The budget will be 'painful'

[darada]

We're going to get absolutely bent over a barrel aren't we?

I fear the middle classes are going to be hit hardest because the poor don't pay that much (not unreasonably) and the very rich have access to accountants, lawyers and advisers and therefore will wriggle out of having to really pay.

I don't mind paying my fair share but I fear we're going to be squeezed and the money is going to be wasted a lot of it.

Anyone else feel a tad dispirited like me?

They would have to pay much much more to attract someone to the role to compensate for the tax hit. Sometimes they have to do that, but lots of times they will base the employee elsewhere and pay for flights as needed. At a certain point it also becomes an issue that the talent just no longer exists locally and the problem feeds itself - people move to the more attractive geographies for their industry and then more companies relocate operations in search of better talent.

my husband works for a Scandi company that for years now has had their senior team based in Zurich. I can think of a dozen more examples of other companies doing same without having to think too hard. It is something we have discussed for our family - DH job could just as easily be done from Switzerland and the UK is becoming a less attractive base on a number of levels.

@Bunnycat101 That is fine if people want to reduce their income. Only 2% of the UK earn over £100k, so most people will not be losing sleep over this.

I think trying to make the state pension means tested would be carnage. I read for every £100k in a pension pot this would buy £4000 annuity. So fuck all basically. So unless people think they’re going to be able to have pension pots worth multiple hundreds of thousands of pound they may as well not bother saving.

@Cornishcoast1 I agree. Only the most wealthy would save for old age. The restw ould just spend and not save.

Also the business bounce back loans, a friend who runs a holiday cottage business in Cornwall explained how you only had to list your second home as a holiday let for 1 day to grab 10K! They were all at it and as for the new cars and home improvements - they were off the charts! Now every man, woman and child in the UK has to pay back whether they benefited or not

The top 1% contribute about 30% of income tax take, though. So earning less may be fine for the individual, but it is not so great for the broader society that currently depends on that income.

Yes it shows the tax burden is high for that group

There will always be ambitious people who want those jobs. Ambition is about more than just the amount you earn.

Personally though I think the way forward is taxing other sources of income at the same rate. CGT for example and IHT. The one area I would keep a high IHT exemption is where couples are living together. No one should lose their home because their wife or husband dies.

Yes this exactly. It’s a very fine balance. At £100k you’re hitting your NHS consultants, some head teachers, senior police officers etc. Not the people you want to be reducing hours or retiring because they’ve had enough. You ideally want to retain these people (whose experience is almost invaluable) as long as possible. You want people in that wage bracket in the private sector to be striving into senior positions to innovate and create jobs for others. It’s too simplistic to say - well it’s only 2% of the population so they can like it or lump it.

Its not senior Consultants and headteachers innovating. Its people in the early stage of their careers.

Jobs are not a fixed quantity to be redistributed amongst the population. As in my previous examples, those jobs don’t have to stay in the uk. Some of these jobs don’t need to exist at all, though benefit society when they do - I am self employed and as a matter of common sense stop taking on new work once I hit the £100k threshold. Most of the time my clients just wait for me to become available- very little of it goes to another supplier - so in my own little corner of the economy less is produced than otherwise might be the case due to a punitive tax cliff edge.

@Labraradabrador But if there are lucrative self employed markets, someone else will move into that market. Not immediately, but some people will spot it who have the skills to become self employed in that field.
We see this all the time with new areas of work.

Some of it, eventually. The net effect is still subpar productivity that will never be recaptured and results in drag on economic growth.

I’ve been assuming that for years and I’m only 41!

Where are the people who can't afford to buy supposed to live, without private landlords?

What about those of us (myself included) who don't WANT to own a house? Not all of us aspire to be homeowners.

I'm perfectly happy renting, I pay a very fair amount in rent, my landlord sorts any problems quickly. If my boiler breaks (which it did a few months ago) guess what? Not my problem. When the integral washer/dryer died a few years ago? You guessed it...not my problem.

Some of us don't WANT the responsibility of having to find thousands if things go wrong in an owned property. It's not just the cost of buying a property, it's the upkeep!

I'm sure I've already seen the message on gov gateway re state pension projection 'please be aware you are not guaranteed a state pension'.

The "poor sods in the middle" earn £34k.... those £100k people you mention are in fact doing very very nicely! I'm on £38 myself, but would happily pay more tax to undo the Tory catastrophe

www.statista.com/statistics/416139/full-time-annual-salary-in-the-uk-by-region/

No I have not. I think I am going to quit work. Fuck it.

100% this!!

I agree, there’s so much hatred, judgement, such contempt.

I think owning one rental property per household is acceptable. Any more than that, no. There should also be much tighter laws on landlords and the condition of the property with regards to damp etc...

I have 5 close friends/acquaintances who are now all dead from cancer. All in their 50's. And from looking around. Yes we live longer as they can medicate most illnesses, but quality of life is often dire. I'm drawing down on my meagre private pension now, as who knows whether I'll still have my health at 67. I'd rather take it and enjoy little extras with my kids and their partners and if I have to stay indoors with my dog watching telly if I live to be 67+, then that's ok with me.

I posted about "hidden disabilities" , mostly to be vague. The condition I was referring to that my acquaintances have is fibromilagia which I recognise as a genuine condition. I just don't believe either of them have it. They've been playing the system for years. Way before they realised they could try for disability. I asked how they managed to get their PIP, given the criteria is so hard to prove and they said they just said no to every question...can't wash or dress themselves, can't cook for themselves...they absolutely fucking can. And they spend all their benefit money on drugs! Clearly they have a surplus of money for that. Those genuinly claiming, are on an absolute pittance because they do not know how to play the system or don't want to. I do not begrudge genuine claimants and I know how difficult it is to even be accepted for a claim. That is why their situation makes me so angry! If its listed, absolutely claim for it if you have it. Hidden or otherwise. I am very sorry if my comment did offend you. I wasn't disabled shaming at all.

Why is it better to limit to one property? Surely those are the landlords who are a bit clueless and (mostly unintentionally) fall afoul of regulation, struggle with timely maintenance, etc. my best landlord was a gentleman who had a portfolio of a dozen or so flats and ran it as a small business- everything by the book, and any problems were sorted asap because he had people on payroll when he couldn’t get to it himself. Worst landlords were the ends of the spectrum - the ‘accidental’ landlady who meant well but had bizarre expectations / no clue or sense of urgency when problems arose was almost as bad as the corporate owned properties trying to milk every penny out of the arrangement.

And spiralling rents are a result of too few landlords rather than too many. There aren’t enough rental properties of any sort (social or private) available which is part of a larger shortage in housing. Pushing out smaller private landlords both decreases availability for those who prefer or need to rent, and also probably benefits larger housing corporations who can operate at scale with ruthless efficiency.