Nervous/anxious/scared about the Autumn budget 2024

I thought she'd allowed some mitigations for small businesses?

from the budget document:

To support small businesses with these (NICs) changes, the government is increasing the Employment Allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 and removing the £100,000 threshold, expanding this to all eligible employers. This means that 865,000 employers will pay no NICs next year.

Won't help larger nurseries but the exemption from employer NI limits have increased (although the only group of people to which that does not apply is a mother having to pay for full time childcare at home as they don't get the exemption)".Reeves increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, meaning 865,000 businesses will not pay any NI at all next year, with another one million paying the same or less as they did previously." When I employed 2 sons under PAYE I was surprised to see that allowance meant I had no employer NI to pay at all due to the allowance and yet when I employed childcare I had to pay employer NI. I do think Reeves should extend the allowance to full time working parents who need to employ childcare but I don't think that would comply with her political views and she would probably say - use a childminder (even if a young doctor could not rely on that for 50 hours a week of regular childcare given shifts etc)

I guess we will have to wait and see what the impact is.

People I've spoken to, people I've seen being interviewed on tv and on sm, seem relieved.

It's not possible to raise money without hurting anybody.

I agree on nurseries, it’ll be tough. I’m not at that stage anymore but cc fees can be prohibitive already for many

It's definitely not preferable to a raise in income tax.

It's just underlined RRs weird ideological schemes, when a rise in income tax would have meant less divisiveness.

The money had to come from somewhere.

Businesses took the brunt of it. Smaller businesses already struggling may be pushed over the edge. Still preferable to a rise in income tax, NI or VAT imo.

Nobody is daft enough to think that they won't be affected. Profits will take a hit to keep customers. Prices might ultimately rise.

A significant number of SMEs will go to the wall - no doubt.

A combination of NI and the increase in the minimum wage.

So much this! It’s a budget to make everyone breathe a sigh of relief and to think “well, Labour aren’t so bad? I mean… they’re not raising taxes are they?”
But as someone astutely pointed out upthread, the rise in NI to be paid by employers (along with min wage rises) will absolutely be passed on to the consumer. Look forward to keeping roughly the same amount of money in your pockets but for the cost of living to increase for everyone.

That poster made a good point about how businesses whose staffing costs are a big proportion of their expenses such as nurseries… their fees will have to increase to cover it. Childcare is already too expensive as it is!

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any skin in this game as such. I don’t use childcare anymore and I have a lot of disposable income (by choice, I earn very well but live well within my means) but people are being naive if they think they won’t be affected by this.

That budget gives many of us breathing space to reduce our liability before the next one hits.

For the moment I will ‘take the win’.

The labour government made no secret that they want more houses built- this should surprise no one.

"Landed families? Wtf are you talking about?"

Eh? A perfectly correct term to use. Try google before showing yourself up.

That’s the critical point. Nothing for most of us to worry about. Nothing in the budget hurts me. So people think it’s ok.

It’s because certain people have been disproportionately hit. I am astonished that as a society, we think this is ok and that nobody is going to stand up for those hit, as they are considered rich or whatever.

Businesses - including GP surgeries - are going to bear the brunt of this. We can sit around thinking it won’t affect us. There’s a poster on here tonight talking about shutting her GP practice because of the budget. What if that is your GP?

Logically, given that Reeves needs mega money for spending, she needs to raise mega money. Does it really make logical sense that it can all be magicked up without hurting most of us? It doesn’t.

All done now, not so bad, certainly nothing for most of us to worry about.

Pumpkittenspice · Today 16:16

BIossomtoes · Today 14:58
Good budget, Sunak’s rage was a fair indication of just how good.

I thought this too!

Oh yes. Hunt looked alarmingly more swivel eyed than usual, too.

Well, I'm not backing down.

It is nonsense and that will be the response every time you trot it out.

It's not nonsense:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/28/exclusive-hypocrite-keir-starmer-benefited-private-school-charity/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/headmaster-keir-starmer-old-school-135906857.html

You are the one posting nonsense - you said;

"None of the current cabinet were privately educated" -

Louise Haigh, Anneliese Dodds, Keir Starmer, John Healey, Hilary Benn and Lisa Nandy all attended private schools for at least part of their education - plus David Lammy's state boarding fees were paid by an ILEA choral scholarship fund.

Landed families? Wtf are you talking about?

Oh, I see. Going private for 6th form is fine is it?

Then if your memory is perfectly adequate, why do you keep posting this nonsense over and over again. You really are better than this.

For two years. Jesus.

"Most farms are worth over 1 million because they own so much land for obvious reasons. When they are passed down to children - because that's how farming works in the main - the children will have to pay IHT on, say, a million pounds if the farm and land is worth 2 million. That would be 400k, which they can only raise by selling land. That land will probably be bought by developers."

The landed families I know all use trusts to get around that. Or is that loophole being plugged too?

I don't understand the fixation on where people went to school. Two of mine went to private school and had no say in it whatsoever - it was my choice. Who cares where any of them were sent to school? Plenty of shit MPs that were from 'ordinary' families. Plenty of shit MPs that were from landed gentry. And vice versa too I suppose.

So, if choice is no longer 'allowed'. Should we then perhaps:

• ban the ability to buy our own houses - perhaps it should all be state owned accommodation - unfair some can afford to buy their own homes.
• ban private healthcare - it's unfair that some people can afford it (and no VAT on it).
• ban holidays abroad unless state approved - as it's unfair some people can afford the luxury of going long haul and on all inclusive (perhaps an extra tax on foreign holidays - as it's a 'luxury').

The reality is that most countries have NOT opted to tax education, even those countries that in the past have been staunch socialist.

The freedom that comes from choice is what made Britain the country it is - multicultural (aspirational), industrious, innovative - a place where people want to come to make their dreams come true.

Starmer passed the 11-plus examination and gained entry to Reigate Grammar School, then a voluntary-aided selective grammar school.[1][10] Reigate GS converted into an independent fee-paying school in 1976, while he was a student. The terms of the conversion were such that his parents were not required to pay for his schooling until he turned 16, and when he reached that point, the school, now a charity, awarded him a bursary that allowed him to complete his education there without any parental contribution.

(Wikipedia)