Budget 2024

Susie 42 that’s me and I am so worried, I have thought a about trying to get a little job but I am 71 and have worked full time for 55 years and don’t feel I want to

What makes you so worried? The personal allowance is £12,750 and you pay no tax on income up to that level. Anything above that will be taxed at 20%. The state pension will increase by 8.5% next month. Sit down quietly and work it out.

Ever since they allowed cameras into the HP it’s become a clowns sideshow…..everyone of these awful people trying to get their faces on tv…..they have forgotten they are public servants , and now think they’re celebrities!

Re heckling and shouting, it was dreadful.
Re the budget, reducing NI contributions is a trick which will only benefit some. It won't help pensioners and both workers and some pensioners will pay more tax by virtue of being dragged into the tax paying bracket as both state pensions and the living wage have risen yet the personal allowance remains frozen yet again and will remain so until 2028. Giving with one hand, clawing it back with the other.
Attempts to sort out the unfair anomaly with child benefit are good but not enough and too slow.

Traditionally the chancellor has the privilege of being heard without challenge. However, Hunt thought it clever to snipe at labour and make several unfunny ‘jokes’, thus drawing noise from both sides of the house. He’s an idiot.

Totally agree with you. And worse of all they think their disrespect is funny! I’m appalled by the general standards of our politicians, their vocabulary their expectations of freebies too!
I feel their disgraceful behaviour reflects on our youth too and general attitudes. Sad times

Me too. Shameful.

Why was the way CB was worked out an unfair anomaly? If two people work, they should get more help with children not less, as they are likely to have to pay for childcare, commuting and so on, which will be much cheaper for single earner families who are already advantaged by only paying one lot of tax. I think it was much fairer before, as yet again those who can afford for one parent not to work will be subsidised by couples who have both people in work.

IMO CB should be a universal benefit as it used to be, and preferably go back to being a tax allowance (ie Family Allowance) rather than a benefit.

Considering the state of the world right now I would have thought some mention of an increase in defence spending.`

The child benefit changes are due to the campaigning of Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.

He was approached by a listener, Alan, who brought the anomaly to his attention. He told him this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGv0oibq8Q8

4:30 into the video:

My son’s partner tragically died 34 days after giving birth to twins. My son has taken a new job that pays him £60,000 and is struggling with cost of living and mortgage payments after the loss of a second income [his late wife’s].

HMRC asked him to repay the child benefit. It seems grossly unfair that a couple can earn *£100,000 but a single breadwinner loses out once they earn more than £50,000. Are there plans to change it?

* A couple each earning £50,000.

The Chancellor admitted it was unfair.

Take two people each earning £30,000. In total they would pay tax of £6,900 but would not have to pay back any child benefit as neither earns more than £50,000.

Yet, the single father earning £60,000 would pay tax of £11350.00 (£4,500 more than the couple) and have to pay back all of the child benefit because he earns £10,000 more than £50,000.

A couple each earning £50,000 would pay tax of £14,900 in total. If the single father was earning £100,000 he would pay tax of £27,350. Under the new rules, he would still have to pay back all of the child benefit despite having paid £12,450 more tax than the couple.

How is that fair?

I’m so sorry to hear of the tragic death of your daughter in law TinSoldier. That, and the child benefit situation, are both grossly unfair. My sincere condolences. 💐

Pantglas2

Labour now have a golden opportunity to guarantee raising the tax threshold from £12570 to a more appropriate level to benefit pensioners and the low paid in their first budget.

A certain vote winner with those voters and it’ll serve the Tories right for looking after the high earners!

But the point is that it doesn't just benefit those with low incomes, everyone would get the reduction in tax, so not really directed enough.

Sorry, I should have put those words in italics. They are from a listener Alan who approached Martin Lewis about his son's situation of having to pay back child benefit when couples earning the same do not have to.

Apologies for having misunderstood.

The answer to that would be to have separate arrangements for single parents, or a universal benefit with a set payment per child.

I don't see the amount of tax being paid as relevant. That is pro-rata to the incomes of the earners. But if two people earn slightly over the threshold between them, and are paying out for childcare and commuting, they should not, IMO, lose out to a family where one person earns nearly as much on their own, and the other pays no tax, and between them only pay for one commute and no childcare.

The old family allowance must have been much easier and cheaper to administer. Trying to turn it into a means tested benefit seems to have produced unforeseen consequences. Limiting the number of children for whom it is paid must surely be the easiest way forward, even if better off parents receive it - as was always the case once it was paid for all children. My mother didn’t receive FA as I was an only child and the family could certainly have done with that extra money. I wouldn’t want to go back to those days but I believe the simplest system is to pay FA to all mothers for each child up to a maximum of, say, four.

Yes, I think that means testing is rarely fair, and as often as not it privileges some lifestyles over others. I don't think it matters if 'better off' parents get CB. If it were rebadged as tax relief, as it used to be, they would be paying for it via higher taxes anyway. The important thing is that all parents get it, and yes, for all children. Arguably the first child is more expensive, as items such as prams and cots can be passed down, even if clothes wear out. I never understood why my mum didn't get it for me, either. By the time my children came along, it was for all children, and (I had two) I think there was more for one than the other, but I can't remember which it was.

Restricting it to a set number of children disadvantages blended families though. If people in a new couple each have three children, for instance, it would be wrong (IMO) for the state to discourage them from becoming a household. If each parent in the new couple got tax relief for their own children it would be fairer, with arrangements being made for the ones without custody to get payments based on agreement or CMS judgements. That would, of course mean that all families with six children would have to get CB for all of them, but that would really apply to very few people, and I can't see anyone deliberately having babies to get the money. We need to encourage the birth rate anyway, with an aging society.

cc

Pantglas2

Labour now have a golden opportunity to guarantee raising the tax threshold from £12570 to a more appropriate level to benefit pensioners and the low paid in their first budget.

A certain vote winner with those voters and it’ll serve the Tories right for looking after the high earners!

But the point is that it doesn't just benefit those with low incomes, everyone would get the reduction in tax, so not really directed enough.

So just carry on penalising pensioners and low paid workers like the Tories have done for the last 5 years? Labour won’t be that stupid….ahem!