Autumn Statement 2013 - your thoughts(91 Posts)
The Autumn Statement is currently live on the BBC
Thought to be included are a potential faster rise in pension age, married couples tax allowance, growth forecasts to be revised up and a fuel duty freeze
Share your thoughts below.
wondering, not all charities receive government funding.
I am confused. The IEA says it is a charty but also that it receives no funding from the government.
Osborne wanted to be rid of the much abused charitable tax relief, but many large donors who often fund political parties too stopped it.
Let people give to the poor because they want to not for the tax breaks.
Simple tax systems mean fewer abuses, less avoidance and people taking decisions based on how they think not how the state is telling them to think for the tax break concerned.
The Autumn Statement was an expected not very exciting and does not affect most people in a material way as there is no money to be had.
ironman, it is an amazing report. It explains all the politically correct spin at the taxpayer's expense. No wonder they don't want UKIP to win, because lots of this publicly funded spin would be scrapped. An end to the gravy train at the public's expense. Here it is.
claig have you got a link to the IEA report? I would like to have a read of it.
Yeah, the IEA report is mental, well worth a read.
wondering, no wonder you're wondering. It is all out of newspapers and reports from the Institute of Economic Affairs. I'm not making it up.
'George Osborne introduced a cap of £50,000 on charitable tax relief last year after identifying widespread abuse'
It is a shame Osborne didn't win and the "philanthropists" won, but maybe if the Tories get in again, they may look at it again, which will mean that they can reduce taxation on ordinary people as they take more tax from the "philanthropists".
Read the IEA report and you will see how they fund "climate change" organisations with taxpayer money who lobby for green taxes to tax the public further and how they do not fund climate sceptic organisations which want to "cut the green crap".
The above report is amazing. I've only skimmed it, but it is fascinating.
It explains how the EU, governments and elites fund some of the "climate change" groups etc that they want the public to believe in using public money. Spin, social engineering and sock puppetry to lead the public where they want them to go.
"New research, released today, reveals the true extent of government funded lobbying by charities and pressure groups .
This report argues that, when government funds the lobbying of itself, it is subverting democracy and debasing the concept of charity. It is also an unnecessary and wasteful use of taxpayers’ money "
"IT is a great shame that Ukip, which did spectacularly well in last week’s local elections, has ditched its long-standing commitment to a flat tax. It
But a flat tax, thought through properly and phased in carefully over a number of years, would hugely benefit the British economy."
There is lots of money wasted in charitable tax relief for "philanthropists" etc and in taxpayer money being used to promote and help the Spice Girls of Ethiopia etc. If all of that was cut, then more of the taxpayer's money could remain in people's pockets and that would fuel economic growth as it would be spent in the economy here rather than being wasted by progressives overseas and ending up in progressives' pockets.
And if all the landlords sold up there would be a housing crisis, because governments are not prepared to spend the money to build the necessary housing stock. That's why landlords are vital. It's cheaper than them starting from scratch and building lots of new homes.
"Gordon Brown’s secret army could defeat the Coalition’s welfare and education reforms
Britain’s charities and quangos are now stuffed to the gunwales with Labour placemen "
"Only now, long after the election, do we begin to realise how clever Gordon Brown really was. After the crash, in his last two years in office, he started preparing for a new kind of Opposition. Labour might be turfed out of government, but it could carry on the fight through charities, quangos and think tanks. At one stage, Brown had a team in Downing Street devoted to appointments in public bodies, carefully building what would become a kind of government-in-exile. And if the Tories tried anything radical – like welfare reform – then Labour’s new fifth columnists would strike."
I lost faith in lots of charities ages ago, and I'm not the only one. But you keep giving them your hard-earned money.
"Charity Commission 'not fit for purpose', says Margaret Hodge
Highly critical report warns commission's failure to investigate fraud and abuse was undermining public faith in good causes"
"Commenting on the report, Hodge, the chair of the public accounts committee, said the commission "risks undermining public trust" in charities."
The inquiry was prompted by MPs' concerns over a complex tax avoidance scheme operated by the Cup Trust, a registered charity. The charity gave £152,292 to good causes while attempting to claim £46m back from the tax authorities in Gift Aid on £177m income. In 2010 it attracted more donations than the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the British Heart Foundation or the Salvation Army.
George Osborne introduced a cap of £50,000 on charitable tax relief last year after identifying widespread abuse. But an outcry from philanthropists persuaded the government to change its mind."
Shame Osborne did not succeed with his plans, but lots of well-heeled "philanthropists" came out of the woodwork and howled him down.
Profplum your example is sad but extinct.
Juliet if you want 'low, flat taxes' try living in Afghanistan, Algeria or Albania. Choose from this list. There is an interesting trend you will find that the most developed healthy countries have higher taxes and the most dysfunctional hostile ones have low taxes. Think it through.
something what exactly is your complaint - are you a saver or a landlord? Highly iikely to be both. If landlord life is so hard, sell your property and invest it in something more profitable.
