You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Can someone explain the car road tax thing again to me please, really slowly !
The first year 'tax' is doubling, but that's included in the on the road price of the car, so effectively car prices will go up and the difference is going to the treasury.
Thereafter, the additional £410 on top of the VED for cars over £40,000 list price (regardless of the price you pay for it) is paid from year two to six and this hasn't changed today (was half expected to).
Tax on tobacco to increase by 2% above inflation, and 10% above inflation for hand-rolling tobacco
Who amongst you lot on STW reported to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP. that I smoke hand-rolling tobacco and should have a tax hike of above 10% for hand-rolling tobacco?
The current 50 grams of hand-rolling tobacco is £31.50 and I can have a few puffs if I roll it thin to last me a while.
Does the Chancellor of Exchequer now just want me to smoke the hand-rolling tobacco paper only?
think plenty of normal folks will be caught by things like share schemes they get as a benefit of work. Certainly I’m no millionaire but it’ll cost me a couple of hundred quid at least
Can I check if you've looked into transferring them into an ISA to minimise tax?
The thing I find annoying is that no one points out a basic point, putting money into the NHS is the same as spending it on a large infrastructure project in terms of benefit. The money spent on wages especially at the ‘normal’ end of the scale- admin, orderlies, nurses and resident docs, will be pumped straight back into the economy. Buildings will see money recirculating as well. Some high level equipment, scanners MRI and so on are all available in the UK, not all obviously.
On top of this we have a healthier workforce, happier people, and cheaper long term health costs if waiting time are reduced.
Surely spending money in the NHS is always a benefit as long as it’s being spent well, not some black hole that sucks money in and it disappears.
chewkw
I smoke hand-rolling tobacco
Chew, zero malice intended here but is that really the heaviest financial burden your "smoking" entails?
Come on you tyke, out with it, out with it!
You are amongst friends... generally bloody confused friends after we read your posts, but friends none the less!
You forget the Covid £ that the tories funnelled to their mates who promptly off shored it.
Increasing the bus fare cap to £3 saves £350m (compared to keeping it at £2).
Keeping fuel duty as is will cost £20bn.
Could be bullshit but I'm seeing people on Twitter saying the cost of maintaining the fuel duty freeze and the annual bus ticket revenue for the whole of England are practically identical at about £3bn. IOW you could have made all buses free simply by reinstating the fuel duty escalator...
Increasing the bus fare cap to £3 saves £350m (compared to keeping it at £2).
Keeping fuel duty as is will cost £20bn.
That decision was pure politics, it doesn't make financial sense, it's objectively not fair and it doesn't help the environment.
But...
They would have been annihilated in the press, online and in almost every living room tonight. That's ok I suppose but it's the sort of detail that voters will remember in 5 years time at the next GE and likely punish them for.
As a political move, to ensure they stay in power long enough to actually make real positive changes in the future, it was the right choice in that context. Sadly.
Looks like inheriting the family farm just got turned on its head.
Thanks to the wealthy and their aiders hijacking the sector to avoid inheritance tax.
I'm sure the big farms can take it, and what a privilege to inherit that anyway even after tax, but it looks sketchy for small family farms.
It was a giant loophole though. People gaining their wealth outside farming, and then in their retirement years buying farms, playing at running them (or letting others pay them for the privilege of running them), ready to pass on the land to their adult and already wealthy kids as a nice big tax free inheritance.
Does the Chancellor of Exchequer now just want me to smoke the hand-rolling tobacco paper only?
If it’s any consolation they’re slapping a tax on vape liquid….
And so it begins…
I expect it’ll be 20 quid a bottle in a few years, with £18.50 of that being tax
It was a giant loophole though
Indeed. But in closing it, and doing so in this manner, taking out the farms even just big enough to sustain a family.
Laura Trott similarly got a kicking on Politics Live
To be generous to her… she’s not the sharpest tool in the box.
Its a telling sign of where the Tories presently are that her and Gareth Davies are both ministers in treasury roles - so nothing important then - who you wouldn’t leave unsupervised with a pair of scissors, never mind the counties economy
Basically a Tory budget through and through, except with no green measures. FFS, keeping the fuel duty discount is appalling when you've increased the price of bus travel by 50%.
I dunno Flaperon, the Mail aren't happy with this Tory budget, mind you, when is the Mail happy?
Anyway, if they have gone after the strivers that's a step too far. I for one know many a, erm, striver.
However, the good news is, "it's the most left wing budget for decades" which is likely to surprise many posters on here including me!
