Sunak's Budget Speech

[dockers_strike]

2 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Yes, and I'm saying the threshold should be lower. And incidentally, the threshold is £500k if it's left to a child.

 

 

Are we taking about giving or inheriting?

 

I'm not personally keen on paying any tax, but that's the only way society is going to function. And people with more wealth should pay more tax. It's ridiculous that you can inherit 500 grand off a parent and not pay a bean on it. Half a million pound and not a penny of it goes to healthcare, schools, social care, roads, museums, libraries etc.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-inheritance-tax-thresholds-and-interest-rates/inheritance-tax-thresholds-and-interest-rates

 

Yes, the threshold can be half a million for adult children. But as you pointed out before, only 25% of over 65s would be in this position and, living in London.

 

Yet another strawman argument.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, A Red said:

Go to bed, you're pissed again.

 

 

Piss off Pat. Go and play threats with someone who won't punch back. 

[Strontium]

Just now, dockers_strike said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-inheritance-tax-thresholds-and-interest-rates/inheritance-tax-thresholds-and-interest-rates

 

Yes, the threshold can be half a million for adult children. But as you pointed out before, only 25% of over 65s would be in this position and, living in London.

 

Yet another strawman argument.

 

How is it a strawman argument when I'm literally arguing the theshold should be lower than 500k? Bizarre.

[dockers_strike]

7 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

How is it a strawman argument when I'm literally arguing the theshold should be lower than 500k? Bizarre.

It's a strawman because you introduced the whole question of unearnt income (which isnt actually income until a house is sold and the 'profit' realised) and inheritance tax to distract or defeat the point of nothing in the budget to help pensioners.

 

Bizarre you didnt or could grasp the strawman argument concept but I guess when you get lost in an argument that only affects a small percentage of pensioners living in high value houses in and around London then there you go.

[Guest]

I bet Stronts turns without indicating and stops blocking junctions.

[polymerpunkah]

 "The chancellor has undone just over a quarter of the overall value of the personal tax rises he announced last year, and around a sixth of the overall net tax rises he has announced since becoming chancellor."

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

Its a plutocracy. A billionaire doing a budget surrounded by braying millionairres. If they are voted in again then this country is just lost as a cause because its people are too brainwashed. 

[Rushies tash]

1 hour ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Its a plutocracy. A billionaire doing a budget surrounded by braying millionairres. If they are voted in again then this country is just lost as a cause because its people are too brainwashed. 

They just swallow the message they're given. Bbc news just then interviewing a market trader in West London who was gushing in his praise for the 5p drop in fuel duty (which simply took us back to prices last week) as a "lovely gesture" and was very insistent on telling us that it was far worse in Europe. Then, for balance, had some economist on saying that Sunak has simply given back a little of what he'd already taken. Not content with that negative summary, the interviewer finished with a bizarre reference to lovely strawberries and summer being on the way.

[Bruce Spanner]

6 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Yes you would. It's an asset that belonged to your parents. How is it different to them giving you an expensive watch or a vintage car? 

What? Oh, you're an actual tory.... no surprise to see you lift your head out of the swamp. 

 

I don't personally believe in inheritance tax. I doubt either of you would be too keen on it should you get stung by it. 

 

 

 

All private property is theft, they teach you nowt at Trot school?

[Anubis]

This needs a wider audience. This is the future for a lot of people. Once comfortably middle class, all this took was a divorce and the loss of the production company. I’m reproducing it because for some it may be behind a paywall and this is my one free article.

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2022/03/a-kitkat-is-now-a-luxury-the-looming-death-of-disposable-income

 

 

“A KitKat is now a luxury”: the looming death of disposable income

Prices are spiralling, limiting the spending choices of Britons across the country to the bare essentials.

By Anoosh Chakelian

 

 

Joanne Barker-Marsh just had to sit her 12-year-old son Harry down for a conversation about takeaways.

