Well done Mr Osborne, our Chancellor. He has plans to introduce a sugar tax on fizzy drinks and has given the manufacturers 2 years to change their recipes or cough up.
This move is supposed to help address the obesity problem in our children.
It won’t, but will add more pounds of the monetary variety to The Treasury.
The Big O says that ‘some of this money’ will be used to fund school sports (why, don’t they do PE as a matter of course anymore?) .
And on the subject of education, there are plans to extend the school day from Sept 2017, and all primary and secondary schools will be in the process to become Academies by 2022.
But this is the best bit,
Government will look at teaching maths to 18 for all pupils.
Is it any wonder then that so many of our school leavers can’t add up, don’t understand figures or simple economics, and thus believe all the
we’re being fed?
Going back to the sweet stuff, I read an interesting snippet on biscuits.
Did you know that biscuits are not subject to VAT?
Cover them in chocolate though and they are.
Cakes are not subject to VAT either, but let us take the case of the Jaffa Cake.
Biscuit or cake?
It took a COURT to decide!
Now moving on to Gingerbread Men. Or to be ridiculously PC over a piece of confectionery, should it be Gingerbread Person?
As per HMRC : standard-rate VAT applies to “Gingerbread men decorated with chocolate unless this amounts to no more than a couple of dots for eyes”.
No wonder our entire tax system is so damn complicated, varying rates on income, food, heating, fuel, and of course the dreaded VAT currently at 20%, something he didn’t put up in the Budget on Wednesday by the way.
Now, bakers have to measure the amount of chocolate used on a gingerbread figure for the eyes or we, the consumer, will have to pay more if he has chocolate buttons, a brown smile or a set of boobs if deigned to be female.
But here’s a little something many of us may have missed:
Tax on Insurance premiums (as if we weren’t already paying enough).
When introduced in 1994, it was a standard rate of 2.5%.
My, how it has grown and been divided into categories to bleed us some more:
- 1 April 1997 to 30 June 1999 – a standard rate of 4%
- 1 July 1999 to 3 January 2011 – a standard rate of 5%
- 4 January 2011 to 31 October 2015 – a standard rate of 6%
- 1 November 2015 to 31 October 2016 – a standard rate of 9.5%
- From 1 November 2016, the standard rate is 10%
- 1 April 1997 to 4 January 2011 – a selective higher rate of 17.5% on certain types of insurance arranged through certain suppliers of other goods and services, in line with VAT
- From 1 August 1998 – the higher rate was extended to all taxable travel insurance, regardless of the type of supplier
- From 4 January 2011 – the higher rate rose to 20%, in line with VAT
Now, I knew I have been paying a premium tax of 6% on my car insurance and our boat insurance, but I cannot for the life of me remember mention of it going up to 9.5% in November last year. Kept that quiet, didn’t he.
So his boast of only putting it up by 0.5% is another CONservative lie, as 10% is almost double what it was a year ago. Sneaky little sh1t.
There is of course the rise in tax allowances, a single person’s earnings going up to £11,500 (I wish), and there was some mention of the introduction of a Living Wage in the media hype before
Bidet B Day (I really feel our country is going down the toilet).
Equally, there were headlines that big businesses were intending to cut staff and increase working hours to cover such a rise in wages. Weekend, shift or overtime rates would be scrapped, and everyone would be on a flat rate.
Knock on effect, more unfortunates on the dole through no fault of their own, and with IDS doing his bit to
bleed the needy cut benefits, the rich get richer, and the poor can’t afford to live.
If interested, you can read my take on Mr Duncan Smith’s headline boast here.
To add more insults to the lower paid, an individual will be able to put £20,000 into their ISA each year.
WTF????? Can YOU afford to save twenty grand a year and still live? Lucky you if you can.
This is from July 2012
A couple with two children were said to need to earn a minimum of £18,400 a year each before tax; single people £16,400 a year, while the figure for a lone parent with one child is £23,900 and a pensioner couple £12,000 each.
Big Daddy O is also introducing Lifetime ISAs for the under 40s.
Nice, how CONsiderate.
The intention is to help to save for a deposit on a house and the Government will give you a bonus of £1 for every £4 saved up to a maximum of £4000.
(In last year’s budget it was Help to Buy ISAs: the carrot being save £250 a month for five years and the Government would give you a bonus of £3000. In five years, a deposit of £15,000 would be a drip in the ocean against house prices the way they are escalating out of all proportion. Do something about THAT, Mr Chancellor)
However, should you want to access your savings before you are 60 but not to buy a house, then there’s just a ‘tiny’ penalty of 5% and you lose your bonus. Not clear if you’d have to pay it ALL back from previous years, but my guess is probably. Either that or they’d tax it.
Now unlike Mr O, who has
his cronies, knighthood and big business bucks the country’s economy at heart, I am looking purely at what affects us.
This budget does nothing to help those with restricted limited income which is below the tax threshold and thus a rise in personal allowances doesn’t count.
Increases in insurance premiums, local taxes, utility bills, fuel and food taxation do though, so he’s taking money away from the lesser paid, pensioners, and hundreds of thousands of other families already struggling.
Oh, but he has put the threshold before the higher rate of 40% taxation up to £45,000 so that means more dosh for the CONservatives in power.
No wonder they were patting him on the back and wanting to shake his hand whereas Joe Public want to stab him in the back and wring his neck.
And here’s something else:
You remember that 5p levy that was applied to plastic carrier bags last October?
Already one manufacturing company has gone under because there is no longer a demand for their product.