The Budget

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Budget


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/21/article-2118124-1244B63A000005DC-333_468x360.jpg


Five million pensioners take £260 a year hit in £3bn 'hidden' raid after tax allowances are changed.
300,000 workers dragged into 40% bracket by lowering of income tax threshold - but move wasn't announced in Osborne's speech.
Fuel duty to rise by 3p in August despite record petrol prices.
Families see income tax threshold raised by £1,000 meaning extra £346 a year for basic rate taxpayers with 2m lifted out of income tax altogether.
Corporation tax cut by 2% to 24% by April 1 and will drop further by 2014.
Rise in stamp duty to 7% for homes worth over £2m.
50p income tax rate is reduced to 45p and tax loopholes to be closed.
Promises to hit rich for five times as much money each year and does not rule out Lib Dem's 'mansion tax' in the future.
Climbdown over child benefit with threshold raised to £60,000.
37p extra on price of a packet of 20 cigarettes as of 6pm tonight.
Osborne announces review that could lead to retirement age rising above 70 much earlier than planned.



Good points

- Top rate of tax for higher earners lowered from 50p to 45p.
- Income tax threshold raised to £9,200.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118104/Budget-2012-George-Osborne-raises-income-tax-threshold-9-200.html

Bad points

- Government spending is still rising.

- Cigarettes up by 37p
- Alcohol increased by 5%
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118149/BUDGET-2012-Cigarettes-37p-alcohol-cost-increases-5.html

- Fuel duty up by 3p.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118134/BUDGET-2012-SUMMARY-Granny-tax-pensioners-Osborne-refuses-stop-fuel-duty-rise.html

-Tax raid on savers (mainly pensioners) who have saved their entire lives.
- 300,000 workers dragged into the 40% tax threshold meaning they will now pay more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118134/BUDGET-2012-SUMMARY-Granny-tax-pensioners-Osborne-refuses-stop-fuel-duty-rise.html


...once again the British people are screwed.


so the extra £300 odd pound a year in my pocket.......will go back to the govt in fuel

- marco, yorkshire, 21/3/2012 12:59

[dbgtz]

Personally I see the increase in cigarettes a good thing, alocohol not so much. That's just my personal view. Also spending may increase (according to whatever your source), but borrowing is going down (not a huge amount this year, but they want it at something like 20bn a year in 2014 or something like that, can't remember). They are going for a slow and steady approach, though I think just one quick swipe would have been better.

I think that the "hit rich for five times as much money each year" promise is stupid, if you tax too much they will just leave, which I'm assuming is the same reason you put the 50p to 45p tax in a good point?

I think it's generally OK, I'm pissed off at the fuel increase though. They seem to treat it as a luxury but for a lot of people, it's a necessity as people travel far to work and walking would not be feasible.

[GoldenMerc]

Cheers for putting the price up on cigerettes... not.
Think personal its rubbish,.

[Mathew]

Good news that the price of cigarettes will be raising. Hopefully it will encourage people to stop or discourage people from starting.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Good news that the price of cigarettes will be raising. Hopefully it will encourage people to stop or discourage people from starting.

Ah yes, perhaps we ought to slap a tax on fatty foods also? cars as well perhaps since they kill people. Homosexuals since HIV rates are higher amongst that sexual group? What about a tax on dangerous jobs where heavy lifting is involved? But some of those probably apply to you though/come across as none of the states business, so we can't have that now, can we?

[Mathew]

Ah yes, perhaps we ought to slap a tax on fatty foods also? cars as well perhaps since they kill people. Homosexuals since HIV rates are higher amongst that sexual group? What about a tax on dangerous jobs where heavy lifting is involved? But some of those probably apply to you though/come across as none of the states business, so we can't have that now, can we?
Oh I've heard your spiel before, but I see no reason why smoking should be encouraged.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh I've heard your spiel before, but I see no reason why smoking should be encouraged.

It isn't being encouraged, you are arguing that the government ought to regulate this behaviour that you disapprove of via taxation - if the case is to 'save people' then why not impose the taxes I suggested to save others? because as I said before, either you engage in those behaviours yourself (and thus don't want to pay) or think its not the business of the state to regulate those behaviours even though many are far more dangerous than smoking.

Enough hypocrisy, if you want the state to run our lives but not yours then just be honest and tell us that.