 

Once a week, the 49-year-old who lives in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, would treat her son to a cheap takeaway meal such as a sandwich from Subway, while forgoing dinner herself.

 

Now, she can’t afford to.

 

“That’ll have to stop,” she told me, speaking on the phone from her house, which is on the market – but is unsellable without expensive essential maintenance work.

 

“I’ve just had to have a chat with him that maybe that [takeaways] won’t be as often, and maybe we can make it at home instead,” she said.

 

“But I’m running out of ideas, because you can only make it sound so fun for so long, and then it’s just not fun – it’s s**t. His mates are going to Nando’s. But I’ve even noticed they’re not going as much any more.”

 

Barker-Marsh is a single mother to her son who has special education needs. She lost her job as a successful film producer in 2012 after her relationship broke down; she and her ex-partner had co-owned their production company. Since then, she has worked in a cleaning job that she could fit around childcare, but was laid off during the pandemic.

 

Now, she receives Universal Credit, volunteers for local charities and participates in Covid Realities, a project funded by the Nuffield Foundation documenting life on a low income in the pandemic age.

 

As inflation rises, prices and bills have been spiralling. Barker-Marsh’s monthly supermarket shop has risen from £75 to £101. In nearly £1,000 of debt to her energy company, she has had to cancel her direct debit so that it doesn’t clear out her bank account. When the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, reversed the “uplift” to Universal Credit last October, which he had introduced when Covid-19 hit, she lost a further £20 a week.

 

The war in Ukraine’s impact on energy markets is exacerbating the squeeze on budgets. Ahead of the Spring Statement on Wednesday 23 March, the Treasury is under pressure to help struggling households, which come April will face a 1.25-percentage point National Insurance hike, and 54 per cent energy price cap rise.

 

Already, low-income families in the UK have reached the limits of their budgeting practices and resourcefulness, according to new research by the University of York.

 

Going without essentials such as food and heating has become a routine part of daily life for such families, and is impacting their health.

 

“Families have nowhere else left to cut, and there is a pressing need for the UK government to improve the social security system so it supports families and guarantees them a decent level of income,” said Dr Ruth Patrick, who leads the research programme from the University of York’s Social Policy & Social Work.

 

Neither wages nor benefits are keeping pace with the cost of living.

 

Even when Universal Credit is uprated by 3.1 per cent from April, it will lag behind the predicted inflation level of 8 per cent in spring.

Rises in energy bills will take the number of households with children in fuel poverty to over 2.5 million – doubling since 2019 – from the beginning of April, according to new calculations by the End Fuel Poverty Coalition. More than a third (38.6 per cent) of households with children, and more than half (55.7 per cent) of lone-parent households, like Barker-Marsh’s family, will be in fuel poverty.

 

Six months ago, Barker-Marsh began “scanning the thermostat” because of rising prices. Her house is poorly insulated, at over 100 years old, with no carpet and no skirting boards. But during the cold winter days, she can’t afford to put the heating on – the pipes get so cold that her boiler keeps breaking.

 

“We’ve been freezing,” she said. “We’ve had a lot of tears and become quite poorly. I just felt constantly ill, too tired to cook, and thinking I can’t have the oven on because of how many kilowatts it would use. So I’ve been reducing cooking, reducing the amount of times we’re washing the pots, or having a bath. Those have become luxuries, when they just shouldn’t be.”

 

Paying more for food, petrol, heating and almost every other essential, Barker-Marsh faces unbearable spending choices for herself and her son. Disposable income is a thing of the past. Her last haircut was nearly a year ago, and she has sold all but one of her camera lenses – equipment she needs both for potential job prospects and her own sense of purpose and joy.

 

“I’m reading messages from people saying money prioritisation used to be ‘do I go to the hairdressers or do I go to the pub?’ Now, it’s about ‘I’m prioritising feeding my children over feeding myself,’” said Martin Lewis, the consumer rights campaigner behind the Money Saving Expert site and one of the most trusted figures in Britain, on 20 March.

