The budget

[Llamaman]

IHT, ("IT") - the "nil rate band" of £325k was set years ago at a level that was thought appropriate at the time - if taxes are to remain relevant they need review and therefore it is good, (that if IT is to continue), that it is reviewed and brought in line with today.

It used to be revised every year, but was last set in April 2009. I agree rates should be revised every year to prevent fiscal drag - I think this should be in statute, with parliament having to override it, rather than using fiscal drag as a 'stealth tax' (I hate that term).

I think that it accounts for 1% of Government income and raises about £3 billion - increasing the exemption will, IMHO, not reduce that significantly as Estates are getting £arger each year giving an £increasing annual take

IHT take had grown significantly over the last 10 years (c. £1bn), largely due to the increase in property prices.

I cannot see how it will influence the housing market for most people in the important areas

Is London not important?
Seriously, this will have a big impact on people's retirement planning. Couples who previously might have downsized will now be incentivised to stay in their family homes to avoid IHT on their estate. This will reduce supply in the market, increasing prices. Why is property considered a "better" asset than cash, shares, bonds, wine, art, classic cars, porcelain cats? What is the justification for government interference in this decision

 

[dejongj]

I have no issue with zero hours contract if people want them, and they're reasonable both ways. i.e. no obligation either way. Indeed I used to employee a number of people on them, they worked well because they suited both parties. I have an issue with contracts as happens no that offer no promise of work but require you to be available to do it anyway. But whats that got to do with what I said?

But those are illegal and unenforceable as far as I understand. I happily stand corrected, and yes I don't deny that some clauses may exist, but they are basically meaningless.

 

[dejongj]

I don't think creating a two-tier system of employers is a good solution. Especially as it could create a step-effect where a small employer cannot grow because it would suddenly break their business model re: staffing levels.

Zero hour contracts - by themselves - are not the problem. The problem is how they interact with other areas, such as welfare. In particular, the varying hours of such contracts cause real hardship as the welfare system does not respond as quickly as people's circumstances change and those at the bottom end of the income spectra don't have savings to fall back on like better-paid contractors (like myself) do. HMRC/DWP need to be much more responsive.

Hallelujah, I fully agree with that.

 

[BillN_33]

Simple genuine question Billy, asked in a light hearted manner.
No need to be all "Bill" about it

As you know Vivienne I am rather "Black and White" ..... so you need to explain as quite a lot of the time "I just don't get it"

accepted that you ask in a light hearted manner ............ but I thought my answer was a "light hearted" one - so there you go!!

I never use smilies .... never be able to figure them out ........... stick a smilie on the end and it's supposed to mean that you didn't mean what you say or the other way round - never sure

 

[Cobra]

Your point is what exactly?

Nothing really just musing on the fact that I remember when there was only one budget a year, then we had the mini budget introduced,
some years back, and now they have introduced a 3rd budget in a year.
another (3) excuse(s) to raise taxes.

Just in, MP's have been awarded a 10% pay increase when inflation is apparent 0% ( not that I believe that )
But it sure as hell aint 10%.

 

[viv1969]

As you know Vivienne I am rather "Black and White" ..... so you need to explain as quite a lot of the time "I just don't get it"

accepted that you ask in a light hearted manner ............ but I thought my answer was a "light hearted" one - so there you go!!

I never use smilies .... never be able to figure them out ........... stick a smilie on the end and it's supposed to mean that you didn't mean what you say or the other way round - never sure

Pretty intrigued as to where you get vivienne from too.
Black and white you may be but I'm fairly sure you're not blind.

 

[BillN_33]

Pretty intrigued as to where you get vivienne from too.
Black and white you may be but I'm fairly sure you're not blind.

I thought that your name was Viv, a diminutive for Vivienne and you were born in 1969

still not with you on the blind bit, although I now have a special pair of glasses for viewing this forum

 

[dejongj]

Pretty intrigued as to where you get vivienne from too.
Black and white you may be but I'm fairly sure you're not blind.

