Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ckn

£12bn in welfare cuts

Recommended Posts

There are plenty of jobs around ck.  I know that because I look at four websites daily!  I can't get a permanent one myself because nobody wants me permanently these days :cry: (I know, I can't believe it either).  As for long term unemployed, there have always been people out of work long term and for many years there has been assistance available to them.  But there will always be some who will genuinely want work but for whatever reason will struggle to get it, regardless of who is in parliament and how much they are given from the taxpayer.  There is no such thing as actual full employment, only technical full employment.  But you knew that anyway.

 

Yes, I am in support of reigning in benefits.  Apparently once these cuts are implemented the spend will return to 2007/2008 levels.  I am not sure why that is a bad thing, especially at present when inflation is at 0.5%.  Even though I am unemployed again myself now, I know that it is right that unemployment should not be comfortable.  It was never meant to be comfortable.  The welfare state was created to provide a safety net, not a comfort blanket. 

 

What some on the left don't appear to appreciate is that in order for businesses to create jobs, they have to make profits so that they can re-invest into the business.  Taxing businesses at the rate they have been taxed in the past is not going to create the environment in which businesses will be inclined to invest either in jobs or in better pay (and you have missed out the reference to the increase in the minimum wage that is coming, a cost that companies are going to have to bear).

 

Overall I think the budget is a good one.  I thought it would be harsher. 

I'll stick to one point.  Corporate taxation.  Why cut it AGAIN?  We're already charging the lowest of the G7 countries by a very long way.  Germany charges over 30% in corporation tax and they get along just fine with an excellent economy.  In fact, of the G20 countries, only Saudi Arabia now charges lower than us.

 

Most companies pay above minimum wage and above the new living wage, most comfortably above this, this rate change will not affect them yet they get the corporation tax cut.  By far and away the largest majority of companies who pay minimum wage fit into the "small profit" rate of corporation tax that will be done away with in the next year.  In 2010, these small companies paid a 7% lower tax rate than than their medium or large compatriots.  Effectively, by ONLY cutting the headline corporation tax rate and leaving the small tax rate unchanged they've been penalising smaller companies, making them less effective and making it harder for them to compete against larger competitors.  From this year, small companies making little profit must pay the same rate as their more profitable competitors when the whole point of the small profit rate was to encourage owners to keep money in the business.  What they've done is make it far easier for large companies to grind small companies under, but then how many small company can afford to "donate" enough to the Tories to get their wishes made real.

 

And Labour were criticised as "business unfriendly" when it's really the Tories who are doing all they can to help bury the smaller companies.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I need to apologise, I was wrong.  We'll be the lowest in the G20 as Saudi Arabia charge 20% according to HMRC, the same as Russia and Turkey, the other joint lowest in the G20, we'll undercut them.  A country that does everything possible short of calling their immigrant labour "slaves" and money going to a few people will charge more tax than we do.  Well done Gideon.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were people really claiming housing benefit when they were earning over 30k (or 40k in London)?....if so, that was ridiculous tbf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were people really claiming housing benefit when they were earning over 30k (or 40k in London)?....if so, that was ridiculous tbf

 

No they weren't.

 

There are people who live in council/social housing that earn more than £30K/40K.  Therefore they pay 'council' rent, not the 'market' rent.

Edited by Bedford Roughyed

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were people really claiming housing benefit when they were earning over 30k (or 40k in London)?....if so, that was ridiculous tbf

I'm sure that somewhere someone was.  But I doubt it's widespread.  But of course the Tories and their allies in the media will give the impression that it is.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stick to one point.  Corporate taxation.  Why cut it AGAIN?  We're already charging the lowest of the G7 countries by a very long way.  Germany charges over 30% in corporation tax and they get along just fine with an excellent economy.  In fact, of the G20 countries, only Saudi Arabia now charges lower than us.

 

Most companies pay above minimum wage and above the new living wage, most comfortably above this, this rate change will not affect them yet they get the corporation tax cut.  By far and away the largest majority of companies who pay minimum wage fit into the "small profit" rate of corporation tax that will be done away with in the next year.  In 2010, these small companies paid a 7% lower tax rate than than their medium or large compatriots.  Effectively, by ONLY cutting the headline corporation tax rate and leaving the small tax rate unchanged they've been penalising smaller companies, making them less effective and making it harder for them to compete against larger competitors.  From this year, small companies making little profit must pay the same rate as their more profitable competitors when the whole point of the small profit rate was to encourage owners to keep money in the business.  What they've done is make it far easier for large companies to grind small companies under, but then how many small company can afford to "donate" enough to the Tories to get their wishes made real.

 

And Labour were criticised as "business unfriendly" when it's really the Tories who are doing all they can to help bury the smaller companies.

I don't understand your point here.  As I understand it, corporation tax is a tax payable only by limited companies regardless of their size.  Is that not the case?  I have taken a look at the Gov.uk site and I can't see any reference to non-limited companies (ie partnerships or sole traders or what have you).  Maybe you can put me straight on that one because I thought that a reduction in corporation tax would benefit small limited companies as well as larger ones and non-limited companies would remain unaffected either way. 