 

Once a month, Barker-Marsh would buy her son – who has “massive issues with food” – a steak from the discount shelf. But even those “yellow-sticker steaks” are too expensive now. He also enjoys making “pretend ramen” (Pot Noodle with an egg and some chicken added) but she has noticed the price of a single Pot Noodle has crept up to £1 in some shops in the past couple of months.

 

Her son’s favourite cereal is twice the price it was a year ago, tins of beans she uses to bulk out stews have risen 30 per cent across the board, and pasta has gone up 25p a pack. Fresh food is becoming completely unaffordable; the bunch of bananas she buys herself each week has gone up from 79p to £1.39.

 

“In terms of any kind of luxury, is a KitKat a luxury? Yes, it is. My brain won’t let me [buy them]. It says: ‘no, we don’t need those.’ Changing the brands and quality of food we eat is a definite. We’ve redefined what luxury is.”

 

Small pleasures are melting away. For Harry’s upcoming 13th birthday, he wants to go with friends to Laser Quest. “I just have to manage his expectations and just put it on hold, and I hate to do it, I love him and I don’t want to keep sledgehammering him.”

 

Even Lewis, the man known for ingenious budgeting tips, said he is “virtually out of tools to help people now”, and that this is “the worst” assault on living standards he has seen – including the financial crash and the first phase of the pandemic.

“It’s not something money management can fix,” he said. “We need political intervention.”

 

[Rico1304]

9 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

For someone who's 49 year old going on 50, I can tell you need no practice at being a cunt, Spartacus. And unlike you, I dont bleed from my mouth every 28 days.

It’s like being insulted by, well, the slow kid at school.  Makes no sense whatsoever, as per usual. 

[Bruce Spanner]

ROBBING RISHI TO PAY SUNAK: Perhaps the chief criticism of Sunak’s paradoxical tax policy is, as the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s John O’Connell puts it, that “the Treasury is taking with one hand to give away with the other.”

 

Tax-raising chancellor: The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Paul Johnson issued a series of damning tweets about the chancellor’s announcements, including one that makes almost every paper: “Oh for goodness sake. What is the possible justification for cutting income tax rate while raising NI rate? Drives further wedge between taxation of unearned income and earned income. Yet again benefits pensioners and those living off rents at expense of workers.” Johnson’s analysis is clear that Sunak’s claims to be a tax-cutting chancellor are untrue: “Almost all workers will be paying more tax on their earnings in 2025 than they would have been paying without this parliament’s reforms to income tax and NICs, despite the tax cutting measures announced today.” The IFS will give its full response to the spring statement at an event streamed here at 10.15 a.m.

 

Shirkers vs. workers: The Resolution Foundation’s Torsten Bell agrees, storming that it is “totally bonkers to be raising National Insurance (on earners) while cutting Income Tax (includes those with other income sources).” Sky’s Sam Coates wades through the smoke and mirrors to arrive at this key conclusion: “Rishi Sunak has ‘undone’ just over a quarter of the personal taxation rises he announced last year.”

 

Cutting through the spin: In the last few minutes, the Resolution Foundation has published its overnight analysis of the spring statement. Its top line conclusions are incredibly bleak: Some 1.3 million people will be pushed into absolute poverty next year … Families face £1,100 income losses thanks to the cost-of-living squeeze … Despite Sunak’s claims that he was cutting taxes for 31 million workers, the truth is — after taking all his tax changes into consideration — around 27 million (seven in eight workers) will pay more in income tax and NI in 2024-25 … This parliament will be the worst on record for living standards … And on top of all that, the average worker is in line for a £11,500 annual wage loss.

