How does HMRC deal with those pensioners who currently have income in excess of their personal allowances, but no sources of PAYE income through which to collect tax?



If the answer is that they ask them to complete a tax return every year, that group is going to grow exponentially as the age-related allowances disappear.



If you have a state pension of over £155 per week from 6 April 2012, you're going to have to pay some tax on it.

Come the next election any politician worth his salt will be able to pretty much destroy the Lib Dems. They're making a good job of it themselves so a nudge should have them over the cliff quite easily. Cameron will have the knives out with about a year to go too, and the coalition will limp along until election time.



I've said before those LDs in the cabinet and ministerial posts are loving the trappings and the limos too much to control the Tory excesses. They have the balance of power FFS and could have stopped a lot of the legislation that traditional Lib Dems don't support. Clegg has let his party down big style.

Clegg doesn't give a flying one about his party, or the values of its core support.



He'll be contesting a nice safe seat somewhere for the Tories at the next general election - being LD leader has given him an "in" to cosy up to Dave, that's all he needed.

You could be right but I just see it as one public schoolboy deferring to another from the "better" school.

As do Private Eye..

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17475709More people will pay more tax[/url.

Isn't it strange that IIRC he failed to mention that and that he failed to mention the true facts about pensioners being worse off when he was giving his budget speech.

Anyone would think he didn't want to highlight it eh!!



He has gone on record saying that he doesn't earn or have enough to pay 45% tax.

I'm hardly suprised I mean that is what offshore accounts are for surely.

Lovely statement of the bleeding obvious from the IFS about people managing their tax affairs in such a way as to benefit from the 45p rate, in the same way they did to mitigate the introduction of the 50p rate.



Course, lots of income that would otherwise have fallen in 2012-13 will be deferred - where possible - until 2013-14. The take from the top rate of tax will go up, despite the rate being lower, and George will tell us all what a spiffing success it has been.



Smoke and mirrors of the highest order.

Yes and I think I'd trust Hislop on the hiearchical etiquettes of those establishments.

He has the personal experience.

It ought not to be too hard to explain to Joe public that the reason why the 50p didn't raise as much as first thought was because income was taken early and equally that the 45p rate won't either because people will defer income until it drops back to 40p.



Either way the figures it actually did raise was £700m to £1bn depending on who you read.



Considering the effort and expense that goes into trying to stop a mere £60m of benefit fraud the 50p tax rate looks a highly efficient way to generate revenue for the government!

[url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/22/why-the-50p-tax-cut-is-based-on-osbornes-own-dodgy-dossier/Osborne's 50p "Dodgy Dossier" in layman's terms[/url

What makes you think it can?

1000 new jobs to be created by GSK in Cubria following confirmation in the Budget that the Government will introduce a "patent box" to encourage investment in research and development in the UK. www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 81006.html Brilliant news, more of the same please.

1000 new jobs to be created by GSK in Cubria following confirmation in the Budget that the Government will introduce a "patent box" to encourage investment in research and development in the UK. www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 81006.html Brilliant news, more of the same please.

Quote Ajw71="Ajw71"1000 new jobs to be created by GSK in Cubria following confirmation in the Budget that the Government will introduce a "patent box" to encourage investment in research and development in the UK. www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 81006.html Brilliant news, more of the same please.'" [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/07/remploy-factory-closures-disabled-workersThey can start by interviewing this lot[/url Or any of the thousands of others that have been thrown out of work since they came to power

Quote Ajw71="Ajw71"1000 new jobs to be created by GSK in Cubria following confirmation in the Budget that the Government will introduce a "patent box" to encourage investment in research and development in the UK. www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 81006.html Brilliant news, more of the same please.'" [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/07/remploy-factory-closures-disabled-workersThey can start by interviewing this lot[/url Or any of the thousands of others that have been thrown out of work since they came to power

Not a clue, but economies have before. People were jumping off buildings in the USA in 1929, but that country recovered.



Why do you ask that question? Do you think it won't?

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17476976Rozzers to ballot on right to strike[/url



This could be interesting for the "Law & Order party". Even Thatcher knew not to get on the wrong side of them

government says each Remploy job involves a £20,000-a-year subsidy from the taxpayer, which they believe is unsustainable"

Quote Ajw71="Ajw71"Please don't pretend Labour wouldn't have closed them too. www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles ... tories.htm www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles ... osures.htm "the [Labour government says each Remploy job involves a £20,000-a-year subsidy from the taxpayer, which they believe is unsustainable"'" Maybe GSK are simply rebalancing the redundancies they already made in their rush to offshore operations?

Quote Ajw71="Ajw71"Please don't pretend Labour wouldn't have closed them too. www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles ... tories.htm www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles ... osures.htm "the [Labour government says each Remploy job involves a £20,000-a-year subsidy from the taxpayer, which they believe is unsustainable"'" Maybe GSK are simply rebalancing the redundancies they already made in their rush to offshore operations?

I sense you are a bit of a glass half empty kind of guy. Jobs are good, whatever side of whatever fence you sit on.

Quote Ajw71="Ajw71"1000 new jobs to be created by GSK in Cubria following confirmation in the Budget that the Government will introduce a "patent box" to encourage investment in research and development in the UK. www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 81006.html Brilliant news, more of the same please.'" Yeah ok, a huge company like GSK just decided, after weighing up all the factors and investigating all the costs etc, to make a major investment in the UK, less than 18 hours after the budget was announced. Absolute rubbish. This was a decision that had already been made but obviously GSK had been persuaded to delay the announcement until after the budget. Since GSK hasn't said its because of this budget but because of the patent box that was mentioned in budgets since 2009. No company makes a decision of that size and importance in 18 hours.

Quote Ajw71="Ajw71"1000 new jobs to be created by GSK in Cubria following confirmation in the Budget that the Government will introduce a "patent box" to encourage investment in research and development in the UK. www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 81006.html Brilliant news, more of the same please.'" Yeah ok, a huge company like GSK just decided, after weighing up all the factors and investigating all the costs etc, to make a major investment in the UK, less than 18 hours after the budget was announced. Absolute rubbish. This was a decision that had already been made but obviously GSK had been persuaded to delay the announcement until after the budget. Since GSK hasn't said its because of this budget but because of the patent box that was mentioned in budgets since 2009. No company makes a decision of that size and importance in 18 hours.

Good news though nonetheless ?



Isn't it ?

The CEO of GSK was interviewed on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning and he was asked about the redundancies. He said that it's all a normal part of business and is mainly in the administrative side of the company, but, overall, with the 1000 new jobs, GSK [ishould[/i see a net increase in staff.



Hardly a ringing endorsement is it? And it certainly isn't the 1000 net new jobs the idiot Osborne seemed to be shovelling this morning.

Indeed. However, if you bin off nearly as many jobs as you create then the net effect is rather less impressive.

Of course it is, it's great news. But let's not pretend it had anything to do with the 2012 Budget.



A little bit of research tells me that the current Chairman of GSK is Sir Christopher Gent, who aside from running the bastion of morality that is Vodafone and serving on the compensation committee of the board at Lehman Brothers that authorised the payout for its failed CEO, Dick Fuld, who received $34 m in 2007 and $40.5 m in 2006, was Chairman of the Young Conservatives in the 70's, served on the Tax Reform Commission established by the then Shadow Chancellor. Three guesses who that was?





Oh and he's donated over £140,000 to the Conservative Party over the last few years.



But then it could all just be a co-incidence...

And if you work to ensure that wages in general are decreasing (apart from for those at the very top) then you illustrate utter economic illiteracy and also an abject inhumanity.