It's 'her', isn't it

 

[BillN_33]

It's 'her', isn't it

Now I am confused,

 

[viv1969]

I thought that you name was Viv, a diminutive for Vivienne and you were born in 1969

still not with you on the blind bit, although I now have a special pair of glasses for viewing this forum

Look under where it says viv1969, but above where it says edit my images.

 

[viv1969]

It's 'her', isn't it

Are you referring to "the woman" ?

 

[BillN_33]

Is London not important?
Seriously, this will have a big impact on people's retirement planning. Couples who previously might have downsized will now be incentivised to stay in their family homes to avoid IHT on their estate. This will reduce supply in the market, increasing prices. Why is property considered a "better" asset than cash, shares, bonds, wine, art, classic cars, porcelain cats? What is the justification for government interference in this decision

Isn't there going to be a provision that if you HAD a house that was worth £1m and you sold it ..... you will still get the £1m joint exemption ......... or have I somehow made that up

 

[BillN_33]

Look under where it says viv1969, but above where it says edit my images.

I thought that was a disguise for your real name as most people don't get that option ...... it that why I am blind?

I need to go back to the bird section for some sanity@!£$%

 

[Cobra]

I thought that you name was Viv, a diminutive for Vivienne and you were born in 1969

My best guess would be that "19" is a red Herring and "69" is a hobby?
As for real names

 

[Llamaman]

Just in, MP's have been awarded a 10% pay increase when inflation is apparent 0% ( not that I believe that )
But it sure as hell aint 10%.

But their pay isn't reviewed annually, so you can't use an annual inflation rate to compare.
Additionally, part of the rationale of the increase is to replace the income lost be removing the generous expenses system, which some milked more than others. Having a fewer expenses and higher salary is both fairer (it doesn't favour the greedy buggers over the honest MPs) and more transparent (we can all see what they get paid).

Not saying I agree with it, per se, but that's the rationale.

 

[viv1969]

My best guess would be that "19" is a red Herring and "69" is a hobby?
As for real names

View attachment 41988

THANK YOU! !

(And I'll deal with you later for your cheek!)

 

[BillN_33]

My best guess would be that "19" is a red Herring and "69" is a hobby?
As for real names

View attachment 41988

soixante-neuf .......... no, I certainly need to go back to the bird section, to keep the Mods on their toes!!

69................. it was a good year for St Emilion Grand Cru ....... still a good bottle for £400+

 

[Cobra]

And I'll deal with you later for your cheek!

LOL And as my dad used to say, when you are big enough your'll be too old

 

[Cobra]

But their pay isn't reviewed annually, so you can't use an annual inflation rate to compare.

I'm pretty sure they have an annual one?
All I was saying was that all pay rises generally revolve around inflation,
Poor lambs

 

[BillN_33]

I'm pretty sure they have an annual one?
All I was saying was that all pay rises generally revolve around inflation,
Poor lambs

Nothing wrong with the pay ......... it is some of the people that you lot voted for, (I did not vote because I thought that I was not eligible)

 

[Dave *]

Get two or three of such contacts then or whatever you need to do. Have you never worked more than one job to make ends meet? Or be really good and get more hours.

Choices, choices.

As @Llamaman says, many of these contracts are on the basis the employee will only work for that employer.

Than wouldn't be right and legal. Zero hours obligation works both ways. An employer is no allowed to hold an employee ransom to a single role.

But those are illegal and unenforceable as far as I understand. I happily stand corrected, and yes I don't deny that some clauses may exist, but they are basically meaningless.

They are presently not illegal or unenforceable, the government seems quite content to allow the practise to continue. If a person breaches the contract the employee will be sacked and then sanctioned for the job loss.

Are you still in favour of this type of zero hour contract?

 

[dejongj]

As @Llamaman says, many of these contracts are on the basis the employee will only work for that employer.





They are presently not illegal or unenforceable, the government seems quite content to allow the practise to continue. If a person breaches the contract the employee will be sacked and then sanctioned for the job loss.