 

What was missing? Paul Johnson argues the real story of yesterday’s statement was what Sunak didn’t do: “In the face of what the OBR calls the biggest hit to household finances since comparable records began in 1956-57 he has done nothing more for those dependent on benefits, the very poorest, besides a small amount of extra cash for local authorities to dispense at their discretion. Their benefits will rise by just 3.1% for the coming financial year. Their cost of living could well rise by 10%.” The Mirror’s Rachel Wearmouth and Dan Bloom have found 12 “nasty details” in Sunak’s statement, including that people on Universal Credit will see half their gains from the change to the National Insurance threshold wiped out — expect to hear more about that.

[Gnasher]

Just watched shadow chancellor Rachael Reeves on morning TV, good grief she's awful, her appearance should have been a straightforward case of shooting fish in barrel and lambasting Sunaks pathetic response to the cost of living crisis but ends up making a fool of herself and Labour Party policy when asked a simple question 'why Labour has gone back on a pledge to Nationalise the energy  companies?' Labour once had Tony Benn as the energy minister, now we have Rachael Reeves on national tv telling the country we've no magic money tree and the country can't afford the re nationalism of energy companies, whilst many people in Britain cannot afford to heat food. 

[A Red]

6 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Piss off Pat. Go and play threats with someone who won't punch back. 

I didn't threaten you. I've pointed out to you how you called SD a tory for holding a socialist view on unearned income whilst you hold the tory view. 

[Oh Buoy]

6 hours ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

I bet Stronts turns without indicating and stops blocking junctions.

 

Parks fully on the pavement too causing hysterics in local Facebook groups. 

[Captain Howdy]

9 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

Behave. Your gains are well beyond what you paid in. You did nothing but purchase an asset at a rock bottom price and sit on it while it gathered value due to the broken housing market.

 

 

You're insane. What I am arguing is literally the opposite of Toryism. Spreading wealth instead of concentrating it in the hands of rich families.

Rock bottom price eh, believe me I wish, we’ve struggled like hell over the years and have come close to losing it once. 

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Rushies tash said:

They just swallow the message they're given. Bbc news just then interviewing a market trader in West London who was gushing in his praise for the 5p drop in fuel duty (which simply took us back to prices last week) as a "lovely gesture" and was very insistent on telling us that it was far worse in Europe. Then, for balance, had some economist on saying that Sunak has simply given back a little of what he'd already taken. Not content with that negative summary, the interviewer finished with a bizarre reference to lovely strawberries and summer being on the way.

 

I saw the report where the bbc interviewers last question to Sunak was what type of bread did he like, Sunak and BBC interveiwer then had chuckle because Rishi likes healthy brown bread but his wife prefers white which makes it mors difficult at meal times to get the children to eat healthy, cut to bbc sofa where sports commentator Mike Collins and the other two presenters smile that the chancellor has the same problems at breakfast time as the rest of us when it comes to the problem of getting children to ear more healthily.

 

I uses to think Elvis was mad but I kind of understand his thinking towards the latter part of his life where he sit in front of a multiple TV screens off his head on prescription drugs and if something annoyed him on one of the tv he'd pull out a loaded Colt 45 and blast the set full of holes.

[Gnasher]

9 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

You're talking about a very small percentage of reality. 

 

Hypothetically as I don't know your family situation but if your parents left you a house they had worked for all their lives, paid all their taxes fees the lot, owned it outright. Gave it to you and the government came sniffing around you'd (rightly) be fucking fuming. 

Why would he be fuming? He's being gifted something that's not his, that he hasn't earned and he's going to still be gifted a large slice of money from. Plus he doesn't pay the government a penny up to the first 360 grand of his windfall, the rest rightly goes into the countrys coffers to spend on those less fortunate. Stronts is 100% correct.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Rushies tash said:

They just swallow the message they're given. Bbc news just then interviewing a market trader in West London who was gushing in his praise for the 5p drop in fuel duty (which simply took us back to prices last week) as a "lovely gesture" and was very insistent on telling us that it was far worse in Europe. Then, for balance, had some economist on saying that Sunak has simply given back a little of what he'd already taken. Not content with that negative summary, the interviewer finished with a bizarre reference to lovely strawberries and summer being on the way.

