The budget....

are you a communist? try asking any corporate lawyer, fund manager, management accountant etc if their work is "comfortable", "pleasant", "interesting" - you're being hopelessly naive.

I do agree with KN about the tax allowances - it's neither efficient nor fair to have marginal tax rates of over 100%.

Interesting "New" Labour turnaround re the higher tax bracket and in essence I do think it's fair to have those who earn more contribute more, but I am unsure about taking away all the personal allowances.

I'm most confused about thisconfidence that the recession will be done and dusted by 2010. Presumably AD is depending on state-owned banks being pressured to lend irresponsibly again so we canspend our way to recovery. Great. More 52 inch plasma screens for everyone.

Unless he's anticipating a huge increase in manufacturing businesses, I don't see how an economy can grow in 2010 when UKPLC seems still to produce very little.

And as for public sector "efficiency savings" - this is as fine an example of double speak you could hope to hear, making the party look tough on bureaucrats without actually reducing budgets or risking alienating the huge numbers of public sector voters.

Good news about ISA allowances though.

Not a communist, no, in that I don't believe in the people directly owning the means of production. "Pleasant" is always going to be subjective, isn't it? I would certainly rather work 80 hours a week in my current job (or even in what I would perceive to be a harder profession such as those you mention, often working well over 80 hours a week) than 40 hours on an oil rig, down a mine or cleaning toilets, quite apart from the salary. Wouldn't you?

Great if people give up smoking - I'd raise the tax even higher because there is nothing good about smoking other than the nicotine hit if you're an addict and possibly a self-medication aspect if you have schizophrenia or some types of bowel disease (and even then the side effects cancel them out). Sorry!

Re. alcohol - I think it's better to do a % rise than some of the suggestions of adding a set figure onto each bottle of wine or whatever for health reasons - which basically increased the price proportionally much more for people buying a £5 bottle than a £30 one, say. And it's not as if alcohol doesn't have a fairly high cost to society too in terms of violent crime, NHS, etc. It's a luxury not an essential, I'm not particuarly bothered about this.

100k's (150 actually if we're talking about the 50% rate) not, no.

But seeing as that's only the threshold, it applies to everyone for whom it is a realistic possibility.

Nor does packing up and leaving Britain for tax purpose necessarily mean getting the bus to San Marino.....

Ah-ha, I've looked up the personal allowances thing on the HMRC site. It isn't (as summaries suggested) a complete loss of personal allowance when you hit 100k. Rather, you lose £1 of allowance for every £2 you earn over £100k. Makes much more sense like that. The change is that those under £140k can now lose their whole allowance whereas the otriginal suggestion was that they would lose half.

It's still a very underhand way of taxing a slice of income. Say you earn £110k. You'll lose £5k in allowance, equivalent to £2k in net income, making the tax on that £10k slice above £100k actually 60%.

Maybe not, but most of the population would, and its their votes that will count.

You mean labour are still expecting votes??

And you're perhaps being a little selective with your choices.

My oldest friend and I both had the same eductaion and opportunities, both completed our PhDs successfully, and have both been working equally hard in or chosen specialised fields for the last decade.

He went into software / programming. I went into pharmacology research.

He earns over three times what I do.

Ok, I should have said in my experience most smokers and drinkers will find money for cigarettes and booze.

I know when I was on my uppers I still managed to keep some money back for cigarettes. People will buy cheaper brands/cut down, giving up (unless they want to) is usually very much the last resort. They're luxury goods, if I were to fall on hard times again vino would be the first thing I'd knock off my shopping list, it's no real hardship.

The scary thing about it is... They are.

And despite everything, I don't believe the result of the next General Election is a foregone conclusion.

so your point is that working in an office is easy, and working on location manually is difficult? rubbish.

thats a choice though. the market will pay the going rate for what it needs, and if it was money were after, then you chose wrongly. though in your case, i doubt you chose what you did for the money (and that isnt a criticism btw, far from it)

I think you're being a bit obtuse, Nick. My job isn't fantastically paid, but I find it heaps more enjoyable and easier than, say, working in a call centre, which pays shite by comparison. I agree with the point that unskilled work is less enjoyaable to do than skilled.

I agree and usually less satisfying and has less chance of development.

Would say that's different from saying (as I think suggested elsewhere) that office work is more enjoyable than field/manual work though - depends on your personality, for a start, and the nature of the work. My sister is an RSPB warden and she's rather be outside weaving willow fences and teaching small children to pond dip than doing her paperwork. That said, fighting highland cattle while up to her oxters in flood water sounded anything but fun! ?

Nick - if you read what I've said, the only professions I've compared in terms of difficulty are my own (I'm an academic) and being a corporate lawyer or fund manager. I've described manual jobs as being less comfortable (meaning physical comfort), less pleasant and less interesting (I don't mean any offence to anyone working a manual job, I've done plenty of manual jobs myself and it's just my perception). Obviously job satisfaction and a sense of personal development are important too, and I perceive those to be more readily available in professional than in unskilled/manual jobs (not including jobs where you make or create things, I can see how that would be satisfying).

