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?

So are you saying that tax avoidance is morally wrong given that it’s not illegal? You clearly have an issue with it?

Are the many thousands of people with ISAs (a form of tax avoidance) morally corrupt?

The issue of benefits being used to subsidise low wages goes back decades. It expanded under new Labour with working tax credits and the influx of EU workers happy to accept lower wages has made the problem worse.

The tax payer shouldn’t be propping up any business that isn’t paying its workers enough although some basic support may be inevitable in some sectors. The problem now is that it is so widespread.

How do you propose reversing the situation we’re in?

Neither salary sacrifice nor ISAs are tax avoidance, they are tax planning and therefore legitimate.

Tax avoidance is pursued by HMRC and can result not only on having to pay the tax due but also fines. HMRC guidance is clear on the matter.

Can you give an example of tax avoidance and an example of tax evasion?

I’m in a kind of wait and see position…I’m partly of a mind that the 2029 things won’t ever actually happen anyway. The salary sacrifice is my biggest concern, I need to sit and work out the impact with a. It of excel joggers poker. The EV one I don’t fully get the issue, I get it’s an additional cost but on my 12-14k miles per year it’s not much. I was thinking of going hybrid next next (diesel currently) but the 1.5p thing feels like a double tax.

Happy to (you may also want to have a look at the definitions in the gov.uk pages or websites from taxation lawyers).

The Panama papers are a rather well-known example of tax evasion - hiding assets so as not to pay tax on them. And the use of company loans that are not repaid as a recurrent and disproportionate way of directors' remuneration is a form of tax avoidance (using a legal scheme beyond the way in which it was intended) and is frequently investigated by HMRC.

As someone in that line of work, I think it is important to use the right terms for the avoidance of doubt (and not to delegitimise tax planning).

I’m very happy with the new budget it makes it fairer for everyone and is making things a bit easier for people on a low income and getting benefits this way there should be no kids going with out.

I absolutely agree with supporting working families on low incomes. I absolutely do not agree with supporting families in which neither, or only one, parent/s works if there is no justifiable reason as to why they cannot.

Completely legal. I have saved 50k a year for the last 10 years with salary sacrifice and reduced my tax bill at the same time. It will be a nice little pot of money when I'm older and the best decision I ever made. Anybody who pays more taxes than is required of them is a fool. Let's see what takes better care of us in our old age, my pension pot or your moral superiority, shall we?

Oops, typo, meant 50k every 2 years. Wish it was 50 a year!

There’s a big difference between someone sacrificing large amounts into a pension to give themselves a good quality of life in retirement, when they will probably still be a HR tax payer and a net contributor to the country, and a divorced Man deliberately depriving his children of money by having a Ltd. Company and sacrificing down to minimum wage - the latter is morally repugnant and should be illegal.

How it it fairer for the thousands of people who will lose their jobs and be plunger into financial hardship due to the actions of Rachel Reeves? Thanks to her woeful first budget, well over a quarter of a million people had already lost their jobs...how much worse does it have to get? The woman should hang her head in shame but instead she tells lie after lie after lie while digging herself in an ever deepening hole. Utterly despicable.

My old age is already here with financial security and morals intact. 😊

Yet again tax had been made more complicated. We really need a mass simplification of this mess.

Scrap NI and merge with income tax.
Scrap salary sacrifice schemes.
Scrap government funded nursery hours.
Scrap child benefit.
Scrap the loss of personal allowance.
Dividend is income.

Keep it simple. Earn more, keep more. No cliff edges, simpler enforcement.

Because most people get paid more for working. Don't be so bloody absurd.

No you are not the only one who thinks the budget was a fair one.

I don't think the budget is bad, working families and pensioners will do best out of it from what i've read.

The wealthy, which includes rich pensioners, will lose a bit.

I'm an average pensioner and it will make little difference to me. I'm content for myself.

You can't please all the people all of the time.

You can simplify tax without removing many incentives to work more.

It isn't bloody absurd. Some research was put out recently showing that to match the income of a three-child household on benefits would require pre-tax earnings of approx £70k.

It didn’t say that.

https://benefitsinthefuture.com/lies-damned-lies-and-the-telegraph/

@blossomtoes

It did say that. The link you provided seems to take issue with comparing two families where one might be different to the other. That's a pretty weak rejection of the figures. It also shouldn't even be a discussion that we are having.

“For example, an out-of-work family with three children receiving the average Universal Credit housing element, health benefits and PIP is projected to take home around £46,000 a year by 2026/27. For the smaller number of families with five children, that figure rises to £55,000. These households are insulated from the overall benefit cap because two in five families previously subject to the limit are in receipt of health-related payments. That compares with the £28,000 take-home earnings of a family where one adult is working full-time, and another part-time, on the national living wage.”
Here, we assume, are two families identical in every respect except that one family is working and one family is not. The working family is paid at National Living Wage levels and so is not amongst the highest paid.
That’s a dramatic difference and seems to justify their criticism of the benefits system.
After all, these are families in the same circumstances which is why the comparison is justified.
The same circumstances … except …
… the family on benefits have three children
… the family on benefits have disabilities
… the family on benefits are paying rent.
Perhaps not the most obvious comparison."

Gareth Morgan (not sure who he is) is comparing apples with oranges.

Fair but hugely damaging.

From the Times today
^^
Rachel Reeves’s decision to raise taxes to the highest level on record will constrain economic growth for years and deter people from saving, earning more money and taking the risk of becoming entrepreneurs, leading economists have warned.

The leading economists being the OECD. They go on to predict that both inflation and unemployment will continue to rise, but as long as it's 'fair' eh?

Was it fair anyway? The tax banding is the bulk of the tax hike and that hits middle earners.

Agree with the rest btw

Not fair then, I would argue.