OV9

I'm not convinced the salary sacrifice thing will do much - if you earn £60,000 and put £10k into a pension through salary sacrifice you could easily agree with your employer that you'll earn £50,000 plus employer pension contributions of £10k and document it accordingly.

The tax per mile on EVs while she's extending the EV purchase incentives seems a somewhat ridiculous balance. But overall the budget seems to be much more innocuous than anticipated; no extending the 7yr limit for IHT to 10 yrs, no lifetime allowance for gifts etc.

There’s always next year

If they're still in power...

Before the budget there were people talking about Reeves being out of her job by Christmas. I really don't think that'll happen now. It seemed competent and hasn't spooked the markets.

Jobbo wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 2:36 pm I'm not convinced the salary sacrifice thing will do much - if you earn £60,000 and put £10k into a pension through salary sacrifice you could easily agree with your employer that you'll earn £50,000 plus employer pension contributions of £10k and document it accordingly.

I think, from scanning it, the OBR report said there were some saving provisions related to disguised remuneration that meant that could be challenged.

Ultimately what you've just described is salary sacrifice without naming it such.

ETA: it is the Operational Remuneration "OpRA" rules.

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 3:08 pm Ultimately what you've just described is salary sacrifice without naming it such.

It is what people's employment contracts said before salary sacrifice existed.

Jobbo wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 3:12 pm

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 3:08 pm Ultimately what you've just described is salary sacrifice without naming it such.

It is what people's employment contracts said before salary sacrifice existed.

I'm sure that's the case - seems the OpRa rules came in in 2017 so stop this effectively. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... rangements

I started reading it but glazed over after a few paragraphs - I'm glad I'm not a tax lawyer

Jobbo wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 3:01 pm Before the budget there were people talking about Reeves being out of her job by Christmas. I really don't think that'll happen now. It seemed competent and hasn't spooked the markets.

Yes I would agree that it was quite deftly done from the perspective of making all the wrong choices without pressing any nuclear buttons and ensuring that the most inflammatory socialist stuff like the mansion tax levels are set "just so" to allow her to rely on a sufficient amount of jealousy of people in that position to mean that the fallout is limited (and importantly of course not affecting any of her mates on the front bench, bar a couple who have really cleaned up from the marriage or inheritance arrangements, such as Red Ed and Liz Kendall). Naturally it will affect everyone eventually in years to come when the average london home is £2m+... just as more and more people pay the 40% top rate of tax.

That said, these things often have untoward effects over the days (when people grab on unforseen complexities), months or years (when they try and button down the actual specifics of certain things that are for the moment only vague about their implementation).

Wrong choices? I mean, the right choice was a penny or two on income tax but she has hamstrung herself by sticking to the manifesto once again, so she does at least give the appearance of sticking to her word.

If she didn't do so much leaking/briefing before the budget and had just come out with this budget without advance warning it would have seemed a calming influence.

It has clearly damaged the economy but not sure that it didn't "work" from the perspective of managing expectations - I think things like the taxation of pensions and mansions tax would have got a very visceral reaction if they hadn't been trailed well in advance.

For e.g. in some projections where they were applying levies at 1% of value or thresholds starting at £1.5m, etc. the property tax could have been £10k p.a. or more for properties of the type/value we're looking potentially at moving to. As it is it would be a quarter of that (ish - depending on where levels actually sit and if its a slab system - again all TBC).

Its actually in a way disappointing because as I said these are generally economically damaging or avaricious tax grabs and if they were actually egregious, that increases the probability of U turns or a subsequent government repealing them. We're now back in slowly boiling the frog territory.

I havent really heard all the build up noise, but seems like they are discouraging pension contributions which seems very short sighted.

Jobbo wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 3:21 pm Wrong choices? I mean, the right choice was a penny or two on income tax but she has hamstrung herself by sticking to the manifesto once again, so she does at least give the appearance of sticking to her word.

If she didn't do so much leaking/briefing before the budget and had just come out with this budget without advance warning it would have seemed a calming influence.

As normal these days, when it comes to politics, i’m on the same page as Jobbo. Though i wonder how much of the leakages were the Tory press trying to do their thing.

Starmer out for breaking manifesto pledges!!!!!!11!1!1!!! etc….

Economic growth forecasts and proclivity downgraded…
Still think a tax on the wealthy today is just a tax on the less wealthy tomorrow.

It would’ve been nice to see a raise in the personal allowance tbh.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:26 pm It would’ve been nice to see a raise in the personal allowance tbh.

Fiscal drag seems to be the policy now - Dan Neidle calculates that it's the biggest overall tax raiser from a single policy since WWII.

Jobbo wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:35 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:26 pm It would’ve been nice to see a raise in the personal allowance tbh.

Fiscal drag seems to be the policy now - Dan Neidle calculates that it's the biggest overall tax raiser from a single policy since WWII.

If they are able to get value out of it, and it makes a difference to the country, then that's alright. I fear they won't, but then it's not like I'd have any confidence in any other party doing any better.

I think it would’ve been good to bring the percentage of taxable income at minimum wage back to where it was in 2020ish. Considering inflation is still not great and the actual wage has gone up by quite a lot since then.

The motability changes seem like a bit of a fuck you to people who can’t really afford it too.

duncs500 wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:39 pm

Jobbo wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:35 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:26 pm It would’ve been nice to see a raise in the personal allowance tbh.

Fiscal drag seems to be the policy now - Dan Neidle calculates that it's the biggest overall tax raiser from a single policy since WWII.

If they are able to get value out of it, and it makes a difference to the country, then that's alright. I fear they won't, but then it's not like I'd have any confidence in any other party doing any better.

The trouble is, and this is just my simplistic view, is that to me it seems to be part of the problem of wage stagnation. It's a nice earner for successive Gov'ts as it allows them to state that they're not putting taxes up. To account for inflation wages need to rise notably to cover off the losses through fiscal drag to taxes as well as meaning that after general living costs, people have more money in their pockets. And that's just not happening.

And the 60% trap doesn't help as to me that further adds to this kettling of wages between the 40% and 45% thresholds.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:42 pm The motability changes seem like a bit of a fuck you to people who can’t really afford it too.

I just don't get these changes at all. My understanding is that the cost to the taxpayer is no different depending on the cost of the car? So this becomes purely about the optics of someone knocking about in an Audi A4 rather than a Skoda Octavia. It's daft. And who decides what's "premium"?

It's just another measure to add to their "politics of envy" tag.

Aye, it’s largely been pushed by the telegraph as far as I can see. Mad that those benefit moochers can get a new Benz.

You’re absolutely right that the cost to the government was the same regardless of vehicle choice, the claimant makes up the extra.