The main point I wanted to make was simply that the way our present society determines how much you (anyone) earns is just one way of doing that, and it's supply and demand. It doesn't latch on to anything objective (that someone's work is objectively "worth more" than others).

No offence taken.

Its just that I largely agree with Ms Scarlett. In my experience, salary often has more to do with the field, sector (public / private) and pure dumb luck (being in the right place), than it has to do with intelligence, qualifications or work-rate.

I enjoy my work and earn enough to be happy. Had I gone into the private sector I could have earned twice as much (without working twice as hard). I'm certainly not bemoaning my lot, but equally, I have no trouble seeing those that have the means helping those that don't.

When my ex boss (in a City stockbroking firm) heard that I was voluntarily taking a pay cut to move jobs (and the idea of bonuses where I was going was laughable), he thought I was quite literally mad. But there's no question I made the right decision, and no question I'm infinitely happier where I ended up.

Because it's impossible to quantify in any meaningful way, personal pleasure from work isn't often taken into account when measuring its attractiveness - but I'd say that I and all my siblings derive more or less equal benefit from our various jobs, despite the huge pay gap. My brother's an insurance risk analyst, so lots of tedious number crunching but a hefty pay packet. I'm a film historian, so I'm on a sharply reduced salary but I have a vastly more enjoyable working day - and my other brother's an Oxford don, earns an absolute pittance (about half what I do, I think), but gets to potter about in university libraries all day reading obscure sixteenth-century texts, and seems totally uninterested in money besides food and mortgage payments.

And I don't think any of us would swap places.

i dont have a problem in paying tax. i do however have a problem with the treasury.chancellor and PM squandering the money as they have done. i feel angry that i m asked to pay more becuase of their incompetence and the reason they ve chosen this group is because they know darn well they mostly vote conservative, is a relatively small group and hence them not voting labour wont hurt them. the removal of the personal allowance is utterly outrageous though, WTF? why is a higher earner not entitled to it?

in previous years (and now to a degree), i have paid corporation tax, personal tax, national insurance for over 35 people for a number of years, capital gains tax, stamp duty, etc etc etc. i ll be paying IHT too when the parents opo their clogs. the UK public has contributed enough each year (more than enough) yet labour has repeatedly wasted this money. never mind a change of governtment, they should face bloody charges, its utterly outrageous

Can't disagree with you Nick. The tax system is illogical and unfair in so many ways. And the gross inefficiency in spending beggars belief.

A few years back (IIRC) the Lib Dems were proposing an enhanced personal allowance, ie let everyone that works keep a living (minimum) wage say up to £18,000.

Any salary earned after that would then be taxed at the same rate whether £19,000 up to £19 billion. You could do away with most of the working tax credits in one swoop, and heaven knows they've been mismanaged. After that because everyone was paying the same rate on earnings things would be much simpler and more efficient, and there would be none of these complaints about the rich having to pay more than their share.

Dont get me started on benefits tax credits ??

I don't remember that but it sounds nice in theory. How would it work on NI though?

I didn't realise until yesterday that pregnant women are getting a £190 wellbeing grant - supposed to be to aid them in having a healthier diet during their pregnancy. Surely it would be better given as vouchers for fresh foods or such like at the supermarket. My sister is planning on having her hair done with hers ?

What a stupid gimmick. Are all governments this gimmicky? My most hated measure of all is the Child Trust Fund.

I don't agree with the higher tax bracket part of the budget but then I wouldn't as this is most likely going to apply.

Having said that there are, legitimate, ways round it which don't involve off shore shuffling etc.

They've been toying and tinkering with it for years now, although as with all things LD, it doesn't get talked about much.

The latest incarnation is discussed here, although they seemd to have decreased the threshold . . .

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/5188663/Poorest-workers-to-pay-700-less-tax-a-week-under-Lib-Dems.html

. . . but even taking 4 million people out of the tax system all together would save hundreds of milions of pounds in tax office processing costs each year.

NI would remain as is AFAIK.

The Lib Dems actually have some very interesting economic ideas, and I'd far sooner trust the economy to Vince Cable than George Osborne (and I imagine I'm not alone)...

...but the party rank and file is made up of people who make Viz's The Modern Parents seem reasonable.

Which is why I couldn't bring myself to vote for them.

Hecate, can you expand? Unless you're talking about situations other than employees paid a salary, I can't see what you mean.

In the same way that some pensioners use their Winter Fuel Allowance as part of their Winter Holiday fund - I think it should be credited directly to the source it's meant for & not given to the person.

Funny that the Child Trust fund is not a cash cheque, but other what I class as money for all benefits are cash in hand.

I also think the IHT threshold should be raised to £100K cash & £500K at the 40%.

Those aged 85+ should not be taxed on their pensions/savings etc...

Well you can obviously pay larger contributions into pensions to avoid the tax.

Also due to various circumstances I am a nominal Director (although a SAHM) so I could be paid part of H's wage.

Edited to add that I do the company accounts so obviously we could offset his wage slightly against mine - currently not being paid for doing accounts

Mrs JMP, the fuel allowance doesn't bother me as much as this new payment does, maybe because I think it's open to more abuse.