Are you still in favour of this type of zero hour contract?

If that is true then no I am not in favour of a zero hours contract which excludes working for anyone else. I can't investigate now but I am pretty certain that is not an enforceable clause. Getting sacked from a zero hours contract is a futile technicality. I mean by definition there is no obligation to provide work.

 

[JennyGW]

Wow. You now think you know better than an economics professors at one of the world's top 5 universities? Perhaps you'd like to share with us your reasoning? There's probably a Nobel prize in it for you.

There - a real incentive to actually present a reasoned opinion (as you demand of others) rather than an unsubstantiated one (like your own). Give it a try.

Here's another professor who is good with numbers, you'll find I disagree with him a lot, too.

"Among its faculty, listed as Professor of Scientology, was L. Ron Hubbard."
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1970/4/21/scientology-the-art-of-l-ron/

You'll find my posts to be perfectly substantiated, just read what I say and follow the links I provide, lol

This is fun

 

[BillN_33]

As @Llamaman says, many of these contracts are on the basis the employee will only work for that employer.





They are presently not illegal or unenforceable, the government seems quite content to allow the practise to continue. If a person breaches the contract the employee will be sacked and then sanctioned for the job loss.

Are you still in favour of this type of zero hour contract?

Do people actually sign a written contract between employer and employee ........ for a ZH contract?

Is it true that if one employer say that the employee CANNOT work for another employee and this is broken then the employee is "sanctioned for the job loss" whatever that means?

 

[Cobra]

it is some of the people that you lot voted for,

Not me, I think only Jp ( @dejongj ) has actually admitted to voting for the current government

 

[BillN_33]

Not me, I think only Jp ( @dejongj ) has actually admitted to voting for the current government

I would have .... but you could have guessed that

 

[Cobra]

I would have .... but you could have guessed that

Well I blame Jp and now I could have blamed you as well

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Here's another professor who is good with numbers, you'll find I disagree with him a lot, too.

"Among its faculty, listed as Professor of Scientology, was L. Ron Hubbard."
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1970/4/21/scientology-the-art-of-l-ron/

You'll find my posts to be perfectly substantiated, just read what I say and follow the links I provide, lol

This is fun

If we were discussing scientology, referencing L Ron Hubbard would be perfectly valid. But we are not, we are discussing economics, so we are referencing a professor of economics at oxford university. can you state your argument against his reasoning?

 

[Llamaman]

Here's another professor who is good with numbers, you'll find I disagree with him a lot, too.

"Among its faculty, listed as Professor of Scientology, was L. Ron Hubbard."
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1970/4/21/scientology-the-art-of-l-ron/

You'll find my posts to be perfectly substantiated, just read what I say and follow the links I provide, lol

This is fun

So, now you're comparing economics with Scientology? The first link you provide all day in a budget thread is about Scientology? And you still haven't actually provided any substantive evidence for any one of the comments you've made.

If you're going to troll, you need to be more subtle about it. At least ST4 is funny.

 

[Llamaman]

If we were discussing scientology, referencing L Ron Hubbard would be perfectly valid. But we are not, we are discussing economics, so we are referencing a professor of economics at oxford university. can you state your argument against his reasoning?

Of course she can't. She doesn't have any. Obvious troll is obvious and all that.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Of course she can't. She doesn't have any. Obvious troll is obvious and all that.

I did have a rather harsher post drafted originally, but thought I shall try and be reasonable!

 

[nilagin]

Wow. You now think you know better than an economics professors at one of the world's top 5 universities?

I agree with JennyGW, it's only the blokes opinion, it hasn't happened yet so how can he be sure he is right. I see no reason why the property wouldn't be sold as I would imagine that there would be more than one person inheriting from an estate. Can't really see why they would want to keep it and as the average house price at £250k is already well inside the IHT level, there is unlikely a need to sell a property just to pay the IHT already, so raising the IHT level to £1M won't be changing much on whether a property gets sold or not.

 

[nilagin]

But you get the likes of sports direct abusing them. Maybe a quota like only 15% of jobs in s company can be 0 hours.