"Pushed taxes to the highest level ever" is a funny thing to be able to say. It depends massively on how you measure it of course and the simple statement ignores who the burden falls on, but it's not an unreasonable statement overall. Except that it was also true when by the exact same metric George Osborne pushed taxes to the highest level ever in 2012, then it was raised to be the highest level again in 2019, and then in 2020 and 2022, and the last tory budget only avoided it by kicking a bunch of increases down the road- but would have led to the highest level ever in 2026.
But of course when Labour do it it's different. I don't agree with much about this budget but it's no surprise that some of the coverage is completely dishonest.
None of this will really work. Nothing that substantial to shift the big economic picture. It mostly just appears a bit better than usual because everything is at such a low bar.
The minimum wage uptick would be good if the government put some money into the correct areas of the economy to allow this to happen. But relying on some post-covid crippled business to generate the extra is not going to happen save the biggest employers.
Growth, their number one aim is looking ropey over the next few years. There's simply not enough going into the economy via government spending to generate growth. (Even the OBR agree which is not good for Labour.)
The idea that the economy will run a surplus by 2027 is the stuff of preposterous nightmares. That is the very definition of a contracted economy. These idiots just don't seem to get it. They want growth and a government surplus from the current state of affairs in three years? Why would you want to take money out of the economy if your aim is growth and we're at such a low base?
They have it back to front. We absolutely need to run a large deficit for a while to stop things contracting and make substantial change to the country. Aiming for a surplus is like driving down the the right in the UK. A government deficit is a non-government surplus. Money for stuff.
Budget is a massive fail by all their own metrics. Very little makes any sense if you even have a tiny understanding of economics.
It will all become clear in the next two years but probably the budget next year will have to be way more serious in its attempt to fix things. Hopefully Reeves might be gone if some poor metrics come in.
Keeping the seat warm for the Tories and wasting an opportunity.
dunno Flaperon, the Mail aren’t happy with this Tory budget, mind you, when is the Mail happy?
Anyway, if they have gone after the strivers that’s a step too far. I for one know many a, erm, striver.
However, the good news is, “it’s the most left wing budget for decades” which is likely to surprise many posters on here including me
The right-wing press are going to call the Labour budget Communist and lefty shite no matter what they do. That's always been obvious to me. Remember Communism is everything 'we don't like.'
None of that reflects reality on either side.
It's not a progressive budget at all. By the very definition of aiming for a surplus by 2027 means it's regressive. Because you are aiming to reduce what the government contributes to the economy.
The only hope is there's no way they can possibly stick to that without crippling outcomes.
Unsurprisingly the people complaining about the budget in my shop yesterday afternoon were two (comparatively) wealthy pensioners, and three multi millionaires. All asked how it'll affect me and the shop, and said how awful it was. When challenged why it was terrible, none could explain exactly why. Only one came out with her daughter is buying a house and will have a 2% rise on stamp duty, turned out it wasn't a 2nd home so wasn't to be affected and she had already paid the duty last week anyway, just in case...
Pretty sure the figure I heard was 22bn for day-to-day spending and 3bn for capital spending. Where has 1.2bn come from?
Apologies I was quoting what the BBC were saying’live’ just after the budget finished. Their website later updated to £22bn
Thats a significant sum of money. However, there is no coherent plan. They want to continue Tory plans of creating diagnostic hubs (good) , and some of the backlog maintenance, but it won’t address significant backlogs ie places that need new hospitals, or social care/NHS interaction. In fact I imagine waiting list will grow. I imagine the tax on private schools will make a significant number of consultants think f you and do less work than before. Nothing in there for the GP contract too.
It will also be interesting to see how much the increase NI charges cost the NHS. Random internet search had it at £3.3bn based on a % increase, let alone the threshold change, so maybe double that? Thats a fair chunk of your £22bn gone. How will GPs fund their increases when they were already at the point of making a loss on their contract?
It all appears to have gone very quiet on the impact of farmers. I live in Shropshire where many farms contrary to stereotypes and sweeping statements on here, many farms are family owned and run. Someone I work with , their daughter has just finished uni and had returned home to takeover the family farm. It will be interesting to see what the implication is.
I imagine the tax on private schools will make a significant number of consultants think f you and do less work than before
With all due respect, I think that’s a bit of an intellectual leap. Lots of my colleagues don’t have kids, lots of them don’t have kids at private school, lots of those who do, do decent amounts of PP, and those who have kids at private school and don’t do PP are unlikely to be doing less work in the face of a 20% school fee uplift.
