crumbs for the starving, free doughnuts for the obese

[JohnD]

Whilst changes in the income tax threshold may seem great at first, analysis reveals they benefit the wealthy far more than anybody else.

This year’s change means that all workers will be £70 better off as the income tax threshold rises.

However, as always with Tory announcements, the devil is in the details.

If you are earning over £46,350 a year (including Philip Hammond himself) then you’ll receive nearly 5 times as much (400% more) as low and middle income earners.

This is because when the basic income tax threshold rises, the 40% tax rate threshold also rises. This has been the case for years with this clever Tory accounting trick.

In 2016 the same trick meant that whilst minimum wage earners gained £12, whilst those earning over £50,000 gained £240. Those earning over £150,000, meanwhile, got an astounding £600.

The Personal Tax allowance changes are a very easy way for the Tories to make it look like they’re helping everyone – but, as always, they’re giving away far more to the rich than anyone else.

The Tories (and their Lib-Dem accomplices during the coalition) have always billed this policy as lifting the very poorest out of income tax. Whilst this is technically true, it’s also fair to ask whether it’s appropriate that the majority of the gains should go to the wealthy.

 

[JohnD]

The Guardian have provided their own analysis of the budget. In their case they break it down by the demographics it will effect. And, in their workings, it is still true that the vast majority of the gains go to the wealthy.

Combining the various effects any household earning under £30,000 seems to gain around £100 from the change. Households earning over £50,000 meanwhile gain around £300.

It’s worth noting however that the biggest winners in the Guardian’s analysis are, of course, the very wealthy. With an unmarried couple with a combined income of £95,000 gaining over £600!

 

[transam]

Corbyn will be better off then ?

 

[big-all]

i personally have no problem with people bettering them selves and doing well
what i dont like is a selfish society where we all work as hard as each other and its so skewed that some have to work 2 or 3 times harder just to put food on the table
and others demonizing them for having the nerve and gual to be struggling whilst they thrive with minimum genuine disruption or sacarafice in there own lives

 

[^woody^]

If you are earning over £46,350

Is that your definition of wealthy then?

Does one bloke earning that for his family and struggling mean he is more wealthy than a couple each earning £23,176 and breezing it?

Do those chips slide off your shoulder or are they velcro'd on?

 

[big-all]

my definition off well off is having enough for general day to day living without having to check your bank
and also having enough to cover any basic repairs with some decoratingand the odd holiday

my definition off wealthy is covering all off the above and being able to afford a new car a holiday or two extra or an extension on your house by juggling assets and finaces without having to overly worry but fit in easily over a year or two without reducing your living standards

 

[Notch7]

The Guardian have provided their own analysis of the budget. In their case they break it down by the demographics it will effect. And, in their workings, it is still true that the vast majority of the gains go to the wealthy.

Combining the various effects any household earning under £30,000 seems to gain around £100 from the change. Households earning over £50,000 meanwhile gain around £300.

It’s worth noting however that the biggest winners in the Guardian’s analysis are, of course, the very wealthy. With an unmarried couple with a combined income of £95,000 gaining over £600!

Are you sure thats correct? It sounds wrong to me, probably taken out if context...

 

[^woody^]

Is wealthy having a good job and company car but struggling with the mortgage and bills, and not being able to get your teeth done, and paying through the nose for childcare so that you can go out to work in the first place?

Or is it living rent free, getting all the free stuff (paid for by by the person above), free stuff for your kids - even childcare if you wanted, but you don't need it as you dont' work, and having lots of money left over every month to pay for your nights out, tech and holidays?

What does the Guardian say about that?

 

[big-all]

Is wealthy having a good job and company car but struggling with the mortgage and bills, and not being able to get your teeth done, and paying through the nose for childcare so that you can go out to work in the first place?

Or is it living rent free, getting all the free stuff (paid for by by the person above), free stuff for your kids - even childcare if you wanted, but you don't need it as you dont' work, and having lots of money left over every month to pay for your nights out, tech and holidays?

What does the Guardian say about that?

not sure what point you are making here really ??
most people on benefits are hard working people with kids 'pensioners ' or indeed the people with long time sickness
only about 3% off benefits are paid on unemployment benefits
yes the unemployed will off course be entitled to other benefits like housing 'council tax and child support help but most on benefits are hard working or on a pension

 

[EFLImpudence]

Here's a thought.

Perhaps ordinary working people should be paid enough so that they don't need benefits.

 

[big-all]

Here's a thought.

Perhaps ordinary working people should be paid enough so that they don't need benefits.

of course that would be sensible but dogma and stigma says because peoples mind set dont realize "child tax credits" or "child benefits " are actually part off what is included will be quite negative and think " scroungers " often rather than deserving ??

 

[^woody^]

Here's a thought.

Perhaps ordinary working people should be paid enough so that they don't need benefits.

How does that work?

Pay 'ordinary' people more, so that then only 'extraordinary' people can afford the products and services provided by the ordinary people?

Here's another thought. Self employment, no tucking benefits.

 

[^woody^]

not sure what point you are making here really ??
most people on benefits are hard working people with kids 'pensioners ' or indeed the people with long time sickness
only about 3% off benefits are paid on unemployment benefits
yes the unemployed will off course be entitled to other benefits like housing 'council tax and child support help but most on benefits are hard working or on a pension

I'm referring to Johnny boy's definition of wealth.

Yes only a low percentage of benefits is unemployment benefit, but that's only because many people won't qualify for it - but do qualify for social security. That's one of the reasons universal credit is being phased in.

 

[EFLImpudence]

How does that work?

Isn't it obvious?

Even the Conservative Government thinks some people's wages are too low and they need benefits to be able to live.
Better for businesses as taxpayers subsidise them.
I think it would be better if the employers paid them this amount in the first place. Do you not?

 

[Notch7]

Isn't it obvious?

Even the Conservative Government thinks some people's wages are too low and they need benefits to be able to live.
Better for businesses as taxpayers subsidise them.
I think it would be better if the employers paid them this amount in the first place. Do you not?

I thought the point of tax credit system was that those people in specific circumstances such as married with young children, or those with children at nursery etc would get credits via the PAYE tax system. It works well for employers as the system is already in place and payroll software does the calculations automatically.

If you are saying employers should pay more in the first place, are you saying that employers would need to have variable pay scales for every post depending on circumstances, or do you think that the salary for a specific job should be much higher than at the moment and that a single person with no family would get the same higher wage as a parent with children?