[Mathew]

It isn't being encouraged, you are arguing that the government ought to regulate this behaviour that you disapprove of via taxation - if the case is to 'save people' then why not impose the taxes I suggested to save others? because as I said before, either you engage in those behaviours yourself (and thus don't want to pay) or think its not the business of the state to regulate those behaviours even though many are far more dangerous than smoking.

Enough hypocrisy, if you want the state to run our lives then just be honest and tell us that.
There are more than two sides to the debate. Just because you don't smoke doesn't automatically mean that it's up to the state to run our lives. There's a huge gap between personally disapproving of smoking and wanting a full-blown nanny state.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There are more than two sides to the debate. Just because you don't smoke doesn't automatically mean that it's up to the state to run our lives. There's a huge gap between personally disapproving of smoking and wanting a full-blown nanny state.

But you don't smoke and you still want the state to run the lives of others and regulate their behaviour when it's just simply none of your concern whether or not people smoke.

I myself don't smoke and haven't even tried a cigarette because I think its foolish - but on the other hand I eat a kebab every week which I doubt is good for my health. Either way, its my choice - not George Osborne's or yours.

[Mathew]

But you don't smoke and you still want the state to run the lives of others and regulate their behaviour when it's just simply none of your concern whether or not people smoke.

I myself don't smoke and haven't even tried a cigarette because I think its foolish - but on the other hand I eat a kebab every week which I doubt is good for my health. Either way, its my choice - not George Osborne's or yours.
Hence why I think it's PERSONALLY beneficial for me that the price of cigarettes have gone up: I'm sick of people breathing smoke into my face at rugby games. Why would I approve of those people stood next to me, blowing their fumes down my throat and making my clothes smell of a firework factory? :P

Of course I agree with you that the state shouldn't intervene, but I do think it should be discouraged, and that's exactly what is happening. That's also why smoking shouldn't be outright banned. Just discouraged. Simple.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hence why I think it's PERSONALLY beneficial for me that the price of cigarettes have gone up: I'm sick of people breathing smoke into my face at rugby games. Why would I approve of those people stood next to me, blowing their fumes down my throat and making my clothes smell of a firework factory? :P

Don't go the rugby game then, simple.


Of course I agree with you that the state shouldn't intervene, but I do think it should be discouraged, and that's exactly what is happening. That's also why smoking shouldn't be outright banned. Just discouraged. Simple.

Do you eat sweets, go to McDonalds and travel around in a car?

[Mathew]

Don't go the rugby game then, simple.

Do you eat sweets, go to McDonalds and travel around in a car?
I eat sweets and travel in a car yes, but you could argue that cars are already heavily taxed before we even get into the ethics of them being dangerous. Very few 17 year olds can go out and buy a car complete with insurance, etc anyway! They're a luxury, just like smoking.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I eat sweets and travel in a car yes, but you could argue that cars are already heavily taxed before we even get into the ethics of them being dangerous.

As are cigarettes.


Very few 17 year olds can go out and buy a car complete with insurance, etc anyway! They're a luxury, just like smoking.

Well you'll have to make sure in future that you state how you want a tax on sweet foods and fatty foods, they are after all, a luxary.

[Grig]

Good news that the price of cigarettes will be raising. Hopefully it will encourage people to stop or discourage people from starting.

The UK can have better ways of curbing smoking than rising the price of cigarettes. They are as it is some of the most expensive I've seen from any country. More smoke free zones etc. will do them more good- for example, from your other post, like at the rugby games. People will still buy them, I would like to see where Mr. Osbourne got his evidence from, as it won't be overly significant- unless of course, you argue that every person quitting smoking is already a success. But I look at the bigger picture in terms of percentages.

As someone said in the comments section:


Politicians must stop being so sanctimonious as they left the country in a poor economic state.That is a bigger sin than smoking or drinking and yet they come to us with their begging bowl acting in a high minded way when they caused the problem.

Think that sums it up pretty well.

[Ajthedragon]

My mum worked it all out and we're over £300 better off. As a middle class family we're very satisfied.

[hiyahon]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/21/article-2118149-0F1468C100000578-348_468x310.jpg

omg why am i on the daily mail tho

in all srsness though, something needs to be done about fuel, out of control