2024 Autumn Budget

[GFL]

I just wondered what every ones expecting with the Budget tomorrow?

I'm hoping for the best🙂 but expecting the worst😦

A good friend of mine reckons they're going to make it so we have to pay for Road Tax for our Classic cars again, I hope he's wrong.

Gary   

[JohnD]

The extra hour as the clocks went back last weekend did allow some more speculation about the Budget, and this is possible. We have had Historic status since 1997, although the rolling 40 year qualification was halted until 2018.  The reasons why it was ever thought of are obscure, support for the industry might be one, and the cost of Classic car ownership sometimes cited, perhaps just a appeal to the largely older (and Tory voting?) owners.   Certainly, it is seen as a right now, when it is merely a concession.

 According to the DVLA, there are about 350,000 cars registered as "Historic" with 12.5% on SORN, so no tax due anyway.   That leaves, say, 300,000 on which tax might be due.   The average CO2 emissions from a classic will put it into Band  M, £735 pa!  That could mean £220 million to the Chancellor.      The BBC offers a list of possible tax rises at What taxes might be raised in the Budget? - BBC News including prolonging the freeze on tax thresholds, which would raise £7 BILLION a year, so that losing the Historic concession would be a small, but useful addition.

John

Edited October 29 by JohnD

[johny]

I know its not very likely but maybe fairness has come into it? Classic cars as a whole do very little miles and most owners are already paying road tax on other vehicles so to charge them again for a vehicle that sits in the garage 99% of the time is nasty🤔 

[AndyTV8]

Personally, I don’t bother expending grey cell energy on ifs, buts and maybes - I’ll just await the facts (assuming they haven’t been overly obfuscated) tomorrow. 
….. Andy 

[Chris A]

Our lot are debating it at the moment. They all agree cuts need to be made, but not in their department of course.

[JohnD]

 ChrisA,

School, uni, or dept of what?  The NHS is getting extra, it is said.  Hope education does too.

[Chris A]

23 minutes ago, JohnD said:

 ChrisA,

School, uni, or dept of what?  The NHS is getting extra, it is said.  Hope education does too.

Education, less teachers as the demographics say they won't be needed. Health*, they want to reduce the amount the state health refund patients when going to the doctor etc. Delaying the pension increase from January to July (although looks as if 'low' pensions will be increased in January due to pressure from the opposition)

* A VERY complicated system here, which means, of course, expensive to administer.

[Steve P]

Well as a small business owner who works damn hard, now that the over promoted student union is running the country I expect the shaft.

S

[Iain T]

I believe there are less children going to school (less births for some years) so the need for more teachers is not necessary?

As to more money to the NHS......this must come with clauses.

At least the 'working person' will be defined!

The markets will have their say, especially if there are minimal tangible growth policies 

If Trump wins 🤞I would love to be in the same room when Lammy and Starmer meet him 😀

Iain

Edited October 29 by Iain T

[Iain T]

Early but the FTSE is down 50 points, I'm hoping it's not going to be a bloodbath 🤞. I'll be listening hard for any cuts to spending and if and where they fall.

Steve all the financial reports I've read over the last few weeks indicate that you will indeed be shafted as you are a business owner not a working person!

I read Malta has a good historic car scene, they drive on the left and a residency deal with the UK.

Instead of charging historic cars how about increasing the road tax on heavy EV vehicles? Perhaps a sliding scale on power rating? More available power means more energy used.

Iain

Edited October 30 by Iain T

[GFL]

Well, it's all done and dusted and on first glance nothing too bad for Classic car Owners from what I can see.

£500 Million to be spent next year on Potholes, that's got to be good news, the state of the roads in Derbyshire and in particular Nottinghamshire are appalling.

Gary

[Iain T]

12 minutes ago, GFL said:

£500 Million to be spent next year on Potholes

The last government's 2023 budget had £8.3 billion over 11 years allocated to potholes so even taking into account inflation no increase or possible decrease at this budget?

[GFL]

30 minutes ago, Iain T said:

The last government's 2023 budget had £8.3 billion over 11 years allocated to potholes so even taking into account inflation no increase or possible decrease at this budget?

I think I've misled you, it was £500 Million EXTRA next year, see attached page scan from the Budget Statement, page 101 gives the details. 

2024 Budget - Page 101.pdf

Edited October 30 by GFL

[PeteH]

I STILL cannot get over the cynical blanket removal of the Winter Fuel allowance. We have so many retired friends who`s combined income takes them JUST a few quid above the threshhold, yet have medical issues and or mobilty issues, that makes the need to warm their homes to higher than the "recomended" levels. And there is a limit to how many jumpers and pairs of thermal pants one can actually wear, one of my neighbours regularly resembles the "Michelin Man" when it gets a bit "parky". It`s obvious that the knock on effect of an influx of elderly with Hypothermia is bound to have on the finances of the NHS, even likely wiping out the so called "gains". If this lot had any brains, they could be dangerous.

Pete

[Mjit]

11 minutes ago, PeteH said:

I STILL cannot get over the cynical blanket removal of the Winter Fuel allowance. We have so many retired friends who`s combined income takes them JUST a few quid above the threshhold, yet have medical issues and or mobilty issues, that makes the need to warm their homes to higher than the "recomended" levels.

