Well done George Osborne - stonking budget

[claig]

Tax free Allowance rising to £11000
40% tax threshold rising to £43000
Corporation Tax falling to 19% and then 18%
National Living Wage will reach £9 by 2020, will start at £7.20

If they carry on like this, Labour are finished and poor old UKIP and Farage won't stand a chance of getting a look in. But credit where credit is due - well done Osborne!

sunshield,

Yes, i think Labour is a joke and even though Liz Kendall is the closest to my views, she is not close enough, so I wouldn't vote for her. I don't mind Corbyn because he will offer something different. I will probbly disagree with him but at least it is different to Tory lite. I like difference, ideas and free debate eve if I disagree with it. I don't want everyone to agree or there would be no change possible.That is why I like to read all opinions -m Tories are cunts and flat screen TVs so I can see whch ones make more sense to me.

boredworkingmum - but it's not the living wage! The living wage is calculated with the current rate of tax credits & child tax credit. The current UK living wage is £7.85 already, and in London it's £9.15 - so although any increase in NMW is to be supported, it is not a "living wage" as defined by the Living Wage foundation.

'so although any increase in NMW is to be supported, it is not a "living wage" as defined by the Living Wage foundation.'

But isn't it a move in the right direction? Every year he has been forced to increase the tax threshold by the LibDems and UKIP, so soon he may be forced to do the same for the Living Wage by UKIP.

It was a move nicked from Labour, one that he derided before the election. But yes, any rise in NMW is great. My complaint is that it does not go far enough in offsetting people's losses in tax credit & child tax credit. Hard working people will be left out of pocket by this budget, by a government supposedly trying to make "work pay".

Even the BBC are referring to it as a living wage It's not the same thing! They can't just redefine everything to suit them.

Times like these make me feel very fortunate that, as a parent under 25 (and under 21), my partner is old enough to be eligible for those benefits should we fall on a time when we need them. It also makes me feel very fortunate to have found a job with a salary higher than the minimum wage, as otherwise I would have been doing the same job just as well as someone four years older, but for far less money.

'It was a move nicked from Labour, one that he derided before the election'

Well no one can accuse Osborne of being a slow learner. He stole the tax threshold increases from the LibDems and UKIP. As long as he does the right think, who cares?

'My complaint is that it does not go far enough in offsetting people's losses in tax credit & child tax credit.'

Yes, some will and some won't. He hasn't got a magic wand. He has to solve the country's economic problems and he is slowly getting there and moving in the right direction. It is a positive budget and hopefully the next one will build on this one and improve things further particularly for low paid workers as that is only far.

I don't claim tax credits as our total income is borderline but fluctuates and i always worry we'll have to pay any claimed back. For me, raising the personal allowance is great. Money in my bank account without needing to fill out complex forms and worrying about if circumstances change.

It's not the same thing atcall.

Labour proposed an £8 NMW by 2020, but not alongside real terms cuts in TCs or the earning threshold.

The real living wage - as set out by the Living Wage Foundation - was £7.20 in 2011.

The Living Wage in London is £9.15 in London this year.

Claig - this is all very odd. In one thread you're anti-austerity, but here you're all for it. Very strange.

I care because he's rebranded the NMW as a living wage, when it's nothing of the sort.

I will applaud a conservative budget when it doesn't hit the poorest the most.

Jorah - it's like under-25's are second class citizens or something, unworthy of governmental protection. Bizarre.

At all that should be...

And those weird Ã?'s are to do with the android app.

cherries - I worry that taking people out of tax completely will at some future point be used against those people (oh, they aren't "contributors", they don't matter), but I'm just paranoid like that.

You still pay national insurance though so are a contributor!

What? I'm 23. I rent and live with my fiancée and toddler. I work part time and my dp works full time. I earn minimum wage NOT because I am unskilled or uneducated (and I'm not saying that anyone earns min wage because they are, just that I personally have found it's often implied) but because I've taken a job which allows me to work the hours I need to to fit around childcare (free and family based, as I couldn't afford to work otherwise). Why am I not worthy of earning the new minimum/living wage? I've worked since I was 16 and paid plenty of income tax in the past. We receive only CB but are probably entitled to TC too. I haven't looked into it yet.

I just can't believe the ageism. Why should my parents support me/I be in education aged 23?

'Claig - this is all very odd. In one thread you're anti-austerity, but here you're all for it. Very strange.'

