So did Hunt deliver for you?

Mr Bump

Mr Bump

From under the bridge
Messages
9,628
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Bit of a lame budget for me yes 2p of NI but not raising the tax threshold simply means this just doesn't make sense?
looked like a budget for the average middle class tory and certainly not for lower income struggling families.
 
No longer working so no NI contributions any more, a vat % cut would have helped everyone?
 
mj4456 said:
No longer working so no NI contributions any more, a vat % cut would have helped everyone?
Click to expand...

well kinda me to but we need to look after the lower paid in society and we just don't seem to be doing it nowadays
 
Would have been much better if he'd raised the 20p threshold, I benefitted but my 90-year old mother hasn't.
 
welshwizard645 said:
that's right
Click to expand...
yes i agree that for me was what should have been done
that would have benefited everyone apart from those earning less than that amount
essentially Hunt has dismissed these people entirely very sad day.
 
I'm still working but over pension age so no NI anyway, but my wife works for our company on salary so it'll make a marginal - pence - difference to her minimum wage income. There was nothing else to affect us as even though our company income will probably drop below the VAT threshold in the next FY, it is more beneficial to us to be VAT-registered than not. Customers are corporate so reclaim the VAT we charge, and it allows us to reclaim some too.
I would have preferred the tax threshold to be increased, but I realise tax cuts were not really affordable so didn't expect any; I do like that he has trailed the future abolition of NI though, which this reduction was a move towards, but whether that will include Employers NI I rather doubt - it is a tax on jobs for employers to pay, is uncapped, and a milch-cow. However I also think that reducing and ultimately removing NI would be a step towards instead getting people to pay into private medical insurance so that the NHS could charge people for non-emergency treatment.
 
mj4456 said:
No longer working so no NI contributions any more, a vat % cut would have helped everyone?
Click to expand...

Wasn't VAT cut during Pandemic and then restored to 20%, just like the 5p cut in fuel duty 2 years ago I doubt whether anyone noticed a saving apart from the retailers.
 
@lindsay I still think Hunt could have done a little more for the worst off mate on another not this hands more weight to labour voters come the general election.

I have to say for the first time in ever me and the wife going to vote labour.

After the recent question about winners and losers, Sue asks: Why is it that the low earners are worse off?

Low earners are worse off due to the tax threshold freeze, which has a big effect on the first few thousand pounds on which you pay tax.

The cut in National Insurance, however, has a smaller effect on the first £40,000 on which you pay tax.

Let’s see how those two effects play out.

Someone earning £16,000 would be about £500 a year worse off due to the threshold freeze. And so would everyone earning up to about £50,000.

The NI cut saves the lower earner about £100. But it saves our higher earner £1,500 a year.

So cut to NI doesn’t make up for the extra tax being paid on the first few thousand pounds above the lower tax threshold.

And so our lower earner is worse off. But if you’re earning a lot more than that you work out better off
 
Last edited:
I agree Paul, and tbh tinkering around the edges with VAT isn't going to cut it anyway. There should be no tax or NI on anything under a living wage level (whatever that is - £18k?) but income tax and health insurance (whatever they label it, NI or something else) should be taxed on household income not individuals, as they do in France. However the last time the Tories tried to make the tax system fairer (arguably) with Poll Tax, it was massively unpopular despite being logical, and in due course got rid of.
 
lindsay said:
I agree Paul, and tbh tinkering around the edges with VAT isn't going to cut it anyway. There should be no tax or NI on anything under a living wage level (whatever that is - £18k?) but income tax and health insurance (whatever they label it, NI or something else) should be taxed on household income not individuals, as they do in France. However the last time the Tories tried to make the tax system fairer (arguably) with Poll Tax, it was massively unpopular despite being logical, and in due course got rid of.
Click to expand...

yeah for me this is just a massive kick in the balls for low earners alone.

Someone earning £16,000 would be about £500 a year worse off due to the threshold freeze
 
I would have rather he had put the tax up a little for the basic band, a bit more for the higher band and more still for the additional band to help fund the public services better.