1. It's NOT a "blanket removal" it's "applying the same qualifications as everyone else in the country".  There are plenty of households with very young children who's incomes came just above the other benefits threasholds so have had to get through the last few Credit Crunch winters without a handout from the government.  The only change is the "only if you recieve qualifying benefits" condition is being applied equally, to everyone.  Pensioners only recieved a blanket payment because they were more likely to vote Conservative!
2. So if the threashold was just a few quid hire so your friends were included you'd be happy?
3. Or do you also feel retirees living either as just a couple or even alone in £1M+ houses should also get it?
4. Or poor, hard done by pensioners like Bernie Ecclestone (net worth $2.4B)?

At the end of the day pensioners in the UK currently get way more than their fair shares with the pensions triple lock.  A guaranteed pay rise for an ever increasing number of retirees that has to be paid for by a relatviely shrinking number of working people's taxes.

[Steve P]

And the head of the new "Office for Value for Money" is on the board of???

Yes HS2, you couldn`t make it up.

More of " The Government knows best, welcome to 1984.

S

[Iain T]

16 minutes ago, Steve P said:

And the head of the new "Office for Value for Money" is on the board of???

Yes HS2, you couldn`t make it up.

More of " The Government knows best, welcome to 1984.

Really? We are doomed, save us from people promoted above their capabilities! Mind you that Westminster!

As to winter fuel allowance yes I agree many pensioners don't need it but perhaps it should have been tapered off over two years? By then a better system to protect the vulnerable could be developed. Pensioners living in larger houses that have memories etc attached to the property should not be intimidated into selling, it should be their free choice.

 

[Mjit]

14 hours ago, Iain T said:

Pensioners living in larger houses that have memories etc attached to the property should not be intimidated into selling, it should be their free choice.

Yes, for the asset rich/cash poor rebalancing between assets and cash should always be their free choice - but a choice that needs to be made one way or the other.  Opting for "C. I want to keep my assets and have everyone else pay for my heating." shouldn't be on the table.

[Iain T]

3 minutes ago, Mjit said:

. I want to keep my assets and have everyone else pay for my heating." shouldn't be on the table.

I totally agree. I suppose at a certain point in life downsizing especially if you have minimal or no help is daunting so people sit in a big house and freeze. My wife's parents were 88 when we finally convinced them to downsize and move closer to us. However we did literally everything for them all they had to do was physically drive to their new home. 

[dougbgt6]

I'm one who didn't need the heating allowance and a bit embarrassed to get it. Instead of giving a free gift of money why didn't they carry on with it, but decided it was income?  That way high earners would loose most and low earners keep most. Less money saved, but not this elephant trap they've fallen into. Naive politics! rather worrying for the future.

Doug

[Pete Lewis]

having had to put up with 79 years of budgets there is only one outcome

the end game is we have to pay up 

the fact there seems no facts to back up the black hole is just politics   

i just dont trust expressionless people 

Pete

[Iain T]

UK gilt rates are up as the markets don't seem impressed. Adding mostly irrecoverable student loans into your assets so you can borrow more wasn't a smart move? Those loans would certainly not be allowed as assets in the private commercial world. I can't see any productivity incentives. It's never easy formulating your first budget after coming into power but for me this one seems wide of the mark and as always the devil is in the detail especially IHT and CGT! Farmers are not happy!

Iain

Edited October 31 by Iain T

[PeteH]

17 hours ago, Mjit said:

1. It's NOT a "blanket removal" it's "applying the same qualifications as everyone else in the country".  There are plenty of households with very young children who's incomes came just above the other benefits threasholds so have had to get through the last few Credit Crunch winters without a handout from the government.  The only change is the "only if you recieve qualifying benefits" condition is being applied equally, to everyone.  Pensioners only recieved a blanket payment because they were more likely to vote Conservative!
2. So if the threashold was just a few quid hire so your friends were included you'd be happy?
3. Or do you also feel retirees living either as just a couple or even alone in £1M+ houses should also get it?
4. Or poor, hard done by pensioners like Bernie Ecclestone (net worth $2.4B)?

At the end of the day pensioners in the UK currently get way more than their fair shares with the pensions triple lock.  A guaranteed pay rise for an ever increasing number of retirees that has to be paid for by a relatviely shrinking number of working people's taxes.

As indeed WE DID for previous generations, including at one period paying 34% income tax. And no doubt Bernie Ecclestone pays far more in taxes than you or I ever did?. Often living in a 1M+ house is ONLY the result of galloping inflation over the past decades. My first cost less that £2500-00. recently "valued" in exess of £250.000-00 a 100 fold increase. My Pension(s) where all "paid for" from income over a lifetime of working. And BTW I never vote the "party line" and never will. I was "vaccinated" against Left wing politics in the factories of the 50`s and 60`s, watching the union "commisars" perform, the  same with extreme Right politics too having wittnessed the fall out from WW2. Watching returned servicemen suffering what is now called PTSD day in day out, with a lot of heavy drinking involved too. The "party" system stinks, but what to replace it with is another connundrum. The last election was a particulary bad example of voting for the least worse option. Hence in my view the low turnout, lowest since 1997, and not that much higher than the worst ever (1918), those being parliamentary figures. I can, and will survive, but the lack of principle in the "means testing" will always Irk.

Pete

[Iain T]

An economist calculated that if productivity was back up to pre pandemic level it would add £30 billion to our GDP. Shouldn't this rather than tax increases be priority number one? This will all unravel in the next few days. I agree with Pete I hate the words "means tested" as in practice it's always politically biased.

Iain

[Gully]

2 hours ago, Iain T said:

 Farmers are not happy!

Iain

Are they ever?! 😂 Too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, wrong subsidies, insufficient subsidies...

Gully