Two small pieces of good news (IMO) - Eden Project North has been funded, and the changes on company car benefit on dual cab pickups (which I know were a bit controversial on here…) are going ahead.
I heard there was an announcement about the Leeds tram but can’t find anything?
The 7 year gifting exemption still applies to farms doesn’t it?
If an average 2 million farm can’t handle. 10% tax on a generational basis (1 mill exempt and the next mill at 20%) then maybe it needs better management.
Surely spending money in the NHS is always a benefit as long as it’s being spent well, not some black hole that sucks money in and it disappears.
With 1.5mn employees (1.35mn FTE) the changes to employers NICs will ensure that
If an average 2 million farm can’t handle. 10% tax on a generational basis (1 mill exempt and the next mill at 20%) then maybe it needs better management.
I’m not sure how it works, but are you suggesting on a £2m farm you would need to find £200k cash to pay to the tax man when handing on to the next generation? Thats a hell of a lot of money to find. Small farms are not rolling in money
The impact will be that farms get sold to the big companies. The big companies do not care about local issues, support the local community or environment. One local farm around us is owned by a large company. They get continual complaints on every front
I don't get the farm thing - surely a farm worth over £1m in assets is being run as a Limited company and has to comply with all the usual company rules. It'll have directors and should be treated no differently to any other family firm that gets passed from generation to generation.
The 7 year gifting exemption still applies to farms doesn’t it?
If an average 2 million farm can’t handle. 10% tax on a generational basis (1 mill exempt and the next mill at 20%) then maybe it needs better management.
Maybe ask yourself that next time you buy 4pints of milk for £1.50. When the supermarkets control the price, "better management" would have a hell of a stretch to find 200k cash or even the equivalent monthly mortgage payment
treated no differently to any other family firm
Farms have their own rules (with good reason, historically).
There's a colossal amount of ignorance and prejudice on this forum when it comes to farming.
There’s a colossal amount of ignorance and prejudice on this forum when it comes to any industry. That's the internet for you.
There's also been the announcement of a large budget increase from 2025-26 onwards for HMRC, adding an additional 13% to the overall budget and proposals to recruit and train 5,000 additional compliance staff. So, without fanfares and rate rises, we should see a significant reduction in the tax gap, quietly increasing the proportional yield from many of the existing taxation streams. I bet that the Mail won't be happy with that scenario, one little bit. Let's hope that there's a decent range of tighter legislation getting added, to actually give some bite...
A1 duel upgrade has been cancelled here, turns out after spending £67m buying land the tories lied about the reserved funds. So, after they had 15 years to start the project the local Tory councillor is blaming Labour for wasting £67m without even a spade in the ground.
Apparently the farm thing means that a £2 million pound business will have to pay £20,000 a year for 10 years.
Doesn't seem clippling to me but I have no idea if a farm worth £2 million is a particularly viable business?
Could be bullshit but I’m seeing people on Twitter saying the cost of maintaining the fuel duty freeze and the annual bus ticket revenue for the whole of England are practically identical at about £3bn. IOW you could have made all buses free simply by reinstating the fuel duty escalator…
Pretty sure that the vast majority of folk who take the bus can afford the (subsidised) cost, so why should the rest of us pay more tax so they'll travel for free?
There’s a colossal amount of ignorance and prejudice on this forum when it comes to farming.
People know what they know. I don't know about farming and the regulations related to farming so that's why I questioned it above.
Like I'm sure you don't know the ins and outs of how VAT is applied to printing (my industry).
Re the IHT on Pensions: assuming someone passes after 75, the recipient(s) will, under current rules, pay their marginal rate on withdrawal. If the entire pension is taxed upon inheritance, does that mean it just shifted all the taxation up front and the funds are then moved outside the pension wrapper?
Taxing the entire value up front AND keeping it inside the pension would result in double taxation.
So if the recipient were to leave a fund to grow it might yield higher tax returns as it's drawn down later? So, actually this could be a net reduction it tax receipts by this move. Just changes cash flow to an earlier point in time for the government?
The trouble me with farms is the values are massively affected by how much a nicish house with a garden is worth in the area. Down here a 4 bed house with a large garden is £1mm on its own, so anything with significant land will be breaching hard into the iht, whereas the same size farm in the north is likely worth much less. I think the farmhouse might pass into the non-farm property up to 1mm bucket, but not sure how you assign value when everything is just bundled into one
Taxing the entire value up front AND keeping it inside the pension would result in double taxation.
Does it?