And, because we've "had enough of experts" (and because humans are generally more likely to agree with people who are more easily relatable to us) more people will be swayed by the market trader's optimism than by the economist's informed scepticism.

[Section_31]

I actually think all this is part of the plan. The P&O shit, the poverty wages, the cost of living, the freeports.

 

They've said that post Brexit they want to turn Britain into some kind of Singapore of the North Sea. This is how you do it, make people do desperate they'll do any job.

 

Firstly you need to get them used to lower living standards and being more satisfied with less.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

11 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

It is unearned by the recipient of the wealth. Hence the established term "unearned wealth".

 

Also, you didn't earn the 500% or whatever increase in your house value either.

This is absolutely spot on. I find it hard to understand people who argue with it.

 

When you buy a house to live in, you get the benefit of that asset while you're alive.  When you die, you're dead; that's all.  Dead people don't need a place to live and they can't make a claim on ownership of assets, because, y'know, they're dead. 

 

Their inheritors did nothing to earn that asset (especially, as you say, if the monetary value of that asset has been artificially inflated far beyond the amounts of money the deceased former owner spent on it). 

 

It's perfectly possible to set thresholds and rates of Inheritance Tax that don't hurt anyone, raise significant amounts to support the services that people need and have some (admittedly small) affect in countering inequality.

[Bjornebye]

10 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

It causes loopholes, then loopholes for the loopholes and more loopholes to cover the loopholes and have a guess who can afford to use them loopholes? 

 

Wealth isn't just about having more food than the other person it's about class and division. Poor pays. Debt pays. Hunger pays. 

 

Do the head guys of some of these homeless charities want to solve the problem? Like fuck they do. 

 

 

When you've got the likes of Cameron and Natalie Elphick turning up to "help out" at foodbanks and yet people still vote for these you have to think "aaah fuck it whats the point" because that's what they want you to do. Give up. Take that extra bit of debt, get into the shit "we will bail you out by making you even poorer then blame everyone but ourselves" 

 

 

Yet again. 
 

 

[Bjornebye]

8 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

My point was that it's a very small percentage who get left that sort of estate. If a parent gives you something they own outright, I don't believe in you being taxed on it. Is that fair? 

Strontz ? 

[Gnasher]

8 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

I see this was ignored.... 

8 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

Yes, and I'm saying the threshold should be lower. And incidentally, the threshold is £500k if it's left to a child.

 

 

Are we taking about giving or inheriting?

 

I'm not personally keen on paying any tax, but that's the only way society is going to function. And people with more wealth should pay more tax. It's ridiculous that you can inherit 500 grand off a parent and not pay a bean on it. Half a million pound and not a penny of it goes to healthcare, schools, social care, roads, museums, libraries etc.

 

 

You're spot on Stronts. People bleating about paying tax on a windfall which only kicks in after they've pocketed the first 350/500 grand, so above this countrys current average house price, the money above that amount could/should fund hospitals, schools and help build affordable housing and shelter for all.

 

The question should be why isn't the rate in which a person starts to pay lowered? 

[Bjornebye]

10 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

You're spot on Stronts. People bleating about paying tax on a windfall which only kicks in after they've pocketed the first 350/500 grand, so above this countrys current average house price, the money above that amount could/should fund hospitals, schools and help build affordable housing and shelter for all.

 

The question should be why isn't the rate in which a person starts to pay lowered? 

We’ve got people on here who have voted Tory or for a Tory/Lib coalition and you’re questioning people for not wanting yet another tax on something when the country is swimming in food banks and the extra pounds being siphoned are only to make these cunts richer anyway? Where is all the money for hospitals schools and shelters going now? Sunak wrote of over 4 billion a few months back. Just like that. 
 

Plenty of rich people have worked fucking hard to get what they have, paid higher taxes on all of it. What they do with it should be up to them. Granted plenty of wealthy get it handed on a plate. 
 

Fuck me we will have people justifying the bedroom tax shortly.