I am anti the austerity that the Greeks have suffered - a 25% drop in GDP as great as the Great Depression in the US, which has seen people's banks closed, medicines unavailable and the suicide rate shoot up all because a fat cat class of European polticians decided to transfer a private debt to a public sovereign debt and I am against the bedroom tax and hikes on council tax for poor people

"Two million poor families facing council tax hike"

npi.org.uk/media/press-releases/two-million-poor-families-facing-council-tax-hike/

but I am in favour of some austerity to cut the deficit such as cuts in MPs' wages and expenses and things like the cleaner bills that Gordon Bennett claimed for.

There are a number of ways a small business can operate, and not all get the relief mentioned above. Everyone needs to remember that these businesses help all of us if they are successful because they are a major part of our economy. If the incentives to be entrepreneurs is taken away, far fewer people will be interested in setting their own businesses.

I think, however, that freelancers should be reduced. People should be self employed consultants and work for lots of companies, standing or falling by their sellable expertise, and not work for just one "employer" or client on an ad hoc basis with no employment rights. As a country we need people who employ others on decent wages. Freelancers don't actually do this. They just save larger companies money. My DHs company makes plenty of money and they all pay lots of tax. I do get very tired of people complaining about higher earners as if they are an unnecessary part of our economy. They are very important and people like my DH employ a lot of people and the success of the company allows them to pay well, very well. They employ highly qualified staff and their expansion helps the country. They should not be vilified or exterminated.

It's not right that someone under 25 will earn less for doing the same job.

Do the Tories think that under 25s all live at home and have no bills to pay?

Cherries - NI is always framed differently tax though, it's something you pay into to get out rather than contributing to general taxation iyswim, but I'm probably just being silly!

claig - lovely, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people on this thread sufffering hugely because these cuts mean they'll struggle hugely with basics. How can you be in favour of that, especially as the cuts in the UK are not anywhere near needed as much as they are in Greece and we are nowhere near needing any kind of EU bail out?!?!

Milly - I'm not annoyed at high earners. I'm annoyed that employers, and high earning employees are being let off in favour of squeezing huge amounts of money from the poorest in society.

Most annoyed that wealthy parents are now able to hand their children £1 million in unearnt wealth. Just incredible. All so we can punish people for having more than 2 children.

Millymolly
I have around 100 clients.
DH has over 100.
Neither of us is a faux employee.
But our businesses are getting clobbered as if we were.

The Chancellor has to make some cuts. He has tried to give to low paid workers with one hand but has alos removed tax credits with the other. I think he has to start that process because the system introduced by Labour is too expensive for a country facing a eficit black hole like we have. He has tried to incentivise business so that we can grow our way out of the problem.

Not had time to read the complete thread , I do appreciate I have commented. If Blair is shafted I'm cool, non dom, diviidends etc. Sorry but he nabbed the decent socialist vote by default after the sad demise of the very fabulous John Smith. I care little for Blairs. I was a socialist. Blair made me sick. I cannot stomach his sycophancy. Made worse by his conversion to my own religion. He repulsed me. Blair, you lost good people. But you made money so you don't care. You are not a socialist. History will despise you however much you love your Bank balance .

So the poor need to get up off their arses and better themselves and "work hard and climb the ladder like the rest of us", according to many posts on here.

Well there are millions of people in this country who are already working hard in full-time jobs... waiters, cleaners, labourers, shop assistants, factory workers, nursery nurses, nursing-home staff, care workers, the list is endless. Most of those jobs pay the minimum wage, or not much more. Many more people are only able to work part-time as they look after a disabled relative, are disabled themselves, or can't work longer hours as they can't afford to pay for any more childcare.

How is it possible for anyone to believe that every single one of them should work harder than they already do, or conjure up some super qualifications so they can magically earn tens of thousands more a year?

And if by some miracle they all get better-paid jobs and leave, who will do their jobs instead?

From The Guardian coverage:

The Resolution Foundation thinktank estimated that although some middle-earners would be net gainers, the changes would leave low-earners â?? typically on £9.35 an hour â?? worse off by between £850 and £1,000 a year.

Resolution chief executive Gavin Kelly said: â??By concentrating £12bn of cuts from a limited range of working-age benefits, the chancellor has focused a disproportionate part of that pain on the working poor.

â??We shouldnâ??t think that a higher minimum wage will compensate all low-income working families for their losses â?? many working households will be left significantly worse off.â?

Claig
Could you explain who you think should be looked after in a budget?

Not those on benefits
Not the poor
Not the disabled
Not families
Not entrepeneurs
Who then?