starmer survive. Markets reacted positively. But on both fronts there’s little sign this was a turning point longer-term.
“When you carry on pretending that nothing has to be dealt with, it is uninspiring and pretty disappointing,” says top economist Jim O’Neill.
Why can’t we have a Brexit benefit? Now we are free of EU competition rules, why can’t we have a 50% reduction in road tax for UK manufactured cars? Encourage people to buy Nissan, Land Rover, Range Rover, Mini, Honda and Toyota as long as they are built here. (More expensive manufacturers are available).
I think discriminatory taxes are banned under WTO rules. It's possible bilateral agreements with the EU also ban them.
You can't discriminate between MFN trade partners but you can discriminate against imports in general. The question would be whether it's classed as a disguised subsidy.
It's not a question as far as I know; discriminating against imported goods is outright banned under WTO rules. You can sometimes get away with regulation that favours a type of good that is made in your country as long as you apply the same regulation to any imported goods of the same type. The UK can't apply import tariffs on EU goods because they are eliminated by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU
2 child limit removed, but overall Benefit Cap remains in place.
Can you explain that please
There is a flat cap on the amount of benefits that a family can get - £22,000. Once you add up all the various elements of UC (including housing), the additional payments for 3rd, 4th, 5th children etc will push some households into this cap. Therefore the impact on government spending (and on child poverty) is reduced.
2 child limit removed, but overall Benefit Cap remains in place.
Can you explain that please
There is a flat cap on the amount of benefits that a family can get - £22,000. Once you add up all the various elements of UC (including housing), the additional payments for 3rd, 4th, 5th children etc will push some households into this cap. Therefore the impact on government spending (and on child poverty) is reduced.
2 child limit removed, but overall Benefit Cap remains in place.
Can you explain that please
There is a flat cap on the amount of benefits that a family can get - £22,000. Once you add up all the various elements of UC (including housing), the additional payments for 3rd, 4th, 5th children etc will push some households into this cap. Therefore the impact on government spending (and on child poverty) is reduced.
Thank you - I wasn't aware of it
No problem - worth noting there are quite a few exemptions to this. It typically effects large families in expensive areas like London.
2 child limit removed, but overall Benefit Cap remains in place.
Can you explain that please
There is a flat cap on the amount of benefits that a family can get - £22,000. Once you add up all the various elements of UC (including housing), the additional payments for 3rd, 4th, 5th children etc will push some households into this cap. Therefore the impact on government spending (and on child poverty) is reduced.
Ah, so the Daily Mail stories of mothers-of-ten on £50k aren't coming back. Rather undermines the moral case though. Children can still end up in poverty if their family hits the cap.
Government says it will spend £1.8 billion on Digital ID, a proposal which was not in Labour's manifesto.
But cannot apparently find the money to reduce the backlog in the criminal justice system.
Of course, it bloody can. The total budget for the Courts and Tribunals service is £3.1 billion. So that £1.8 billion or a significant proportion of it would do a great deal to reduce and probably eliminate the backlog in pretty short order.
It makes perfect sense if you assume the government's core agenda is more control over the people. ID cards will further that, a functional justice system does not.
Why can’t we have a Brexit benefit? Now we are free of EU competition rules, why can’t we have a 50% reduction in road tax for UK manufactured cars? Encourage people to buy Nissan, Land Rover, Range Rover, Mini, Honda and Toyota as long as they are built here. (More expensive manufacturers are available).
I think discriminatory taxes are banned under WTO rules. It's possible bilateral agreements with the EU also ban them.
You can't discriminate between MFN trade partners but you can discriminate against imports in general. The question would be whether it's classed as a disguised subsidy.
It's not a question as far as I know; discriminating against imported goods is outright banned under WTO rules. You can sometimes get away with regulation that favours a type of good that is made in your country as long as you apply the same regulation to any imported goods of the same type. The UK can't apply import tariffs on EU goods because they are eliminated by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU
But is an arms-length body like Motability having an announced target for UK-built vehicles susceptible to legal challenge?
