Am I the only one that thinks that the budget is good?!

[isitactuallybadthough]

NC’d for obvious reasons.

I mean it seems that they’re trying to help the working class?

I am not on benefits. I’m also not lucky enough to live in a property worth over £2,000,000. But surely the worst off in society will be better off under this? With the energy bill cut and two child benefit scrap? Also books for libraries, national wage increases. I do understand people feeling frustrated at the pension/ISA parts, that will probably affect DH and I but overall I’m pleased as the worst off will be slightly less worse off?

Exactly. Where is the incentive for people to go to work?

Irrespective of what people think of this budget in theory, the fact remains tgat both Starmer and Reeves vehemently insisted pre-election that they would NOT raise tax̌es for working people.

The fact Labour was elected based on THAT very manifesto, only for them to do the complete opposite means they 'lied for financial or personal gain'.

That, by its dictionary definition, is FRAUD.

We don't think the fall back after a month had anything to do with Truss leaving office & Hunt reassuring that most of the bright ideas - to "stimulate the economy" by putting yet more cash in the pockets of the already incredibly well off - would not be implemented after all?

Nothing to do with that? No? Ok then.

Do you just put this same comment on every post about the budget as im sure this is the 3rd time ive read it now

’Some people’s mortgages’ is not the same as government debt. I was referring to that specific point.

So ignore any fact that doesn’t fit your argument? OK.

I’m sure it very likely did. I never said it didn’t. I was calling out the inaccuracy of what was said that it was an additional 2% on the long term borrowing costs. It wasn’t. It was a short term spike in borrowing costs.

Did you actually read the post I was replying to? It wasn’t about people’s mortgages, it was talking about government debt.

Is there some new rule that you have to cover off every angle of a possible argument when you post?

Im not defending Truss’s budget, Im pointing out that the oft used phrase ‘she crashed the economy’ can be misleading. She crashed it for 30 days and yes, that led to people who had to remortgage in those 30 days bearing the brunt.

But long term borrowing costs came back down again, they were not permanently affected. That is not how bond markets work.

It’s apparently the second most hated Budget since YouGov started collecting data on it, which has only been since 2010, and honestly if you step back and look at it objectively it’s really not that bad. Certainly the markets didn't respond badly (can you imagine the headlines if they had?).

I mean spending an extra 0.25% of the budget to lift children out of poverty is hardly the horrific, reckless action many are trying to paint it as.

The reaction isn’t surprising though when you look at just how anti-Labour the right wing, robber baron owned media is. It literally spends all day every day telling people Labour are destroying the country and the masses who consume it just lap it up without question.

Agree re incentive and now they have a big issue with hospitality closures looming.

And my point was not that bonds never moved back - it was that specifically in response to an uncosted, poorly targeted budget, the cost of UK borrowing went up 2% following the Truss/Kwarteng debacle. They only recovered when the country put some grown-ups back in charge again.

In comparison, the markets barely flinched on Thursday-a slight uptick when the leak went out, then recovered by the close.

Ergo, it really, really isn't a bad budget. There's very little wriggle room for any party in power in this country now (Reform's fantasy economics would instantly have the same impact as Truss's if they get a go at it). And the very well off have come off extremely lightly this time around, no matter what the Telegraph might be telling you right now!

There's so many other repercussions too. Lots of people hear the budget and think 'oh how kind, Labour are a kind party. Look they are giving money to the poor, they are raising minimum wage, how wonderful' except it's not them being kind is it. It's not kind to take someone else's money and give it to someone else.
If I took money directly out of my brother's pocket and handed it to a poor man on the street is that me being kind? No.
And if we had voted for this fair enough. But we didn't vote for taxes to rise, not anything like this extent, we didnt even vote for the 2 child cap to be lifted. Keir Starmer said it was unaffordable! Because he KNEW it was unaffordable without raising taxes and he couldn't possibly admit to planning to do that at a time when the country is struggling so much with the cost of living.

And the raising of minimum wage, who do you think pays for that? Is it the big companies and corporations? Nope! It's us. Wait for your nursery fees to now go up yet again, and all other prices to increase that rely on minimum wage workers.
And then businesses start to fold, or reduce hours because they are also increasing tax on dividends to make it even harder for small businesses, so minimum wage workers lose their jobs. It's happening already due to the last budget, just look at unemployment rates!

Yes because it’s £26bn in taxes, mostly hitting middle earning workers via tax bands. Of course the markets are ok with that. They don’t vote though. Starmer / Reeves have bought time until the local elections.

The markets are happy because she’s given them what they want. That doesn’t make it a good budget.

This

But why should the tax payer be propping up unviable businesses with Universal Credit wage top ups?

The only people it seriously hits negatively are those with tons of money to save every year in ISAs or enough to be doing salary sacrifice, so basically have spare cash or maybe those with enormous houses or who are at risk of a banding change ( we rent but not that many people like us are renting F or G band homes) possibly those wit EVs, but that’s more of closing a loophole .

myself I am anti salary sacrifice as it smacks of tax evasion , however to balance it I would have brought in funded nursery hours regardless of income , ( in Denmark you got the same low subsidised fee whether on the breadline or a millionaire) as I feel many do salary sacrifice to get around that .

@Crikeyalmighty By the time you factor people impacted by the ISA limit, limits on salary sacrifice and rebanding, extra tax on homes (which, by the way, are not by any mean enormous houses if you live, for instance in London), there are quite a few people impacted, plus there is also the issue of stagnation in the thresholds of income tax which means that the tax rates are not changing but the actual tax is increasing. So quite a few people and, crucially, people that increasingly see that the welfare system is a growing time bomb... so they are concerned not only about the impact now but the impact going forward and the fact that, like this time round, Ms Reeves is likely to come back for more.

The debate is now not only about the impact of specific measures in the budget but about the trade offs at play - following the disclosure of the OBR forecasts, the increase in taxation is associated with the choice to want to increase the headroom ...which helps stabilise credit markets (and control the huge amount paid in servicing the debt) but only needed because the benefits bills is increasing by 16 billion.

Lower paid people are affected by the salary sacrifice more than those in the higher tax bands, how can that be right.

I did salary sacrifice for my pension when I earned about £30k, obviously you don't know much about it. It's quite commonly used for private sector pensions

Salary sacrifice is NOT tax evasion, what an idiotic comment.

The add on £26bn tax burden is on the lower to middle income through banding too.

You’re right, it’s avoidance.

It is not. Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended - that is why HMRC has programmes focused on stopping tax avoidance and people, if caught, have to pay the tax due plus (potentially) a fine.

Tax sacrifice schemes are a form of tax planning.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. Evasion isn’t.

Not sure the point that you are trying to make in relation to salary sacrifice (if any).

i would recommend you to look at the HMRC advice on tax avoidance (which shows that it is not 'perfectly legal' and outlines the consequences). Tax evasion is not legal indeed, so much so that, although both tax evasion and tax avoidance are illegal, tax evasion is more likely to result in criminal prosecution.