Bah humbug. And if you think charities are ripping you off, don't ever go to the foodbank when times are tough.
When I was a little girl, the father of one of my friends committed suicide: he rented out a house but the controlled rent he got in did not cover his outgoings and he had no right to give notice to the tenants, and no way he could sell the house with them in situ. He spent all his money (earnings from a job) subsidising the tenants before he finally could see no other way out without leaving his family destitute - he was relying on his life insurance to see them get through.
Rent control was finally abolished because, surprise surprise, no new properties were coming onto the rental market and owners would rather leave properties empty than risk getting into the kind of situation that befell my friend's father.
If you want landlords to let out houses (we do) then you have to let them charge enough rent to make a return, and you have to give them the security of knowing that they can get their asset back within a reasonable time frame if they ever need to. Competition will keep the prices down if there is sufficient supply. The current rising prices are due to the lack of supply which itself is down to an increase in the number of households together with insufficient house building. These factors are not the landlords' fault.
Indeed. Labour will be much worse.
I also agree that it was a pity the abolition of charity tax relief did not get through when they last tried. I want simple low flat taxes (and a much smaller state) and no distortions from the complex tax reliefs the state keeps introducing from the patent box to relief for film makers. They just distort the market and are state sanctioned avoidance.
Most landlords rent out one property. Many rent it out because they have had to move for work and they rent themselves in the town of their new job. Until we removed frozen rents and tenancies for life there was no private rented sector - only those as old as I am remember those days and they were not the good old days; they were the very bad old days of renting. Most landlords are lucky to make 4% before tax on their rented property (I know that is the case with my daughter who cannot afford to live in her own flat and in fact in her case the expenses are not covered entirely by the rent so owing it is simply an expensive hope/risk that at some point she can afford to live in it).
I don't think the main is thinking that all rented properties are slums or that all landlords are crooks, but there is a lot of frustration that unlike many other places, the government has refused to give tenants much protection from slum landlords or estate agents that encourage them and rising prices. They're doing nothing on that front because so much of property is in the wealthiest hands, those that back political parties as well as their political ideology that home ownership is the be-all of responsible adults and mostly ignore tenants unless its to help us to buy. It's the government and politicians that are the aim of the frustration, not hardworking landlords.
well done to the landlord-haters, you've got it into this thread.
to save effort next time, copy and paste this: 'all rented properties are slums and all landlords are crooks.'
why not start a petition to make owning property a crime?
BTW, those who can't sell properties and are renting them; the CGT exemption period has been halved, from the last three years of ownership to 18 months. But of course as you make a fortune from your shivering tenants who always pay the rent and never trash the place, and you don't have to pay big insurances and all the other maintenance costs, you don't care.
of course if savers weren't dirt you might not have gone into the whole process in the first place, because your diligence and lack of extravagance would be rewarded. But no, you are stupid for saving, you should have spent on things with someone else's name on and energy guzzling gadgets. You can get good rates on loans for those.
(end of rant)
I don't think people vote based on whether Treasury decides there is a surplus or not.
People vote based on what they see around them, their friends losing jobs, their friends children being forced to work at tescos for tuppence or do free internships, their requests to councils, hospitals, services for support which are turned down or not possible because of the cuts.
Labour is making the same mistake of assuming that general bleatings in the House will make people support them. It might work inside that room, but it doesn't work in the real world where millions are unable to heat their homes and feed their families but wages aren't going up.
And tweaking these things doesn't help either - a few pounds here and a few percent there makes no difference if year on year the economy only benefits the big businesses, the landed gentry (homeowners) and the overpaid professionals. I do wish they would stop treating people like idiots and get on and mke some real changes.
Raising the pension age is a classic example of 'oh shit money's really running out now, let's do something quick that looks good to the IMF and covers me and my friends backs.'
There are alternatives to this - like increasing tax on high pensions.
The fact that the whole of our economy is based on hoping and doing everything possible to make house prices
completely unaffordable for anyone who isn't a millionaire higher (in order to win the votes of the older "my home is my pension" generation) and get tax receipts from stamp duty/inheritance tax is such a dreadful economic policy it basically shows how inept and clueless these politicians are. The fact that they all come from one elite group of rich Oxbridge graduates (Major was right) who have no real work experience but get jobs based on their wealth and connections just shows how out of touch they are with ordinary people.
I thought the one significant thing that came out of the exchange was that the Labour party are in no fit shape to take over in 2015. Balls' performance was woeful and his repetitive messages about flatlining and how the austerity measures aren't working ring very hollow in the face of the stats. Now better growth is predicted and tax receipts are going to rise it makes it a lot easier to cut public spending, ironically. Trump card will be if the Coalition can turn a surplus.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.