The budget 2014

[VikkiMumsnet]

George Osborne is all set to deliver this year's budget on Wednesday 19th March.

Here's a useful link for what's expected to be covered. Headline issues are likely to include property tax and stamp duty, as well as an increase in the personal tax allowance (up to £10,000).

What do you want to see as part of the budget, and what are you dreading coming up? Share your thoughts below.

without a state healthcare system how does one monitor for child abuse? no health visitors to know that a baby is being abused or a mother is suicidally depressed.

I've picked out the above as it caught my eye. I think you're confusing the State Leislating (and the taxpayer funding) with the State providing. Nobody is suggesting that we don't need to do those things, but rather thaht the State doesn't need to actually provide those services.

That could be said about pretty much all of the arguments above. The NHS was probaby approrpriate at the time it was formed, but it's not really a suitable model for delivering modern healthcare. Somebody upthread said that the the NHS is one of the most efficient in the world. There is PLENTY of evidence to suggest that this is not the case. We need to compare it to those systems in other first world countries. I suggest reading a book by James Bartholemew called "The Welfare State We're In" I don't know how to do links sorry. It's well worth a read though -if you're interested in learning about the other side of the debate--

Why is this thread not discussing the actual measures in the Budget esp the big shocker eg pensioners being allowed to prop up our failing economy by massive spending of their pension funds - new cars, cruises etc - and then run out of money so we have to pay for them through the welfare state or watch old people starve to death regularly??

Plus allowing yet more old people to 'invest' in property thus keeping property prices artificially high and ensuring even fewer young people can afford to buy their own place and instead are forced to rent at extortionate rates.

It's one of the most mental policies this govt has produced - and given the record of this govt, that's really saying something.

trying, your thoughts on the consequences of dropping forced annuity purchase mirrors my reaction! Then all the experts came on and said it was a good thing..

Quite right (but state spending is relavent).

Your first point would be valid if the state pension (roughly 150 per week per person) wasn't in place. Even after they've blown the lot, they'll still be eligible to that basic subsistence level of pension. Also, tax would, in most circumstances, be payable on any income which is drawn down. It's unlikley that a pensioner would drawdown income, take the tax hit, and then invest that money in property which would produce an income that would be subject to tax. You'd just put the money in one of the new 15k ISAs, or into one of the newly announced pensioner bonds.

I think the policy is broadly a good one (and I've a fair while before I retire). I'm not sure that the economy is failing either.

The economy is not failing for the rich.

I think there's a whole raft of measures to help people. Increased tax allownace (doesn't really benefit the well-off). Help for households with two working parents (not specifically aimed at the rich)

I think all in all, he's produced a good budget. He's clamped down on some of the more dubious tax avoidance meansures too.

trying: there is another thread in politics.

What a mad idea letting pensioners have their whole pension savings in a lump sum. They will spend the lot and then expect pension credit.

It would certainly make some sense to give any children a hand with their living / housing costs.

errr, unlikely. If you've saved a pension, then you'd have worked, so wouldn't need pension credit. You'd just rely on the State pension that you're entitled to.

Also, it's unlikely that someone who has been prudent enought to save, would suddenly just blow the lot. It's not really a windfall, but rather savings. There not any more likely to blow the lot, than they are to empty their bank accounts of savings.

*They're not any more likely....

The state pension will not cover living costs. What about people in rented accommodation. £140 a week isn't going to cover everything. This will all end in tears.

Contrarian I started off very careful but am getting more reckless with age!

Viv It won't, but then that would be the same for someone who hadn't built up a private pension. The reality is though, that the vast majority of people who would benefit from these proposals (I don't suppose your concerns would extend to those who have small pension pots which would have generated an annuity of say 12 peer week) will be home owners who also have savings outside of their pension pots.

Tea I too am becoming more reckless! I plan on spending every single penny!

He did something for the old but nothing for the young or those who dont have savings. Commentators say Ossie is after voters who skipped to UKIP

Contrarian, I know someone who worked at various jobs in the UK and has a small DB pension, then lived outside the UK where the Greek scheme appears to have lost her records, then returned to the UK. She has fewer than 30 years UK contribs and as the company scheme is quite small, qualifies for pension credit.

Yes, but that's a case for restoring a contributory requirement for the state pension. Similarly, a friend of mine brought his MIL over from India. Despite never having worked here (she couldn't speak English) she was entitled to a pension credit payment and had bypass surgery done on the NHS. In mitigation my firend and his wife were both higher rate taxpayers

In fairness, he did increase the personal allowance and also froze fuel duty and also provided support for families where both parents are working. Not a huge giveaway I agree, but a pretty good budget I thought.

I agree with letting people have their smaller pension pots which only yield a pittance but if someone has built up hundreds of thousands and then spends the lot and then expects the state to step in I don't think that's on. If somebody has been in a low paid job and hasn't had the opportunity to build up a good pension then it's fair enough to claim. But not deliberately making yourself penniless so you can then claim. But there is a bit of that going on already.

There has been a bit of confusion over having all your pension at once.
At the moment if you do 75% of it is taxed at 55%.
Under the new rules it may be taxed at 45% instead depending on how big the pot is.
If the pot is tiny say £10k and the nearly pensioner has an income of £13k a year then yes 75% of the 10k will be taxed at 20% and 25% at zero and they can take the balance after paying the £1500 tax.

If the pot is £500,000 then they will bep aying 45% as I understand it on most of the 75% of that which is not tax free.
So it is not exactly taking the money and running and they currently can take it anyway if they accept the 55% penalty in so going.

The justification for it is the new £140 a week pension (if you have 35 years of NI) per person (£280 for a couple £14560 a year per couple) is big enough to live on so let them do what they wish with the balance. I suspect a lot will use it at 55 (57 from 2028) to help children get a deposit on a house.

"Mr Osborne dismissed concerns that retired people will spend all their pension at once and end up relying on the state."

however we've got used to being told that's the reason for the substantial tax benefits (mostly for better-off people) rewarding citizens for saving for their old age. Dismissing concerns is easy. Disproving them would be much harder. It will take a while to get used to the idea and see whether the holes in the wheeze are bigger or smaller than the vote-buying benefits. Pension credit will be abolished for new claimants in a few years when the flat-rate-except-when-its-not scheme comes in.

if pension credit goes and housing benefit for the elderly for those with no national insurance contributions for example then we would cease to have a welfare state. Hoever we would certainly have what Beveridge was after when pensions were set up - you were paid in old age if you paid in which I know a lot of people think is fair. If you chose not to do a stroke of work all y9our life you did not benefit, otherwise why bother to work 35 years+ of contributions until state retirement age of 67 if those who choose never to work get their income but to the same level.

They are very difficult issues - how to have a welfare state which does not reward those idle for decades from sheer laziness.

yes, we still use the term "National Insurance" although it is just an employment tax, because of the idea that you and your employer would pay in while you were working, to secure protection when you needed it.

However we still have a policy not to have people starving and dying in the gutters, even if they haven't worked or claimed jobseekers.

Do folks honestly think pensions will be taken out, taxed heavily and spent recklessly so that people who have thought about their retirement and saved bloody hard for it to be comfortable - can "exist" on whatever crumbs will be available to them in pensions/benefit??

REALLY???

Giving money to pay off your childrens' mortgages might not seem so reckless, so long as you survive for 7 years..

ShadowOfTheDay

Yes, I do believe that sometimes people do stupid things. Don't you believe it?