Depends whether it falls within public procurement? There's a whole section on that in the TCA with the EU.
The salary sacrifice thing (just skimmed a report so might have got wrong end of stick) effectively ends other dodges - and a chunk of pension relief - for middle-higher earners, right?
I've been well over £2k on pension contributions for, well, a long time. Also had cycle to work scheme, which presumably would have had zero advantages (other than interest-free loan) under these rules. Higher earners effectively getting additional relief (due to higher rate of tax avoided) always looked like an anomaly. but if this is blanket then it does remove the cycle incentives for higher earners. Perhaps this can be managed a different way and I don't know how much it boosts cycling at the wealthier end - I'd probably have made the same choices without cycle to work scheme, maybe just with a cheaper bike!
It is, however, if introduced when planned, going to hit a lot of middle and up earners quite substantially, I guess. Politically interesting if it does indeed kick in shortly before the next election.
2 child limit removed, but overall Benefit Cap remains in place.
Can you explain that please
There is a flat cap on the amount of benefits that a family can get - £22,000. Once you add up all the various elements of UC (including housing), the additional payments for 3rd, 4th, 5th children etc will push some households into this cap. Therefore the impact on government spending (and on child poverty) is reduced.
Ah, so the Daily Mail stories of mothers-of-ten on £50k aren't coming back. Rather undermines the moral case though. Children can still end up in poverty if their family hits the cap.
The Labour Government is having its brioche and eating it.
Labour MPs and bond markets. 2 quite different stakeholders. But which led to the budget we got.
The government bought their silence at the cost of being able to achieve the things they were elected for. That's exactly the sort of short-term thinking that got us in this mess in the first place.
2 child limit removed, but overall Benefit Cap remains in place.
Can you explain that please
There is a flat cap on the amount of benefits that a family can get - £22,000. Once you add up all the various elements of UC (including housing), the additional payments for 3rd, 4th, 5th children etc will push some households into this cap. Therefore the impact on government spending (and on child poverty) is reduced.
The salary sacrifice thing (just skimmed a report so might have got wrong end of stick) effectively ends other dodges - and a chunk of pension relief - for middle-higher earners, right?
I've been well over £2k on pension contributions for, well, a long time. Also had cycle to work scheme, which presumably would have had zero advantages (other than interest-free loan) under these rules. Higher earners effectively getting additional relief (due to higher rate of tax avoided) always looked like an anomaly. but if this is blanket then it does remove the cycle incentives for higher earners. Perhaps this can be managed a different way and I don't know how much it boosts cycling at the wealthier end - I'd probably have made the same choices without cycle to work scheme, maybe just with a cheaper bike!
It is, however, if introduced when planned, going to hit a lot of middle and up earners quite substantially, I guess. Politically interesting if it does indeed kick in shortly before the next election.
That's for NI, not income tax which is still relieved, it seems. And surely it only applies to pension contribs inder salary sacrifice, not as a whole? (ie what you'd pay without s.s.). Bit IANAE so I looked at Which which is usually nice and simple.
The salary sacrifice thing (just skimmed a report so might have got wrong end of stick) effectively ends other dodges - and a chunk of pension relief - for middle-higher earners, right?
I've been well over £2k on pension contributions for, well, a long time. Also had cycle to work scheme, which presumably would have had zero advantages (other than interest-free loan) under these rules. Higher earners effectively getting additional relief (due to higher rate of tax avoided) always looked like an anomaly. but if this is blanket then it does remove the cycle incentives for higher earners. Perhaps this can be managed a different way and I don't know how much it boosts cycling at the wealthier end - I'd probably have made the same choices without cycle to work scheme, maybe just with a cheaper bike!
It is, however, if introduced when planned, going to hit a lot of middle and up earners quite substantially, I guess. Politically interesting if it does indeed kick in shortly before the next election.
AIUI it only removes NI avoidance on pension contributions under salary sacrifice. You can still avoid income tax. Ie it makes the tax situation the same under salary sacrifice as when you make personal contributions to your pension.
