91Èȱ¬

2% off the 20% band income tax but the removal of the 10% band will probably leave most average earners worse off. What a surprise, more tax from Gordo.

You will save up to £623 on your basic rate tax. But more people will pay higher rate tax, and if you already pay higher rate tax the loss of the 10% band costs you £860-215 = £645.

Too good to be true...
I'm a single guy earning £21000/yr.

I've just bought a house for £120,000 and wa laaa... the interest rates went up recently and hit me bad.
My student loan payments are due to start this April.. boo hoo.

Will national insurance go up thus cancelling this tax cut out?

Thanks,
Shay

What the Lord Gord gives with one hand, he takes away with the other!

This budget was more of an anti-Tory PR excercise than anything else, blatently facing them down before the next general election. Farcical!

And WHY was duty not increased on spirits AGAIN! I would like to hear the justification!

Being at the 10% rate and a low earner, I will now pay double. This is a straightforward attack on low income workers.

With that, we now have a report saying that councils should be able to charge what they want on council tax. Council tax is now just a form of direct taxation. The poll tax was never conceived to be so high.

And smallest businesses again will be hit. So Brown as usual attacks the smallest and sides with big business.

It's an appalling budget for me.

But Nick, the government's cheerleader loves it, so it must be great.

So, as a middle class, full time married 27 year old with no kids who drives to work, likes to got to the pub on Friday night and has the occasional cigerette I will lose out. No suprise there then.

So with the 10% band being incorporated into the now-20% band, people earning less than c.£15,000 per year will actually have to pay more income tax but the richer you are the more you'll benefit. Sounds typical enough.

For those who only earn the equivalent of the personal allowance plus the starting rate band (i.e. £7,185 for 2006/07), wouldn't this mean a doubling of their PAYE tax bill?

Relates to 10p tax band (as blog not operative
Currently £2150 income is taxed at 10% if this moves to 20% the additional burden is £215. It takes the next £10,750 of income with tax reduced from 22% to 20% to neutralise this rise.
This means that anyone on less than say £18,000 (tax free £5k, £2k ex 10% and £11k at 20%) will pay MORE tax not less.

My son has just started working and on the minimum wage. Gordon has just increased his TAX by 10% on his earnings above his personal allowance.
Time to go Gordo.

Please, please 91Èȱ¬ in your reporting of this budget today do not let this spinning, deceitful Chancellor get away with a claim to have cut taxes.

This story has to be reported as it really is, namely that in cutting the basic rate, but abolishing the 10% rate, Brown has increased tax for the least well off. To report it any other way would be to fall hook, line and sinker for the mendacious spin.

What a con! On a taxable income of £5000, presently I pay £849.20.
With the abolition of the 10% band and a reduction to 20% of the standard rate, I will pay £1000.00,an increase of 17%. So much for helping pensioners

Simply unbelievable! Here we have a supposed Labour government altering the tax system to ensure that anyone earning under £18,000 per year is worse off and anyone on an income above this is better off. It simply takes the breath away - and Brown thinks he's the poor's saviour!!

So Gordon Brown has effectly made those who earn less than c.£18,500 (by my calculations) worse off, whereas all those earning over that amount, are going to be better off, but only by a maximum of £424 a year, harldy a tax 'cut'.
So really it means nothing to most people, but is bad news to the poorest. Typical Labour spin!

To understand the income tax implications we need tables of tax allowances and bands for 2007-2008,2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Google has not come up with the answers. Can you?

Well, as a small businessman I can certainly tell you how he's going to pay for at least part of it. Just look at what he's done for corporation tax for small businesses.

I AM OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE LOSERS IN THIS SO CALLED BUDGET. I HAVE AN INCOME (EARLY RETIREMENT PENSION) OF £13000. OF THAT I CURRENTLY PAY £1512 POUNDS TAX. WITH THE ABOLITION OF THE 10% TAX BAND, I WILL NOW BE PAYING £1704 PER ANNUM.

COME THE NEXT ELECTION, I WILL BE VOTING FOR ANY PARTY EXCEPT LABOUR.
AT LEAST DICK TURPIN WORE A MASK WHEN HE STOLE MONEY, THIS CHANCELLOR DOES IT WEARING ONLY A GRIN.

Nick, could Evan explain to me how the changes to the taxation of overseas holiday homes appear in the Red Book as costing a 'negligible' amount, that is less than £3m. There is a huge amount of overseas property held in companies - this figure cannot be correct.

I applaud the change but I am very surprised that this Chancellor has responded to the concerns of overseas property owners in the same Budget as he removes the 10% rate of income tax and plans to increase the NIC burden on middle income earners.

Also, this move appears to suggest that the Chancellor is supporting the avoidance of overseas taxes by the use of companies to hold property in the first place. This is a very odd position for this Chancellor and the 'new' HMRC who spend a lot of their time telling everyone that tax avoidance is a bad thing. Why should avoiding foreign taxes be condoned?

I would be interested to hear what or who convinced the Chancellor that action was needed now. The problem has been around for a while and the Revenue have collected tax on this basis over a number of years.

The foreign property owners' lobbyists have been in action all right. For all Brown's talk of being a man of the people he looks after the high and mighty so well, with tax breaks no doubt hatched over low-profile dinners with the likes of Charles and Camilla. Now he's having tete a tetes with celebrities - Kylie Minogue for example. It would be interesting to find out about any further tax break promises he makes to super-rich celebs. Pips are certainly squeaked by our Chancellor, but they aren't those of the rich.