Dave
 
IF there is a May election there will be an autumn budget no matter who gets in. Watch your pockets then. Or is that just me being sinical.
 
My pension is going up in April.. So is my council tax, my rent, my sky ... all of which suck up my pension rise... everyhting else that goes up puts me in the red :(

if pension wasnt included in the taxable earning i would be ok.. still working but ok
 
Nice bit of slight-of-hand has got you all taking about the NI cut instead of focusing on the fact that pretty much all services will be cut meaning that we will all be worse off in terms of essential services on which we all depend.
 
sirch said:
Nice bit of slight-of-hand has got you all taking about the NI cut instead of focusing on the fact that pretty much all services will be cut meaning that we will all be worse off in terms of essential services on which we all depend.
Click to expand...
Services? What services? You have to fight to get anything these days. Even an appointment! (However, your call is important to us! You are number *** in the queue, choose from the following options...................... etc! ) What folks do that have no phone, internet or have sight or hearing problems, I don't know!
 
He’s busy looking for votes from folk who had kids they couldn’t afford, shouldn’t old age pension be tax free?
 
mj4456 said:
He’s busy looking for votes from folk who had kids they couldn’t afford, shouldn’t old age pension be tax free?
Click to expand...
I think so you pay tax all your working life a little respite in your latter years would be good, but Im sure the government who ever they are will say you werent taxed on the contributions so you owe tax on it now. Sounds like a good way to score for extra revenue to me.
 
its a bit of a tough one should pension be taxed?
obviously state pension is paid for out of NI contributions but the highest and the lowest earners all get the same (if they do all there years) its about £204/week
so for instance a very low earner who pays very little NI will still get a good pension and that is a good thing. However you have to wait until 65/66/67

moving to private pensions all the contributions are tax free (if done correctly) so when you come to collect after 55 then the government taxes it in line with standard tax models which yes I think is a bit wrong and should be taxed at a lesser rate say 10% up to £40,000.

I intend moving to Greece (or Spain) in the next year/18 months and will become tax resident on one of these locales and there tax regimes are similar so the UK is about the same as its EU partners.
 
Raise the OA pension to the level of minimum wage for a standard working week and then tax it? Don’t know if some folk would be better off though.

HMRC just sent me a new tax code for 23/24! Removed the 10% tax free I had from my wife’s allowance, but in her new 24/25 code she hasn’t got it back, HMRC are looking into it, how long will that take I wonder.
 
mj4456 said:
Raise the OA pension to the level of minimum wage for a standard working week and then tax it? Don’t know if some folk would be better off though.

HMRC just sent me a new tax code for 23/24! Removed the 10% tax free I had from my wife’s allowance, but in her new 24/25 code she hasn’t got it back, HMRC are looking into it, how long will that take I wonder.
Click to expand...

not convinced about the OA pension / Min wage thing
I think we do in this country need to increase the amount people have to pay into a workplace pension a bit more though
 
mj4456 said:
He’s busy looking for votes from folk who had kids they couldn’t afford, shouldn’t old age pension be tax free?
Click to expand...
I heard of one person locally on a news item 34 years old, and 14 kids. ( seriously)?
I guess she'll be OK
 
Mr Bump said:
its a bit of a tough one should pension be taxed?
obviously state pension is paid for out of NI contributions but the highest and the lowest earners all get the same (if they do all there years) its about £204/week
so for instance a very low earner who pays very little NI will still get a good pension and that is a good thing. However you have to wait until 65/66/67

moving to private pensions all the contributions are tax free (if done correctly) so when you come to collect after 55 then the government taxes it in line with standard tax models which yes I think is a bit wrong and should be taxed at a lesser rate say 10% up to £40,000.

I intend moving to Greece (or Spain) in the next year/18 months and will become tax resident on one of these locales and there tax regimes are similar so the UK is about the same as its EU partners.
Click to expand...
But, if you were unfortunate enough to be born before 1951 (as I was) it's only £156 per week. I'm still baffled as to why this should be!
 
