AIBU that working people should be rewarded in the Budget?

[DistingusedSocialCommentator]

As above by way of increasing the tax threshold which has been on ice for a while.

The lower paid will benefit the most as those earning about 125k I think it is dont get any tax reliefe. 2 of the 3 children of ours pay 40% or more in tax plus NI. Therefore, the lower paid will benefit the most

We left worl in our early 50's and yet to reach state pension age.

I've read that many pensioners will soon be paying taxes as many are also being paid a few quid in private pensions they contributed to

so rather than a penny or two cut, raise the threshold of income tax

The gov must also do away with IHT but that is a different subject.

So if you agree with me, then it is I am being reasonable

Well the FT and Daily Mail have stories re personal tax cuts up to 2 pence on income tax. Whatever that means

Most services are inefficient and are being badly managed because politicking and short term thinking are preventing reform and modernisation. These things take time and money so yes I do think tax payers need to provide more money. The answer to a broken system is not to bankrupt it.

Tax vapes. It's basically diet smoking and it's easily done

I agree the fairest way to give tax cuts is to raise the base threshold from £12250 to maybe £15000. Taking more low paid part time workers out of paying tax in some cases. Everyone would get some benefit. But Hunt won't do want is fairest

They'd be better off sorting out the 60p+ marginal rates, that would be cost neutral given that those rates are a drag on productivity

Ah so you’re just a bog standard idiot

Gotcha

I agree, children of single parents lose out again. I am in this situation as my partner passed away and we were not married. My kids will likely have to pay some IHT as my property may be worth just over the £500K mark (South). It worries me as I have a disabled DC and ideally I would like them to be able to stay in the house.
When my partner was alive, we were considered a couple for benefit's purposes. Yet, after he passed away I was told to fill everything in to say he was a bachelor and that I was no relation to him. We were together over 16 years and had 4DC. I was also told that I couldn’t claim any widows parents benefits as we were not married, this has recently changed.
Also child maintenance is disregarded if you divorce. Whereas, if your partner dies and leaves a certain amount of life insurance you can’t claim any benefits but in effect this is child maintenance as you can’t claim any, there is no disregard for this.

I want a working NHS, good schools and for them to get rid of the terrible potholes in the roads.

@DistingusedSocialCommentator its feasibility in the UK would depend on broader political and economic considerations.

You’re the same poster telling everyone last week to vote Tory, to get rid of cyclists and e-scooters.

I hope you are being paid by somebody for posting all of these sub-GB News threads, god help you if you really are this stupid.

I'm not a Tory voter at all, but I approve of Hunt's decision to reduce National Insurance contributions, which are only paid by workers, and effectively (by freezing bands) increase Income Tax which is paid by wealthier pensioners and on unearned income. That's exactly what he should be doing, and if he has space to carry on moving taxation from NI to income tax then he should.

I agree the fairest way to give tax cuts is to raise the base threshold from £12250 to maybe £15000

Except if you don’t get a personal allowance, that would actually equate to a tax rise. Currently, for high earners, instead of getting £12.5k tax free, you pay 40%, or even 45% on that £12.5k everyone else gets tax free. If you increase that lower band, then high earners are potentially paying 40%/45% on £15.5k instead of £12.5k.

look into a disabled persons trust for the disabled child

actual tax doesn’t go up though so it’s not a tax rise

The personal allowance has more than doubled in real-terms in the last 15 years. It is one of the highest in the world.

Services will not improve while over 50% of the UK population pay nowhere near enough tax to even cover the costs of the services they consume over their lifetimes. This is a mathematical impossibility. All of the countries that have state services of a standard that most UK residents seem to want have one thing in common: much higher tax rates for average earners. By contrast our tax rates on higher earning employees are some of the highest in the world. The wealthy (who mostly do not work at all) should pay more but that wouldn't raise enough revenue even if they did as there are few of them comparatively. The only solution that can fund the services the public are demanding is to raise overall tax revenue by people on average incomes paying much more than now. Your proposal would move in the opposite direction so no, it is not a good idea.

Yeah, the people already paying 80%+ tax rates should pay more when others pay nothing/ insigificant amounts. That'll fix it. 😆 Honestly, some posts here are just so clueless about the economics.

These figures are misleading because "disposable income" means "after tax". It doesn't account for childcare or housing. Most pensioners have free housing (either owned, or paid for by the taxpayer) and no childcare expenses, but childcare and housing are by far the largest two expenses for those in the cohort you state have the most "disposable" income. It isn't disposable if it's required for essential living costs, so those not familiar with the economic term and its meaning will be very misled by this. All credible economic research shows that it is retired people who have the most wealth, and the most income available to spend after essential living costs.

@Morph22010 it would be though. Instead of paying 45% on the current £12,500 allowance, you’d pay 45% on the new allowance of £15,500. Whereas now, you only pay 20% on the £3k between £12,500 - £15,500. Top rate payers pay their maximum tax rate on the personal allowance they lose.

Yes. They need to make child benefit and the personal allowance and childcare funding universal again, to remove the cliff-edges. That wouldn't even be a cut to rax revenue, it would likely increase it. But would remove disincentives that are damaging the economy immensely, as well as being much fairer to individuals caught in these tax traps.

You are thinking of it wrongly the actual amount of tax would not go up the loss of personal allowance would just cost more as proportion of that tax but the actual amount paid doesn’t change. So someone on £150k for example gets no personal allowance and currently they pay

20% on £38k
40% tax on next £75k
45% tax on rest.

if you put if the personal allowance to £15k it doesn’t change the above calculations they remain exactly the same

Child benefit isn’t a cliff edge as if you go a pound over £50k you only lose a very small amount, although agree that the effective tax percentage between £50k and £60k for someone with a few kids is high. Tax free childcare at £100k on the other hand is a genuine cliff edge

It is still a cliff-edge, just a slightly less steep one. I agree though, that the one at £100k is worse than vertical: actually an overhanging cliff-edge where you end up worse off for earning more given that the marginal rate is over 100% in many cases! It's completely insane and any Chancellor with more than two braincells would fix that on Wednesday^ as their highest priority...^

I'm not sure where the random italics appeared from!

I'm not in the UK, but our new govt. promised tax cuts - and are now scrabbling around trying to find other things to save money on. I feel exactly the way you do, give up on the tax cuts and fix the problems which need fixing if they have spare funds!

Look on Moneysavingexpert.com there has been a change in the rules for bereavement benefit & you may be able to make a backdated claim, it now includes unmarried couples with children.