Think of a number, then find cuts to meet it.

[Suff]

I'd rather that the companies got the tax breaks than giving money away.

Because a good chunk of that comes back. 13% employers NI, 12% Employees NI, 20% tax..... In reality it won't cost the government as much as it seems.

The problem is that socialists who think that giving money to people "because" is good and giving breaks to companies so that they can pay a higher wage is _bad_.

In reality it's the opposite, but who am I to argue the toss????

[Workingman]

Erm, tax breaks and various tax credits can work hand in hand.

Give those on min wage the living wage and they become liable for more income tax and NI contributions, as well as reducing their levels of various tax credits. That is a big bonus for the treasury but a huge cost to employers. So, give tax breaks to the employers, especially SMEs, and things sort of even out.

Well not quite. It alters the playing field and many more people might be employed. That's another bonus for the treasury. If those employed manage to get a bit of spare cash (disposable income) for "luxuries" the economy grows and we all benefit.

I am no socialist, but I can think out of the capitalist box: both boxes.

[Suff]

God forbid that we should do something that works....

[Workingman]

I see Osborne has gone ahead with the National Living Wage (NLW) at the rate of £9 per hour by 2020, which is not a bad idea.

However, he has made some immediate and drastic cuts in welfare that are going to make it a tough five years for many working families - key word: working. He has also gone ahead with his rent plan, but without a rent cap it could come a cropper.

[cromwell]

I see that child benefit is to be capped at the first two children. Everybody OK with that? If working people have to limit their number of children so should those who aren't working.

[medsec222]

I have heard one or two comments on news programmes to the effect that 'they are stopping the poor from having children now and that it wasn't fair'. I don't see it that way myself, people are still free to have as many children as they are able to, provided they can afford to keep them.

[Workingman]

CB should only be paid for the first child, nothing for the second, and removed completely if there is a third. If you are rich enough to have many children then you pay for them yourself.

That was me. The UK is full, we need to reduce population not increase it.

But I am a bit confused by Osborne's version. Is it per mother or per family? Rather unfortunately it has to be per mother otherwise a waste of time..

[TheOstrich]

I see that child benefit is to be capped at the first two children. Everybody OK with that?

Works for me. I hate these DM stories of families with 15 kids getting £50K in state benefits. They make me want to advocate castration on top of capping benefits .....

The changes in the car VED duty look a bit nasty. I currently pay £30 - is that going to go up to £140, or will "existing" cars stay as is?

The dividend tax credit reformation is quite tasty, too. There's a lot of accountants (and one-man company owners) going to wailing over that new legislation .... glad I'm out of all that now!

[Suff]

Not sure many one man bands ever take dividend now. It used to be an easy way to avoid paying employers and employee's NI, but the tax regime overseen by Brown killed a lot of that. It's pretty much treated as income now which means that dividend tax plus employee's NI plus personal tax kind of defeats the purpose...

Not that I ever took dividend after the first two years. Sends entirely the wrong message to the TAX man...