Al1944 said:
But, if you were unfortunate enough to be born before 1951 (as I was) it's only £156 per week. I'm still baffled as to why this should be!
Click to expand...

looking at the google web its because the old state pension was based on only 30 years of contributions to get the full amount
the new pension is 35 years so i expect even on the old state pension once you reached 30 years you were maxed out.
 
Mr Bump said:
not convinced about the OA pension / Min wage thing
I think we do in this country need to increase the amount people have to pay into a workplace pension a bit more though
Click to expand...
We need a state second pension scheme on similar terms to public sector pensions, that anyone in employment can pay in to. So if you pay 9% of your salary in (have it deducted at source) the state notionally contributes a proportionate amount to a defined benefit scheme that provides benefits on the same basis as an NHS pension. In the first term of the Blair government Frank Field wanted to introduce something like (similar to what France has) that to provide everyone with the opportunity for a decent retirement, but got overruled by Gordon Brown, who also mounted the great dividend raid that slashed the annuity that my uncle, a self-employed carpenter, was able to buy from his private pension fund by a third (back in the days when you had to spend the fund on an annuity very quickly after retirement, that was an awful system).

Mr Bump said:
looking at the google web its because the old state pension was based on only 30 years of contributions to get the full amount
the new pension is 35 years so i expect even on the old state pension once you reached 30 years you were maxed out.
Click to expand...
There is also the fact that until 2015 people born before 1951 would have been contributing to SERPS or SSP until retirement age, and (significantly) increased their pension entitlement that way. There is no state second pension scheme now and my contributions to SERPS/SSP until it was withdrawn entitle me to a £30/week uplift on my state pension when I eventually get to retirement. My dad got more from his SERPS than from the state pension,
 
Mr Bump said:
looking at the google web its because the old state pension was based on only 30 years of contributions to get the full amount
the new pension is 35 years so i expect even on the old state pension once you reached 30 years you were maxed out.
Click to expand...
Yes, but lots like me paid well over 40 years of contributions and still only get the lower pension. I wuz robbed again
 
onomatopoeia said:
We need a state second pension scheme on similar terms to public sector pensions, that anyone in employment can pay in to. So if you pay 9% of your salary in (have it deducted at source) the state notionally contributes a proportionate amount to a defined benefit scheme that provides benefits on the same basis as an NHS pension. In the first term of the Blair government Frank Field wanted to introduce something like (similar to what France has) that to provide everyone with the opportunity for a decent retirement, but got overruled by Gordon Brown, who also mounted the great dividend raid that slashed the annuity that my uncle, a self-employed carpenter, was able to buy from his private pension fund by a third (back in the days when you had to spend the fund on an annuity very quickly after retirement, that was an awful system).


There is also the fact that until 2015 people born before 1951 would have been contributing to SERPS or SSP until retirement age, and (significantly) increased their pension entitlement that way. There is no state second pension scheme now and my contributions to SERPS/SSP until it was withdrawn entitle me to a £30/week uplift on my state pension when I eventually get to retirement. My dad got more from his SERPS than from the state pension,
Click to expand...

There is the Workplace Pension Scheme that was introduced just over a decade ago, which includes tax relief and employer contributions. I think it's 8% min contribution in total and the employer must cover at least 3% of this. It's actually not a bad pension on the face of things, although I'm not sure how it is invested by the providers and of course how they subsequently perform. I prefer SIPPs.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
There is the Workplace Pension Scheme that was introduced just over a decade ago, which includes tax relief and employer contributions. I think it's 8% min contribution in total and the employer must cover at least 3% of this. It's actually not a bad pension on the face of things, although I'm not sure how it is invested by the providers and of course how they subsequently perform. I prefer SIPPs.
Click to expand...

yes the workplace pension is essentially a forced private pension and it is a good thing, making young people pay in early will do great things for them in later life.
generally the workplace pensions are with large providers, SIPPs are useful but not for young people who just want to get on with busy lives.
 
gman said:
There is the Workplace Pension Scheme that was introduced just over a decade ago, which includes tax relief and employer contributions. I think it's 8% min contribution in total and the employer must cover at least 3% of this. It's actually not a bad pension on the face of things, although I'm not sure how it is invested by the providers and of course how they subsequently perform. I prefer SIPPs.
Click to expand...
Auto-enrolment is defined contribution, so not on the same terms as public sector pensions which are defined benefit (aka "final salary").