The salary sacrifice thing (just skimmed a report so might have got wrong end of stick) effectively ends other dodges - and a chunk of pension relief - for middle-higher earners, right?
I've been well over £2k on pension contributions for, well, a long time. Also had cycle to work scheme, which presumably would have had zero advantages (other than interest-free loan) under these rules. Higher earners effectively getting additional relief (due to higher rate of tax avoided) always looked like an anomaly. but if this is blanket then it does remove the cycle incentives for higher earners. Perhaps this can be managed a different way and I don't know how much it boosts cycling at the wealthier end - I'd probably have made the same choices without cycle to work scheme, maybe just with a cheaper bike!
It is, however, if introduced when planned, going to hit a lot of middle and up earners quite substantially, I guess. Politically interesting if it does indeed kick in shortly before the next election.
AIUI it only removes NI avoidance on pension contributions under salary sacrifice. You can still avoid income tax. Ie it makes the tax situation the same under salary sacrifice as when you make personal contributions to your pension.
Got to save something to take away in future budgets, innit.
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford The pay-per-mile tax on electric cars sounds pretty complicated, to put it mildly
Whereas fuel duty is paid at the pump, the electric car tax requires you to estimate your mileage for the year ahead then pay an upfront charge
Here's the helpful consultation document from DfT:
'Alongside paying their VED each, under eVED motorists will be able to estimate their mileage for the year ahead, pay an upfront charge based on their estimate and spread their payment across the year, and then submit their actual mileage at the end of the year to trigger a reconciliation
'Motorists will have their mileage checked annually, typically during their MOT as is already the case, or for new cars, around their first and second registration anniversary'
2 child limit removed, but overall Benefit Cap remains in place.
Can you explain that please
There is a flat cap on the amount of benefits that a family can get - £22,000. Once you add up all the various elements of UC (including housing), the additional payments for 3rd, 4th, 5th children etc will push some households into this cap. Therefore the impact on government spending (and on child poverty) is reduced.
Ah, so the Daily Mail stories of mothers-of-ten on £50k aren't coming back. Rather undermines the moral case though. Children can still end up in poverty if their family hits the cap.
Yes, after taking into account equivilisation (where you divide income by the number of people in households; children have a lower weighting). You can see how that could happen - if JRM was on benefits he could get £29,000 even before housing costs - that would be restricted to £22,000, and the poverty line is around £20,000. After taking into 6 kids, his family would be categorised as in deep poverty.
How do all governments manage to overcomplicate the sytem every time e.g. the change to amount you can put in a Cash ISA, but then addomg a carve out for over 65s...why?
The cash ISA allowance changes for over 65s kick in in April 2027. Guess who turns 65 on 2 September 2027?
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I haven't suggested they've "reduced by 98%" - that was you, not me. I said the original forecast of it raising money for the Exchequer was bollocks and always has been.
It excludes the cost of provision in the State sector both from an Opex and extra Capex perspective.
You misunderstood the numbers, Casino. Just admit it.
So, I've read the budget (so you don't have to) and buried in the small print is this little gem: "Following re-costings conducted by HMRC, and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals implemented in April are now expected to raise £39.5 billion across the scorecard, and VAT on private school fees is expected to raise an average of £40 million extra per year."
£40 million a year. Let that sink in a minute. Just *£40 million*. It was originally supposeed to be £1.75bn extra.
Bet it's actually negative in reality. Labour has closed independent schools, reduced the size of the education sector, and increased the burden on the public purse - all at the same time.
Pretty sure it will be a £40m change to their previous forecast rather than £40m. Spending on private schools is around £10bn per year.
Otherwise it would suggest that the behavioural response was 98%, which is stretching credulity somewhat given the number of XC90s speeding into Fettes.
No, plenty of people warned this would cost the exchequer as many parents moved into the State system and schools shut down.
And your silly cliche summarises the problem behind the policy.
