To be completely confused by the mini budget?

[towelhammer]

Just baffled really, how is it going to boost the economy & improve public services?

I think as top Rate income tax now down to 40 percent will attract new businesses to UK so new jobs. Paying 40 percent is still a lot of a wage to lose. It will encourage those who only work 4 days a week to avoid paying the 45 percent to go back to working 5 days a week. Scrapping bankers bonus caps will attract new banks and the best talent in banking into UK. All tax going down from 20 p in £ to 19 p in £ from April will help all those who pay tax. Also reversing NIC contributions by 1.25 percent will help all and also in employers. Cuts on corporation tax will attract new businesses to relocate in UK. Now we will just have to watch and wait if any new large businesses do in relocate to UK. If they do the amount of revenue they generate will offset some of these costs. This seems to favour higher earners and businesses but earlier in year money off council bands A-D helped those with cheaper properties. Those on UC, and with disabilities also got cash help. As a country the UK gets most of its tax from its higher earners and compared to other countries 40 percent is still high.

Nah, a lot of the middle earners will be better off as a result of the tax/NI cuts, and they clearly don't give a shit about the people at the bottom getting trodden on, otherwise they would never have voted Tory in the first place.

Your first point couldn’t be more wrong. The fact that it’s free at the point of delivery means that people don’t value it. Just look at the number of missed appointments and time wasters in a and e. And as for valuing health, have you seen the British population. Fat, sedentary and with all manner of behaviours that clearly show they don’t value health

I'm old enough to remember what hell that was. Bought our first house in the boom of 1973, a year later it was worth less and the interest rate had risen 4 times I think in 12 months, fixed deals weren't a thing then as far as I know they certainly weren't offered at our building society.

I was pregnant with 2nd baby and the biggest excitement that Christmas was I won the playgroup raffle of a food hamper. Someone offered to drop it off for me later but I was so excited I loaded it onto the pushchair. I must have seemed like a crazy lady, 9 months pregnant, big hamper in the buggy and toddler upset at having to walk.

I hope we don't get the same sort of boom/bust this time.

@towelhammer, the government have already announced huge payments to businesses, schools, colleges, hospitals with energy bills. I think 40 percent.

@edwinbear

I am angry. I have a high salary so will benefit massively from all the cuts.

But there's virtually no point me paying the difference to HMRC if other high earners are not being asked to. We elect our politicians to collect sufficient tax from all those who can most afford it - to make it compulsory to contribute, not voluntary.

What will I do with the extra? Probably further increase the amount I regularly donate to foodbanks, because they are not going away any time soon with these proposals.

If government actually took more tax off all high earners, they could help the poorest and I would live in a better society where I wouldn't need to support foodbanks, and public sector workers would be properly resourced. That's what I want!

we need more investment in the economy, better skills & wages for higher productivity, well that my economic understanding.

@walkingonsunshinekat

WTC introduced by Labour was just a name change for various types on income support

It was far more than a "name change". It was a fundamental change in the administration, qualifying criteria, and most importantly, amounts paid out. People who'd previously qualified for relatively modest benefits (or not qualified at all) suddenly found themselves eligible for huge sums.

@caringcarer but isn't that temporary & not enough plus there are still the salary increases. I heard a school on the radio who's energy bills had gone from 200k to just under 800k

@DadDadDad

If government actually took more tax off all high earners, they could help the poorest

Not if the high earners beggared off abroad, they wouldn't! That's exactly what has happened over the past few decades. The "rich" have enough money and are often flexible enough to be able to relocate. Just look at how many top athletes, pop stars, TV personalities, actors, etc live abroad. There's a reason that some pop stars have moved to, say, Switzerland "for creative reasons"!

It's totally ridiculous, really unhelpful for FTB, most FTB are buying way under the previous stamp duty threshold. House prices will keep going up, along with interest rates, it's impossible to save fast enough to keep up. Its ridiculous that me and my partner are both on almost exactly the 'average' income, have a £45000 deposit that we have spent 10 years saving for and still can't buy a terraced house, so we are stuck renting.

the bankers bonus you mean? That was put in place as there was concern uncapped bonuses encouraged unnecessary risk taking - the kind that contributed to the banking crash and the government spending billions bailing out the banks.

Yes you should be able to pay the market rate for people, but clearly without some limits, people take the piss

We do, and also in public services so we have a healthy well educated workforce. I am not sure how cutting taxes increases available funds to invest in those things.

I missed the announcement but am listening to range of economists on Times radio - from small businesses perspective and other

Won’t sum up but recommend

I will benefit substantially from this budget, but I most certainly won't be volunteering to pay more tax because the government has demonstrated that it is incapable of using this money to help vulnerable people or improve public services. Consequently, I would far rather give the surplus to charities that will be able to use the funds to mitigate the impact of government policy on the very poorest in our society.

I would far rather live in a civilised society where the rich were taxed at a fair rate and the poor/disabled/vulnerable were confident that they would be supported adequately by the state. Charity, in my view, should be about adding value and enhancing lives - not about meeting the most basic needs that should be guaranteed by the state.

Our whole system is fucked.

If we want a more skilled and productive workforce, we need to invest in the infrastructure that creates that.

@caringcarer

Funny how we need to incetivise rich people and 'attract' talent but we're perfectly happy to watch talent leave the nhs and care sector cause we won't pay them enough.

Trickle down economics, where the rich people have money in their pocket to come to poor towns and pay all our gas bills. Or something.

Don't vote Tory, folks.

I also agree something should be done about the lifetime allowance on pensions. Do away with or reduce tax relief on pension contributions, but then don't tax people so much on their pensions when they take them.

HMRC actually does quite well out of bankers' bonuses (think about a £1 million bonus and the tax rate was 50%). I don't agree with reducing the tax rate for high earners, it's not as if the likes of Lewis Hamilton or Paula Radcliffe are going to come back to the UK from Monaco.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves the only thing charities will do with that money is pay the massive salary of the CEO.

Many of us who pay tax at the higher rate are not mega-rich who have the resources or inclination to go to another country (I earn a salary from a UK company, and have a UK-specific set of skills and qualifications, so I'm not going anywhere even if I could persuade my family to uproot).

There's plenty of us committed to this country who would be happy to contribute to make it a better place.

I would far rather live in a civilised society where the rich were taxed at a fair rate and the poor/disabled/vulnerable were confident that they would be supported adequately by the state. Charity, in my view, should be about adding value and enhancing lives - not about meeting the most basic needs that should be guaranteed by the state

Totally agree. The rich benefit from decent state support as well. Less unemployment, fewer health and educational needs, leads to less anti-social behaviour and crime.

That just isn't true. Yes, there are some large charities that have very well paid CEOs. Some of them may be overpaid, but in most cases, they will be earning a whole lot less than they could earn for with comparable skills in the private sector.

Running a charity is a complex role. You need people who have the skills to do it properly in order to ensure the maximum return on investment for funders. It would be a false economy to employ people on very low wages without the requisite skills, or worse, to rely on volunteers.

Rules remain in place in the financial sector that remuneration cannot reward excessive risk taking. I think this is right. But I don't think it is the place of government to set material limits. Even those that received a bail out will cease to be effective if they cannot offer a competitive remuneration package to those at the very top of their game.

What a fucking joke.