If you owned a company outright rather than via shares wrapped up in a pension then surely you would pay inheritance tax on the value of the company, but that doesn't get you out of paying tax on future dividends or sale of the company?
The trouble me with farms is the values are massively affected by how much a nicish house with a garden is worth in the area. Down here a 4 bed house with a large garden is £1mm on its own, so anything with significant land will be breaching hard into the iht, whereas the same size farm in the north is likely worth much less. I think the farmhouse might pass into the non-farm property up to 1mm bucket, but not sure how you assign value when everything is just bundled into one
That depends on the farms ownership model. If the farm is owned as a company then the current farmer is the director. Kids can then be added to the board and buy shares at a nominal value. Farmer then resigns and sells shares at nominal value to kids. Company carries no inheritance as nothing to inherit.
If the farmer doesn’t own the land but rents it then the land value is irrelevant. I suspect this get quite complicated quite quickly
The trouble me with farms is the values are massively affected by how much a nicish house with a garden is worth in the area. Down here a 4 bed house with a large garden is £1mm on its own, so anything with significant land will be breaching hard into the iht, whereas the same size farm in the north is likely worth much less. I think the farmhouse might pass into the non-farm property up to 1mm bucket, but not sure how you assign value when everything is just bundled into one
The other complication is that a farm on the outskirts of Slough could speculatively be worth hundreds of millions because at some point in 10/50/100 years it'll be a housing estate and an acre that was objectively worth £9k is now £3million. A farm on the outskirts of Skipton is just £9k/acre.
I'm torn on it, on the one hand it makes life difficult for farming kids who want to be farmers. On the other hand why do they get a multimillion pound leg-up in the industry compared to the kid in the village who's dad was a contractor or tenant farmer.
Farmer then resigns and sells shares at nominal value to kids.
But doesn’t this attract capital gains tax?
It was a giant loophole though. People gaining their wealth outside farming, and then in their retirement years buying farms, playing at running them (or letting others pay them for the privilege of running them), ready to pass on the land to their adult and already wealthy kids as a nice big tax free inheritance.
And right on queue, just to prove your point,Jeremy clarkson and Kirsty Allsop are all over the press complaining about this tax avoidance trick disappearing. I can’t think why they would be so concerned as farming families for many generations.
Personally having a farm, and knowing many farmers. The easy way out - and from the farmers sons i know of - the farmer (dad) needs to hand over the reins much earlier so they survive the 7 year period re IHT (or proactive effective tax planning actively like using existing Trust setups).
I think the farmer sons i know will be well happy to have the business earlier, than having dad hanging onto the last minute when we all know it will go to the next generation........
Clarkson is apparently on record saying he bought his farm specifically because it was IHT free.
Well, there you go.
He has subsequently raised the profile of farming through his show so presumably knows at least a few family run farms.
Absolutely. He's done a lot to reduce our collective ignorance about how tough farming is. But farms that have always been in the family can still be kept in the family, the IHT changes don't change that. And where do tenant farmers with a family tradition fit into this? Loopholes for landowners need shutting down. Actual farmers need more help... and that goes well beyond IHT rules... and applies whether they are fortunate enough to own all the land they farm or not. It means stronger regulations on supermarket and other large purchasers for a start. It means support for those that add value to their produce through small scale food processing (blessed are the cheesemakers) and a trading landscape where they can flourish against the bigger international producers. Target help at the smaller farms producing a quality product that we all need and can appreciate. Don't let farms become nothing more than an inheritance tax dodge for those that can afford to buy land.
Unfortunately, it does appear that, like many others, RR is playing a 'Those who have worked a bit to 'get ahead' are bad.
Take private school costs as an example. A colleague at work, due to issues at the state school he is in the catchment area for, decided - for the future good of his only child - to sacrifice to allow him to send his child to a private school.
This chap pays a mortgage and uses public transport then walks to get to and from work each day. He is not dripping with cash in the slightest.
However, he is now bricking it as the cost to keep his only child in school is now notably more expensive.
Unfortunately, Labour needed to be whiter than white in comparison to the previous bunch of clowns and chancers and whilst the magnitude of being a bit grubby is not on the same scale, it does exist.
I'd be very interested in whether declaration of interests of all our politicians - including shares owned and in which companies - should be widened.
It means support for those that add value to their produce through small scale food processing (blessed are the cheesemakers) and a trading landscape where they can flourish against the bigger international producers. Target help at the smaller farms producing a quality product that we all need and can appreciate.