I would normally rip into a PBer who made a mistake as egregious as that - but I'm not going to because I made a similar one myself at work today...
The key thing is to fess up and concede the mistake immediately. In your case, that the tax revenues are up £40 million compared with the prior forecast - not reduced by 98% as you've suggested.
(You're right about the cliche, it does appear that they have moved on from XC90s in the main).
I haven't suggested they've "reduced by 98%" - that was you, not me. I said the original forecast of it raising money for the Exchequer was bollocks and always has been.
It excludes the cost of provision in the State sector both from an Opex and extra Capex perspective.
You misunderstood the numbers, Casino. Just admit it.
Having now read the eVED consultation document, I feel that I need to apologise to the Daily Telegraph. This is far sillier than even they were making out.
I can't get over how poor an idea the mileage thing is. SNP will be delighted though - hammers rural Scotland, which happens to also be the part of the UK generating all the electricity that powers these EVs. The leaflets write themselves.
At least C2W wasn't binned. Phew.
Re the mileage thing: 3p mile for say 10,000 miles annually is £300. For annual mileage of 14,000 miles it is £420. That's already £75 dearer than a lot of diesel pick ups.
Folk will start to notice the impact of all this soon
Comments
Er, how about this gent?
https://x.com/Torcuil
On SEND - Labour has increased funding by £1 billion south of the border. I don't think there's much to criticise there (though it's never enough).
It excludes the cost of provision in the State sector both from an Opex and extra Capex perspective.
Hmmmm. Doesn't augur too well for education standards under this Government.
However, I still don't credit their forecast for it - the damage being done is much more visible, and the costs dramatically undercooked.
Even they admit their assumptions on pupil numbers remain untested.
If you're saying £40 million is 2% of 1.75bn then, um, sure, but that's taking pedantry to another level.
As it happens I misread it and the fact you were right is extremely annoying.
We have not
changed the estimate made in October 2024 of a long-term decrease in total pupil
numbers of 6 per cent (around 35,000 pupils), most of which we project will have been
realised by 2029-30. A May 2025 Independent Schools Council (ISC) census finds a 5 per
cent decline in pupil numbers at key entry points (Reception, Year 3, and Year 7) for the
2024-25 school year,17 which provides initial support for this assumption.
I agree it’s been poorly explained.
50,000 square foot and 20 acres for £2.5m (down from £4m). That’s pretty cheap on a psf basis
Usually with Mrs P.
It was very helpful getting the OBR leak. It meant we could focus on analysing the measures while the chancellor was speaking, saving us valuable time. And have the luxury of watching the LOTO response when normally we’re all going into a huddle to try to work out what has been announced.
General consensus on the budget in the “city” and “business community” today has been meh. Uninspiring. Not as tasty as a smorgasbord.
I have to point out that my brother and his sons were there in the crowd as he was there seeing one off to university and joined in the fun, literally around the corner, and they could have been hurt. I do still just find this an immensely odd and tragic situation.
It will be interesting if there is any PTSD issue or substances but it’s a sad tale for the man, his family and the victims and their families. The only upside is that nobody died.
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1993778322963353631
“The animal that shot the two National Guardsmen, with both being critically wounded, and now in two separate hospitals, is also severely wounded, but regardless, will pay a very steep price. God bless our Great National Guard, and all of our Military and Law Enforcement. These are truly Great People. I, as President of the United States, and everyone associated with the Office of the Presidency, am with you!” - President Donald J. Trump
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
56m
Important to remember. This Budget was aimed at Labour MPs, not the voters.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1993766557340893547
That's going to be an absolute killer for much of the middle market that survives on them. The overseas market was struggling as it is (Chase Grammar in Cannock was already one victim, although it has to be said that it was probably doomed for other reasons anyway).
And if that craters, it will take a lot of schools (and day pupils paying VAT) with it.
It's think it's worth reflecting on whether you'd have the same reaction if he came from a different demographic. The coverage has been generous, to say the least. It's attempted mass murder and he's lucky it's not been charged as such.