 

Smaller firms do get an increase in their NI employment allowance up to £3000 so maybe that offsets any advantage to larger companies?

 

I'm teetering on the edge of my grasp of corporate thingies so I'm treading carefully!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that somewhere someone was.  But I doubt it's widespread.  But of course the Tories and their allies in the media will give the impression that it is.

Well, I'm a Tory and I didn't get that impression at all.  It was quite clear that the reference was to people living in social housing who earned IMO too much to be living in social housing in the first place!  (Why are people earning over thirty grand living in social housing?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they weren't.

There are people who live in council/social housing that earn more than £30K/40K. Therefore they pay 'council' rent, not the 'market' rent.

I earn less than that, and support a family of 4, but aren't living in social housing....more fool me, eh? Edited by chuffer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your point here.  As I understand it, corporation tax is a tax payable only by limited companies regardless of their size.  Is that not the case?  I have taken a look at the Gov.uk site and I can't see any reference to non-limited companies (ie partnerships or sole traders or what have you).  Maybe you can put me straight on that one because I thought that a reduction in corporation tax would benefit small limited companies as well as larger ones and non-limited companies would remain unaffected either way. 

 

Smaller firms do get an increase in their NI employment allowance up to £3000 so maybe that offsets any advantage to larger companies?

 

I'm teetering on the edge of my grasp of corporate thingies so I'm treading carefully!

Fair point, complex subject!  I understand it because I lived it for years...

 

If you make under £300,000 profit in a year you are entitled to pay corporation tax at the small profits rate to encourage you, as owner, to leave money in the company rather than take it all out as dividends/profits.  This has always been substantially lower than the headline rate, in 2010, this was 21% while the headline rate was 28%, now they're the same.  Here's the current HMRC rates page, it shows the last few years rates as well.

 

In 2002, it was 19% small profit with 30% as headline meaning if your company was not making much of an overall profit then your tax went down to allow you an 11% respite compared to what larger companies paid.  Think of it as the difference between standard and higher rates of PAYE tax if that makes it easier, if you can afford more you pay more.

 

Partnerships, sole traders, LLPs, etc. have a completely different tax system but generally this is all down to personal tax with no corporation tax.

 

It really is a year after year kick that small companies have had from the Coalition and now Tories with their larger cousins getting all the tax cuts while small companies have no tax cuts, more regulation and now a higher living wage to pay.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point, complex subject!  I understand it because I lived it for years...

 

If you make under £300,000 profit in a year you are entitled to pay corporation tax at the small profits rate to encourage you, as owner, to leave money in the company rather than take it all out as dividends/profits.  This has always been substantially lower than the headline rate, in 2010, this was 21% while the headline rate was 28%, now they're the same.  Here's the current HMRC rates page, it shows the last few years rates as well.

 

In 2002, it was 19% small profit with 30% as headline meaning if your company was not making much of an overall profit then your tax went down to allow you an 11% respite compared to what larger companies paid.  Think of it as the difference between standard and higher rates of PAYE tax if that makes it easier, if you can afford more you pay more.

 

Partnerships, sole traders, LLPs, etc. have a completely different tax system but generally this is all down to personal tax with no corporation tax.

 

It really is a year after year kick that small companies have had from the Coalition and now Tories with their larger cousins getting all the tax cuts while small companies have no tax cuts, more regulation and now a higher living wage to pay.

Ok.  Thanks for that.  Based on your explanation, the smaller business is not worse off by this reduction in corporation tax but rather it is not better off.  Meanwhile bigger businesses are better off and this is what is ticking you off?

 

Have I understood correctly: corporation tax is not a tax on a the size of a company but on the size of the profit made by a company?  If I have understood that correctly, would you feel ok if a company was only small but it made a large profit and so benefited from the reduction in corporation tax or would you be miffed at the idea of any company getting a reduction in the tax on its profits?

 

Will the increase in NI employment allowance make a difference to smaller businesses bearing in mind the above?

 

PS: I'm glad that at least I understood correctly that corporation tax didn't apply to sole traders, partnerships, etc!  I find it's always a relief to discover I actually know something. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.  Thanks for that.  Based on your explanation, the smaller business is not worse off by this reduction in corporation tax but rather it is not better off.  Meanwhile bigger businesses are better off and this is what is ticking you off?

 

Have I understood correctly: corporation tax is not a tax on a the size of a company but on the size of the profit made by a company?  If I have understood that correctly, would you feel ok if a company was only small but it made a large profit and so benefited from the reduction in corporation tax or would you be miffed at the idea of any company getting a reduction in the tax on its profits?

 

Will the increase in NI employment allowance make a difference to smaller businesses bearing in mind the above?

 

PS: I'm glad that at least I understood correctly that corporation tax didn't apply to sole traders, partnerships, etc!  I find it's always a relief to discover I actually know something. :D

It's a tax cut for big companies.  It's as simple as that.  There aren't that many companies really who make over £300,000 profit in a year. 