While I agree and that all sounds nice in a idyllic pastoral country way (whey?) . By the same token everyone else needs support too. There's little point protecting farming kids inheritance so they can go onto produce artisan sourdough and cheese if the rest of the country stagnates and can only afford the cheapest sliced white and that rubbery plastic that masquerades for cheese in the supermarket value section.
Are farmers now the new fishermen? In that right wing people suddenly pretend to care about them when using them as a political football to further their own agenda’s?
"‘Those who have worked a bit to ‘get ahead’ " is one of those phrases that makes me dis-proportionally cross.
Kinda presupposes that anyone using a say a foodbank has really only got themselves to blame.
I'll tell you what @benz
When carehome workers and nurses can afford a mortgage let alone 'a mortgage and then scrimping a bit' to get their kids to private school, then I'll start to worry about your colleague.
Take private school costs as an example. A colleague at work, due to issues at the state school he is in the catchment area for, decided – for the future good of his only child – to sacrifice to allow him to send his child to a private school.
This is very emotive language, and you are doing your best to make a strong case for the good of this one child.
However, I believe the government should be looking at the bigger picture, and instead providing sufficient money such that the state school this child would ordinarily go to is able to provide a good education for everyone relevant, this child included. I appreciate this doesn't do any good in this individual case, as of course even if all the money was provided yesterday afternoon it takes time for these things to adjust.
A rising tide or some such.
Take private school costs as an example. A colleague at work, due to issues at the state school he is in the catchment area for, decided – for the future good of his only child – to sacrifice to allow him to send his child to a private school.
This chap pays a mortgage and uses public transport then walks to get to and from work each day. He is not dripping with cash in the slightest.
Ah bless they have to scrimp a bit to spend several thousand pounds to send their precious to a school to **** them up?
Sorry if you can afford £10,000/year to send a child to private school even if it involves scrimping & saving you're doing better than OK.
Does it?
If you owned a company outright rather than via shares wrapped up in a pension then surely you would pay inheritance tax on the value of the company, but that doesn’t get you out of paying tax on future dividends or sale of the company?
The sale of the company would only attract CGT on the gain since it came into your ownership, ie when it was inherited. So, the inherited value is effectively exempt from further taxation. The same should go for pensions. Exempt the value of the asset that's had tax paid on it. That could be achieved by over complex protection rules in the pensions system or simply remove the assets from within the pension wrapper and then CGT kicks in for future gains. There's already precedent for this on pension inheritance where the deceased was <75.
However, he is now bricking it as the cost to keep his only child in school is now notably more expensive.
Anyone who can afford to put a child through private school (without aid) is cirtainly not poor. There will always be a median line where tax rises affect some and not others, but the private schools thing is going to get little sympathy.
@Winston - that was me interpreting the language of certain politicians who, TBH, seem to want to create yet another culture of division/anger/hatred/select whatever word you deem appropriate - to divide and conquer - using perceived 'wealth' rather than immigration. Likely using such to deflect from their own relative wealth and privilege (unlike RR, neither I nor my colleague have a property from which we obtain rental income from). We are both 'working people'.
It seems to be working.
Anyone in their right mind would not suggest 'blame' when it comes to folks having to use foodbanks and other, generally volunteer and donation supported supports rather than government or authority support for such. Flip-side is trying to vilify or blame those who do not.
Nurses? My grandmother and mother were and my sister and nieces are. All have - eventually - got a mortgage.
However, he is now bricking it as the cost to keep his only child in school is now notably more expensive.
He’s paying to give his child an advantage over the vast majority of children and thus entrenching inequality
So he can pay tax on that
If he doesn’t want to, then he can always use the same education system as the other 95% of the population
FFS .
Seems some on here want to revel in another person's current challenge off the back of the budget.
Why?
Ah bless they have to scrimp a bit to spend several thousand pounds to send their precious to a school to **** them up?
Sorry if you can afford £10,000/year to send a child to private school even if it involves scrimping & saving you’re doing better than OK.
Poor you having such a chip on your shoulder. Bet you're a Labour voter too.
Keeping fuel duty as is will cost £20bn
I doubted this figure when I saw it, if it was that much, just add 15 pence to each litre, and the deficit will be written off in a few years.
Unfortunately, it wont be, as fuel duty brings in, annually, around £25bn, with the tax currently at around 53p/l, so a 5p increase will bring in around £2.25bn. I agree with the sentiment, and I’m surprised Labour havent done this, but they clearly think FU bus users, we’re not that bothered about you, but we’ll keep other road users happy by not increasing their fuel tax.