I was specifically arguing for a DB scheme run by the state which anyone could pay into (like they have in France), not the current DC scheme. SERPS was better than the current offering.
 
onomatopoeia said:
Auto-enrolment is defined contribution, so not on the same terms as public sector pensions which are defined benefit (aka "final salary").

I was specifically arguing for a DB scheme run by the state which anyone could pay into (like they have in France), not the current DC scheme. SERPS was better than the current offering.
Click to expand...

don't think final salary pensions exist anymore though?
they were way to expensive for the employers
 
onomatopoeia said:
Auto-enrolment is defined contribution, so not on the same terms as public sector pensions which are defined benefit (aka "final salary").

I was specifically arguing for a DB scheme run by the state which anyone could pay into (like they have in France), not the current DC scheme. SERPS was better than the current offering.
Click to expand...

My main concern would be 'retrospective' changes being forced upon you, such as what happened to teachers not so long ago where I believe they changed the ratios. Then again, they can screw around with SIPPS etc as well to some extent, including now changing the retirement age to 57 and making it retrospective.

I've never actually run the numbers to see how good value these pensions are, I suppose a lot will depend on how long you live and the terms with regard to spouses etc upon death.
 
sirch said:
Nice bit of slight-of-hand has got you all taking about the NI cut instead of focusing on the fact that pretty much all services will be cut meaning that we will all be worse off in terms of essential services on which we all depend.
Click to expand...


Yes, the current government is obsessed with tax cuts but it is the loss of public services that pays for them. Just one example - at my local National Nature Reserve the visitor centre is under threat of closure because NRW can't afford to keep it open (allegedly). It is not part of their core responsibilities despite all the good work the staff do.
 
Mr Bump said:
don't think final salary pensions exist anymore though?
they were way to expensive for the employers
Click to expand...

I took early retirement in July 2022 and I retired on a final salary scheme with the bonus of it being index-linked as well... The government had wanted to change my pension over to the defined contribution model, but thanks to my pension being protected by an act of parliament (due to where I worked) that idea was put on hold until Brexit got sorted and the COVID happened.....

Did Hunt deliver for me...... NO!!!

Being retired I no longer pay NI and the freeze on tax thresholds will mean I'll be paying more tax on my pension when I get my annual raise.

Hunts idea to cut NI rather than raise tax thresholds will no doubt have lost some of the pensioner vote at the next general election.....
 
TheFiend said:
Did Hunt deliver for me...... NO!!!
Click to expand...
Nor me

TheFiend said:
Being retired I no longer pay NI and the freeze on tax thresholds will mean I'll be paying more tax on my pension when I get my annual raise.

Hunts idea to cut NI rather than raise tax thresholds will no doubt have lost some of the pensioner vote at the next general election.....
Click to expand...
Well it is cheaper cutting NI rather than Income Tax
But as others have said, the biggest cuts will be to services, which we all use at some point.
 
seaodyssey said:
Nor me


Well it is cheaper cutting NI rather than Income Tax
But as others have said, the biggest cuts will be to services, which we all use at some point.
Click to expand...


A good point in your last sentence. The problem is that those in power at the moment barely use public services, so they don't know what is being / has been lost.
 
seaodyssey said:
Nor me


Well it is cheaper cutting NI rather than Income Tax
But as others have said, the biggest cuts will be to services, which we all use at some point.
Click to expand...

Yep and that cut in NI is effectively being funded by the freeze in income tax thresholds which effectively raises an extra £40 billion, so basically all taxpayers are funding a cut that only benefits people paying NI...

My own opinion given a choice between tax cuts funded by cutting services, or paying more tax to get better services like a properly funded NHS I would rather pay more tax.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top