It's as much of a cut as the original £2 cap was in that it is a reduction on what the price would otherwise be. If Labour pointed out that fares would have increased much much more than they will now, thanks to their intervention, then it would be seen as a positive For example from where I am to my local town was £5 each way before the cap. With Labour's "new" subsidised cap it's a £2 cut to the full price. Instead Labour have allowed the 50% increase narrative to take hold when this is patently not the case. Perhaps they should have allowed the full prices to have returned for a few months, to remind people what they "should" be paying before introducing their £3 cap!
I think it depends where you are, though. Prior to the cap we could get an all day ticket for £6. Now that will just buy us a return journey. It's hard to convey that as a 'cut' albeit that I accept that the unsubsidised price would now be higher than it previously was.
No, it still exists; but the point is that the new capped fare will effectively be more expensive than that as it only allows for two journeys for the same price. Of course, the bus company will probably put the price of the day ticket up now, but I still struggle to see how the new subsidised fare is a 'cut' rather than something which is less expensive than it might otherwise have been.
WOW employer NI contribution starts from £5k a year Thats an adult at 8 hours a week Or student at £10 an hour - 10 hours a week McD are going to go up ! Good News about petrol
This made me laugh - quoted from elsewhere: The new head of the Office of Value for Money is also on the board for HS2
Yep, but she's only adopted what was in place and had already been announced. It was announced last year it would increase with inflation, at the last budget, in 2028.
Sure, but given their track record I'm not sure the Tories were good for that promise. Plus it's one of those stealth taxes the bean counters and politicians both love, because it's harder for people to notice, so it's good she's avoided the attraction of extending it further.
Thinking about this further maybe to stop the disincentive to save they should allow pensions to be inherited free of IHT if transferred to a pension in the name of the benefciary. The income will of course be taxed still.
Oh, I thought it had slumped to a 'dismal low'? https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/1969318/ftse-falls-budget-rachel-reeves
No more gimicks ! - i bet this will bring in billions !!! Saving 1p a pint, if you can't afford £4.50 a pint then you can't afford £4.49, isn't going to help the pub trade. They have just slapped 14p an hour on employers NI If someone works 4 hours a night, that's 56p More than takes up the 1p a pint saving.
There has been a slide basically due to uncertainty but it rallied after midday, down a bit since but once we've has some detailed analysis we'll see if there is any longer lasting impact but we're not seeing the mini crash that could have happend if all that was leaked rumoured happened. The AIM market has shot up. There was the possibility of a cancellation of business relief. she did say it's under review but that was a bit hidden away.
The vast majority of it makes bugger all difference. To be fair her hands were pretty much tied, from the election campaining. The next one might be a bit more painfull if they can't turn round our fotunes. There's nothing in this budget that persuades me they can so I think this is just a stay of execution. The employers NI thing might well backfire. Unless I missed it, nothing about PPM for motorists either. I wish they had reigned in the EV =ar subsidies however. This just seems to be a tax wheeze for the better off.
I'm sure I've said this before. Why are those 60% of employees any more important than the 40% They often employ more younger people because they pay less. Why do we want to favour companies that have smaller profits and don't have any assets? People bang on about mimum wage increasing affecting small businesses that employ minimum wage workers - to me that much preferable than affecting (small or large) businesses that employ highly paid workers. We don't have a problem with high unemployment in the UK currently, we have a problem with low pay, high cost of living, zero hour contracts and underemployed overqualified workers. I'd rather give a tax break to a big corporation that can employ people of a good wage and fund training than a small business that offers less to the workers for the sake of benefitting "entrepreneurs"
They've said they need a decade to turn things around. And I think most people, whether they agree Labour have the solutions or not, would agree the country's in such a state that that timeframe sounds if anything slightly optimistic. So realistically by the time of the budget next autumn nothing of substance will have changed. I guess she's just hoping for a windfall from somewhere to provide a bit more room to keep investment up. I think they've got one more shot in 2025 at delivering more medicine to the country before realpolitik kicks in and they have an eye on what goodies they can hand out ahead of the next election.
You're probably right. I do fear that either Isreal or Russia or both could kick on and any potential windfall might develop into a bigger black hole however.
Tax contribution from those 60% outweighs the tax collected from the 40% Why would you give tax breaks to large companies that distribute profits to shareholders rather than back into their business and employing more people? Unfortunately Reeves has just killed the paying of a good wage by not only taking 1.2% extra in employer NI but by slashing the starting rate to £5000 from £9600 So for any employer who employs anyone who earns over £9600 she has just taken an extra £690, simply for employing someone. - thats per employee before the additional 1.2% above 9600 ! That means very small r minimal wage increases for everyone in the coming years.
My Mrs always bangs on about trying to keep our current place if we moved somewhere bigger, I’ve always tried to explain the 3% tax makes it pointless but it seems to bounce off her like I’m making it up, “it’ll be fine”. Just tried to explain it’s 5% now…
great building millions of houses, and much needed for first time buyers and youngsters wanting to get on the housing ladder, but you need properties for them to move into as they develop into families. Clogging the system and preventing people moving, is not going to help the progression of property.
How does increasing stamp duty on second homes prevent people moving? Surely if anything it will increase the housing stock?