Seems some on here want to revel in another person’s current challenge off the back of the budget.
Why?
Some of the comments could be better worded, but your colleague still has options which many could only dream of.
Even if your colleagues child had to go back to a state school the money saved could be spent on many hours of private tuition.
Unfortunately, whilst funding is undoubtedly an issue, the other issue is a broader societal one - where you have the minority who do not adhere to or respect what most of us would identify as good community or society behaviours and believe normal law and order does not apply to them.
Unfortunately, the minority then consume so much resources, the majority are neglected.
Unfortunately, whilst funding is undoubtedly an issue, the other issue is a broader societal one – where you have the minority who do not adhere to or respect what most of us would identify as good community or society behaviours and believe normal law and order does not apply to them.
To reduce it down, this is also a funding issue. Just a really long term one.
Seems some on here want to revel in another person’s current challenge off the back of the budget.
I'm struggling to see their challenge.
Either they've just become ~£10k/yr better off, or their kid is gaining a massive advantage in life but they're paying tax on that.
Bet you’re a Labour voter too.
?
I know the forum has a pretty strict swear filter but you'll need better insults than that.
Unfortunately, the minority then consume so much resources, the majority are neglected.
Hang on, so you think he should pay tax when he (the minority) has accumulated those resources so that the majority aren't neglected?
Can we stop with this utter bull**** that somehow the majority are land owning with kids in private school, driving thirsty cars on long commutes to jobs that pay a significant amount of higher rate tax?
Seems some on here want to revel in another person’s current challenge off the back of the budget.
Why?
Who’s revelling in anything. People are merely pointing out that to be able to afford to privately educate your children puts you in an income bracket with a very small, privileged section of the population
And that’s before you get into the entrenched inequality enabled by private education and ruthlessly exploited by said small, privileged section of society. You could also argue that the state education system would be considerably better if the top 5% of earners had to use it instead of using their wealth to opt out of it
So you shouldn’t be surprised when ‘boo boo, poor me’ about paying tax on privilege elicits the worlds smallest violin
so why should the rest of us pay more tax so they’ll travel for free?
Because more people taking buses means reduced city centre congestion, reduced emissions, reduced noise, more bike and pedestrian friendly areas, and an understanding that getting on a bus isn't seen as a failure but a perfectly normal option for travel.
However, he is now bricking it as the cost to keep his only child in school is now notably more expensive.
There will always be people who make choice on the fringes of affordability suddenly impacted by a change of circumstances.
People are merely pointing out that to be able to afford to privately educate your children puts you in an income bracket with a very small, privileged section of the population
He did say he scrimped and saved on everything else to try to afford it, not that he was on an over average salary moaning about the extra 20%. Assuming he’s living a humble sacrificial life to trying to boost his child’s educational ability and doesn’t have a garage full of £5k mtb’, I don’t see an issue with his moral and financial dilemma, it could be seen as a rather noble one.
I’ve no problem with his choices, Noble or otherwise.
My issue is that the private education systems exemption from tax is essentially asking the rest of us to subsidise a system only available to a small minority which we all know entrenches inequality
I don’t see why we should. You want the advantages for your children that a private education gives them? Fine, but you pay tax on it like you would do on any other luxury item.
He did say he scrimped and saved on everything else to try to afford it, not that he was on an over average salary moaning about the extra 20%. Assuming he’s living a humble sacrificial life to trying to boost his child’s educational ability and doesn’t have a garage full of £5k mtb’, I don’t see an issue with his moral and financial dilemma, it could be seen as a rather noble one.
It could be, remember Sunak's parents were merely* a GP and pharmacist, they had to go without sky TV.
*sarcasm, that's pretty well paid in the scheme of things.
Pretty sure that the vast majority of folk who take the bus can afford the (subsidised) cost, so why should the rest of us pay more tax so they’ll travel for free?
Hmm, in that vein, I’m surprised I’m still paying full taxes, as I’ve never spent a night in hospital, and only ever once attended A+E after falling off my bike and needing stitching up. Also, why am I paying for HS2? I’ll never use it.
And, to make you feel worse, I’ve just got my free Scottish bus pass, and I’m still working. Double winner.
Yes, it is irony.
My issue is that the private education systems exemption from tax is essentially asking the rest of us to subsidise a system only available to a small minority
How do we subsidise it? Are we also subsidising financial services and insurance?
So he can pay tax on that
You could argue he already does by subsidising the state school system!
An interesting breakdown about the IHT will mean for the vast majority of farmers in this thread.
https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1851956390480302403