National News Boris Johnson - Ousted Former PM

Yes TWO election promises broken in one day. But of course the government can find money down 'the back of the sofa' when it wants to!!
That’s what some people don’t understand. With the cost so far because of covid it’s taken money from elsewhere. I don’t think it matters who was in power the money was needed and has to be recouped.
 
Interesting the NI goes up 1.5%…which of course costs employers more money and their ability to recruit.
Working age employees will be up in arms as retired people won’t be affected.
Hang on no they won’t as the chancellor penalised pensioners with a suspension of the triple lock that pensioners have paid in all their lives too. All this was of course leaked to the press a month ago
Well retired people who pay tax on their pensions won't be affected because NI is I think only paid by workers up to the retirement age (above the lower thresholds). So pensioners with pension income above the tax thresholds won't have to pay the 1.5% extra.

As for the triple lock, one of the measures was rise in earnings, and there was an extraordinary covid19 related rise in average earnings of 8%, that would have meant state pensions going up 8%. rather than 2.5% or the inflation rate.
 
Last edited:
Yes, if somebody has more than 1 BTL property (as this may come about by a change in circumstance) then each additional property should have additional tax (on whatever happens currently) put on it. This may have the benefit of freeing up property for people wanting to buy their own.

Absent foreign property owners should be looked into as well for tax purposes and because the properties can often sit empty.

B2L property already has higher stamp duty costs, tax relief restrictions on interest charges, higher capital gains tax rates and 30 days to pay CGT on a sale. Certain other tax advantageous allowances have also reduced or restricted.

A lot of property owned by foreign owners is also held in a corporate structure and subject to an annual tax charge of up to 15% of the property value.

I think the b2l sector has already been hit enough this past 5 years.
 
10% wealth tax on anyone based in the UK with over £100m would raise £69 billion.

Just saying....
You could get £106bn by scrapping HS2. About £15bn by scrapping foreign aid.

We could do all of these things and have £200bn to play with. More than the English NHS budget.
 
Well retired people who pay tax on their pensions won't be affected because NI is I think only paid by workers up to the retirement age (above the lower thresholds). So pensioners with pension income above the tax thresholds won't have to pay the 1.5% extra.
This is true. I am in this envious position as I took early retirement just a few months before the pandemic and have largely been insulated against the economic effect.

Given that a large chunk of the extra capital is going to be used to "fix" social care (of which the elderly are the major consumer), I think the govt have missed a trick - if they had introduced the social care levy as a brand new, standalone charge, they could have kept the manifesto pledge of not increasing tax/NI and as it was a new tariff, it could have been levied against [some] pension payments.

Dangerous ground to walk, but as things stand, it is people like myself who are likely to benefit from the changes, yet I seem unlikely to have to suffer any direct financial contribution towards them.

Our leaders are so wise, noble and compassionate.....
 
B2L property already has higher stamp duty costs, tax relief restrictions on interest charges, higher capital gains tax rates and 30 days to pay CGT on a sale. Certain other tax advantageous allowances have also reduced or restricted.

A lot of property owned by foreign owners is also held in a corporate structure and subject to an annual tax charge of up to 15% of the property value.

I think the b2l sector has already been hit enough this past 5 years.

Not enough for me on both scores.
 
B2L property already has higher stamp duty costs, tax relief restrictions on interest charges, higher capital gains tax rates and 30 days to pay CGT on a sale. Certain other tax advantageous allowances have also reduced or restricted.

A lot of property owned by foreign owners is also held in a corporate structure and subject to an annual tax charge of up to 15% of the property value.

I think the b2l sector has already been hit enough this past 5 years.
You are right. I used to own two BTL but have one now. There are not many advantages holding BTL as apart from maintenance you are responsible if the tenant falls into arrears. Then you might be left with a lot of mess after.
We have been lucky with tenants, probably because we’ve looked after them well.
I am all for pursuing the very wealthy as they’ve escaped the worst of the problems over the last year, some having exploited the situation to their advantage
 
You are right. I used to own two BTL but have one now. There are not many advantages holding BTL as apart from maintenance you are responsible if the tenant falls into arrears. Then you might be left with a lot of mess after.
We have been lucky with tenants, probably because we’ve looked after them well.
I am all for pursuing the very wealthy as they’ve escaped the worst of the problems over the last year, some having exploited the situation to their advantage

I too have no issue with the wealthy paying more of a share but by the same token I think those on lower incomes that have equal access to something like the NHS should also contribute.

Someone on £20k p/a will pay £130 extra with this new tax rise whilst someone on £80k will pay £880. I don’t see that as particularly unfair.

Many of those on higher incomes do also pay for private health care so don’t necessarily use the NHS in the same way anyway.

I agree that some wealthier people have exploited the recent situation and should be held too account. But billions still went to those most in need, so again I have no issue with asking them to contribute something back.
 
What would Labour and God forbid if the Libdems had been in power do regarding this issue? How can money be raised to cover the spend because of covid.
Well they wouldn't have borrowed anywhere near as much, which they gave straight to their chums.
 
Its time for how tax works for children. ;)

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. 
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!" 
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" 

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill! 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
 
Its time for how tax works for children. ;)

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. 
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!" 
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" 

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill! 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
You missed the bit where they ask the richest man why he owns 59% of the wealth they have collectively earned and he says 'hey, look over there, squirrel!'.
 
Anyway. The whole idea of “national insurance” going into a dedicated pot for the NHS and our state pensions is rubbish. It all goes into the same pot as income tax and vat and inheritance tax and then gets dished out however the government sees fit to spend. So we have no real “pension pot” from the state , it just comes out of current taxes

Other countries actually have funded pension funds or sovereign wealth funds for instance from North Sea oil revenues and those get invested to fund those future liabilities.
 
Well they wouldn't have borrowed anywhere near as much, which they gave straight to their chums.
Still the pandemic has cost billions irrespective whether mistakes were made, and whether The other political parties could have done any better no one knows, all the moans from them are all hindsight.
 
You missed the bit where they ask the richest man why he owns 59% of the wealth they have collectively earned and he says 'hey, look over there, squirrel!'.

Because somebody has to be at the top of any pyramid scheme which is all "life" is.

You are welcome to this realisation...... oohhhmmmmmm
 
Back
Top Bottom