(1) what is announced and what will happen are two different things. At the moment, what I can see suggests private schools think it will be applied to them if only because that will make it more politically palatable to Labour MPs when the unis start squealing.
(2) Even if it doesn't, as the key reason for coming to a UK school is to learn English to get into a UK uni, it will have a knock-on effect.
The second is probably not great news for me either, but at the moment I'm getting more work domestically than from abroad anyway.
It is with great sorrow that we can confirm both members of the West Virginia National Guard who were shot earlier today in Washington, DC have passed away from their injuries. These brave West Virginians lost their lives in the service of their country. We are in ongoing contact with federal officials as the investigation continues.
Our entire state grieves with their families, their loved ones, and the Guard community. West Virginia will never forget their service or their sacrifice, and we will demand full accountability for this horrific act.
I won't be casting my anti-Reform vote for him!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CmJlf-Deg
"From The Locket Restaurant: A debate about the future of the government. Hosted by Llew Gardner with guests Rt Hon Bob Mellish MP, Norman St John Stevas MP, John Pardoe MP, Dennis Skinner MP, Rt Hon Enoch Powell MP, Margaret Bain MP and Rt Hon Reginald Maulding MP "
Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford
The pay-per-mile tax on electric cars sounds pretty complicated, to put it mildly
Whereas fuel duty is paid at the pump, the electric car tax requires you to estimate your mileage for the year ahead then pay an upfront charge
Here's the helpful consultation document from DfT:
'Alongside paying their VED each, under eVED motorists will be able to estimate their mileage for the year ahead, pay an upfront charge based on their estimate and spread their payment across the year, and then submit their actual mileage at the end of the year to trigger a reconciliation
'Motorists will have their mileage checked annually, typically during their MOT as is already the case, or for new cars, around their first and second registration anniversary'
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1993770178715271604
2 child limit removed, but overall Benefit Cap remains in place.
Mayors to be allowed to charge a Wales style levy on overnight stays.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0425112/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
“I does for this’ in”
But cannot apparently find the money to reduce the backlog in the criminal justice system.
Of course, it bloody can. The total budget for the Courts and Tribunals service is £3.1 billion. So that £1.8 billion or a significant proportion of it would do a great deal to reduce and probably eliminate the backlog in pretty short order.
@alexwickham
·
1h
** NEW: Bloomberg Budget analysis **
— Labour MPs say Rachel Reeves has done enough to help her and Keir Starmer survive. Markets reacted positively. But on both fronts there’s little sign this was a turning point longer-term.
“When you carry on pretending that nothing has to be dealt with, it is uninspiring and pretty disappointing,” says top economist Jim O’Neill.
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1993772010485256563
Nothing good will come of that…
Lowest score is A Madrid 1- 1Inter
40 goals in 9 games, 7 still playing
I've been well over £2k on pension contributions for, well, a long time. Also had cycle to work scheme, which presumably would have had zero advantages (other than interest-free loan) under these rules. Higher earners effectively getting additional relief (due to higher rate of tax avoided) always looked like an anomaly. but if this is blanket then it does remove the cycle incentives for higher earners. Perhaps this can be managed a different way and I don't know how much it boosts cycling at the wealthier end - I'd probably have made the same choices without cycle to work scheme, maybe just with a cheaper bike!
It is, however, if introduced when planned, going to hit a lot of middle and up earners quite substantially, I guess. Politically interesting if it does indeed kick in shortly before the next election.
This seems to be a real crisis for Slot
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/chancellor-confirms-salary-sacrifice-cap-for-pension-contributions-what-it-means-for-you-a9c5n7u9K0Xa
The flat in question is owned by Tim Horlick, founder of Ayanda Capital, which supplied medical masks during Covid .......
This is me -https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=vw+casino+advert#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:966e64bd,vid:O-M8cqWccdw,st:0
Folk will start to notice the impact of all this soon
67 billion rises in taxes in 18 months