I need to see far more details on the NI allowance once they're published in full.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tax cut for big companies.  It's as simple as that.  There aren't that many companies really who make over £300,000 profit in a year. 

I need to see far more details on the NI allowance once they're published in full.

Reading through a section on the BBC website entitled 'in quotes' it seems that business representatives are more concerned about the rise in minimum wage, especially the potential impact on small businesses, although they think that the rise in the NI allowance may offset any potential problems to a degree.  But as you suggest, many of the quotes included a reference to reading the finer detail.

Edited by Saintslass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm a Tory and I didn't get that impression at all.  It was quite clear that the reference was to people living in social housing who earned IMO too much to be living in social housing in the first place!  (Why are people earning over thirty grand living in social housing?)

 

I'd imagine they had a need when they got the house, then by hard work and getting on their bike they have ended up working for a good wage. 


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine they had a need when they got the house, then by hard work and getting on their bike they have ended up working for a good wage. 

Well, I think it's a good idea that they will now have to make up the rent because if they don't have the need anymore they shouldn't be in social housing.  Social housing should be for those in need.  No wonder there's a shortage of social housing if people who don't need it are living in it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think it's a good idea that they will now have to make up the rent because if they don't have the need anymore they shouldn't be in social housing. Social housing should be for those in need. No wonder there's a shortage of social housing if people who don't need it are living in it!

No, social housing should be for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, social housing should be for everyone.

You're right. Though I don't have a problem with asking those who can afford it to pay a little extra.


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Though I don't have a problem with asking those who can afford it to pay a little extra.

 

In your opinion, he is right. In my opinion he is not. If you can afford not to live in social housing, you don't. Social housing should be available who need it. Clearly differences in political viewpoints!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion, he is right. In my opinion he is not. If you can afford not to live in social housing, you don't. Social housing should be available who need it. Clearly differences in political viewpoints!

Correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stick to one point.  Corporate taxation.  Why cut it AGAIN?  We're already charging the lowest of the G7 countries by a very long way.  Germany charges over 30% in corporation tax and they get along just fine with an excellent economy.  In fact, of the G20 countries, only Saudi Arabia now charges lower than us.

 

Most companies pay above minimum wage and above the new living wage, most comfortably above this, this rate change will not affect them yet they get the corporation tax cut.  By far and away the largest majority of companies who pay minimum wage fit into the "small profit" rate of corporation tax that will be done away with in the next year.  In 2010, these small companies paid a 7% lower tax rate than than their medium or large compatriots.  Effectively, by ONLY cutting the headline corporation tax rate and leaving the small tax rate unchanged they've been penalising smaller companies, making them less effective and making it harder for them to compete against larger competitors.  From this year, small companies making little profit must pay the same rate as their more profitable competitors when the whole point of the small profit rate was to encourage owners to keep money in the business.  What they've done is make it far easier for large companies to grind small companies under, but then how many small company can afford to "donate" enough to the Tories to get their wishes made real.

 

And Labour were criticised as "business unfriendly" when it's really the Tories who are doing all they can to help bury the smaller companies.

You appear to have missed the other side of the coin in this rant.

The aim of cutting corporation tax is to encourage employers to invest more into their business and create more jobs. At the same time as cutting the CT rate he has increased the tax paid on dividends by 7.5% to further encourage business owners to leave the money in the business.


I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion, he is right. In my opinion he is not. If you can afford not to live in social housing, you don't. Social housing should be available who need it. Clearly differences in political viewpoints!

Yes, let's put the poor in ghettos. Maybe we could make them wear a symbol on their clothing too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all the business leaders admit that Osborne's National Living Wage will make no difference as employers will simply cut hours. Which of course they will be able to with Zero Hours Contracts. It has been argued for years that a NMW based on hourly rates was always a nonsense. We need a National Weekly Minimum. People don't spend their money in hourly chunks, they shouldn't be paid on that basis either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all the business leaders admit that Osborne's National Living Wage will make no difference as employers will simply cut hours. Which of course they will be able to with Zero Hours Contracts. It has been argued for years that a NMW based on hourly rates was always a nonsense. We need a National Weekly Minimum. People don't spend their money in hourly chunks, they shouldn't be paid on that basis either.

That wouldn't really work for part time workers. But you're right so far as people should have fixed hours contracts not zero hours ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, let's put the poor in ghettos. Maybe we could make them wear a symbol on their clothing too.

That's a silly thing to say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a silly thing to say. 

But it's true nonetheless.  The "affordable" homes in posh developments have separate entrances.  What else would you call this but a ghetto?  And of course no one wants an "affordable" home built near their expensive properties.  

Edited by Trojan

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a silly thing to say.

No. All the evidence says that poor communities stay poor whilst mixed communities create aspiration. I thought Tories believed in choice? Surely, you should be able to choose to be an owner occupier, private tenant or a social housing tenant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...