Nervous/anxious/scared about the Autumn budget 2024

[Cartwrightandson]

I know that we don't know any details. We have read or heard bits that might be incorrect or just plain wrong. I also know we won't know anything until Wednesday when Rachel Reeves publishes/announces the contents of the budget...

But what we do know...it's the first labour budget for over 14 years, we've had a conservative government, austerity, brexit, covid and cost of living/interest rate increase meaning our economy is not in a good place.

Our services/infrastructure haven't had much needed investment for a long time.
Councils are practically bankrupt, some already are. Schools, housing, NHS, social care and economy are all struggling..to remedy this requires money and this will need to come from higher taxes.

There's a 19 billion pound black hole and Labour have already removed the winter fuel allowance, showing they are willing do things that are unpopular or possibly controversial..the Labour manifesto said it wouldn't increase taxes, but now they are saying they have to.

They've already allocated money for Ukraine, teachers, train drivers, junior doctors, NHS staff ect

Keir said people who don't 'work' for their income (shares/savings/landlord income) aren't classed as working people and will be taxed..

Basically this budget is going to need to raise taxes to pay for investment in services. That much we do know. But where the cuts and the tax increase will be is unknown. I don't think anyone will be 'better off'...

Possibilities.. (note these are not absolute, I could be very wrong)

Inheritance tax changes
Fuel duty increase
Income tax increase
Social housing rent increase
Benefit cuts
No free universal prescription for over 60s
Change to tax free allowance
Removal of help to buy, right to buy and alterations to stamp duty
Pension age to increase
State pension to decrease?
Tuition fees to increase
Tax free pension allowance to be reduced
Isa/bond/shares/investments taxed

Who really knows...but I think the labour comms are possibly leaking information so that we are being drip fed so when the budget does happen we already know and are braced/prepared for it.

Or what is being leaked about the budget is really bad but when the budget happens we are relieved it wasn't as bad the leaks hinted at. But it is still painful but we are more accepting because it's not as bad as it could have been...if that makes sense.

Well i guess he technically was - or at least he went to a private school, even if it was originally a grammar.

All I've heard since 12:30 is about how farming will suffer. Can you explain how?

I know the budget has been frozen since 2014, which seems harsh but cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the current government.

IHT at 20% on property over £1000,000?

What else?

Talk of the devil. I've no issue with anti-labour sentiment when it's merited, it's just the incessant complaining has gotten really, really tiresome.

We've just had weeks of constant doom and gloom from your lot. Every single day, another thread about how this budget was going to be a catastrophe, cause a mass exodus, immediately destroy the economy and send the UK into a death spiral from which it would never recover.

In the end it wasn't that bad, certainly it hasn't illicited a trussenomics reaction from the markets, but instead of saying "oops we've got that one wrong", the gloom squad have instead become farming and estate planning experts (in under an hour) and are immediately back complaining again.

Take a day off.

I can post as I wish thanks.

And since the budget was today it's a bit pointless to wait for a few days when the threads are over. You can if you want if it means that much to you.

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/30/obr-budget-economic-growth-rachel-reeves-economy

Plus if the Guardian can talk about the budget in less than glowing terms the pro Labour on mn will have to read some posts that don't align with their views. That's a public forum for you, I'm sure there are closed FB sites or whatever where it's all Labour.

My memory is perfectly adequate.

Starmer was privately educated with a bursary/scholarship in sixth form - funded by the school/fee-paying parents. Surrey County Council only covered fees up to Year 11. Fee-paying girls were admitted to his school sixth form as well.

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)

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.

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.

"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?

For two years. Jesus.

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

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

Landed families? Wtf are you talking about?

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.

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

Well, I'm not backing down.

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.

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

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.

"Landed families? Wtf are you talking about?"

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

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

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’.