When ever I go into Sports Direct it always seems to be the same staff, so I assume they manage to get regular work and hours. The majority are of an age where they are likely at college as well and college courses don't seem to take all day Monday through to Friday anymore so they are probably more than happy to have work during the gaps in their college day/week,

 

[Llamaman]

Supply and demand is pretty basic economics. You don't really need an Oxford Don to point it out.

 

[Dave *]

Do people actually sign a written contract between employer and employee ........ for a ZH contract?

Is it true that if one employer say that the employee CANNOT work for another employee and this is broken then the employee is "sanctioned for the job loss" whatever that means?

Yes, if you lose your job and they deem you to have been at fault in the dismissal then they basically fine you x weeks of Jobseekers Allowance, effectively the jobseeker gets no money for a period decided by the Job Centre as a punishment.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Economists disagree.

The change in IHT in this budget encourages people to stay in larger homes for longer than they otherwise might (and their descendants to keep the house as an asset rather than sell it) thus reducing supply to the market and increasing prices. The parliamentary report I linked earlier refers to this explicitly;
"John Muelbauer, professor of economics at Nuffield College, Oxford, suggested a new higher threshold would choke off the supply of new properties: "In the majority of estates, housing is the most important asset. Many families currently liquidate that asset to pay the IHT, which means that homes come onto the market. If people can hang onto family homes for longer, this will cut supply and prices will rise."" (my emphasis)

If we accept that property is by far the largest part of most estates, this change will affect estates valued at between £650k and £1m. Let's say the house will be valued at £600k to £950k and £50k of cash etc.

It's not going to result in a lack of average homes reaching the market as average family homes come in at way less than that, except in London, a place which should never be used in setting policy for the whole country as the property market there is so far out from everywhere else as to be absurd. It would potentially result in a reduction in the numbers of £650k plus homes comping to the market - below that the moveable assets should often cover the IHT liability anyway so there should be no need to sell to cover the IHT bill. Will this cause the price of £250k a three bed semi to rise? I can't see how. The supply of these won't be choked off as these are unaffected by the IHT change.

Will it make a difference to retirees downsizing? I don't think so, the reason my parents want a smaller house is nothing to do with IHT (theirs is under the threshold anyway), it's to do with them getting old and not wanting such a big house to look after and not needing the space for children as we're long gone.

 

[dejongj]

As @Llamaman says, many of these contracts are on the basis the employee will only work for that employer.





They are presently not illegal or unenforceable, the government seems quite content to allow the practise to continue. If a person breaches the contract the employee will be sacked and then sanctioned for the job loss.

Are you still in favour of this type of zero hour contract?

I've checked and I was right, the exclusivity clause issue was addressed under the coalition. Something labour should have sorted a long time ago

The ban on the use of exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts was included in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.

 

[nilagin]

Supply and demand is pretty basic economics. You don't really need an Oxford Don to point it out.

Just because someone teaches a subject doesn't mean they know what they are talking about, hence the expression, "Those that can't do, teach". He probably couldn't cut it in the real world.

 

[dejongj]

Not me, I think only Jp ( @dejongj ) has actually admitted to voting for the current government

I am actually not allowed to vote but if I was then I would have. However I would not have been happy with this budget at all. It is a budget punitive of success and looking after one self. It is hitting me very hard. So far about an 15% loss of income for the next financial year. I'm really not a happy bunny. But hey got to think what to do next to mitigate that situation.

 

[Llamaman]

I agree that the London market is absurd. Which is why it's really stupid to make it worse by making property a more appealing investment by giving it special tax breaks. £700k - £1m isn't that big a house in London (where I live £700k would get you a nice 3 bed flat) - a LOT of London properties will be affected by this.

Outside of London, the effect on house prices will be much smaller as it's well above average family home values. Which makes it a tax cut for the rich.

So... a policy that exacerbates the London house crisis AND gives a tax break to rich Tory donors in Berkshire. Well done, George.