Reuters Blogs

UK News

Our UK correspondents’ insights

March 12th, 2008

Another “slap in face with wet kipper” Budget

Posted by: Jennifer Hill

francesca-lagerberg-2.jpgBy Francesca Lagerberg, head of the national tax office, Grant Thornton

Most Budgets have all the attraction of being slapped in the face with a wet kipper and sadly this one is unlikely to reverse the trend. As expected, from today up goes the cost of booze (4p on a pint) and fags (11p on a packet). Also for those who like driving larger less-green new cars there is a “showroom” tax coming in from 2009 that could cost them around 950 pounds.

However, for the entrepreneur there was a little cheer. After strong representations from business, Chancellor Alistair Darling has deferred the “income shifting” rules that were due to start from this April. These were a direct attack on family-owned businesses that include lower tax paying family members who take out dividends or profits but make a less significant contribution to the business. A case last year (Jones v Garnett) went against the government and it was looking to legislate to get the result it wanted. The proposals were wide-ranging and ill-targeted. A deferral will hopefully allow time to revisit this whole approach.

The working family got several name-checks in the Budget speech and this broadly amounts to an increase in child benefit (20 pounds per week for the first child) and the child element of child tax credit, but this will not take effect until April 2009.

There was no further change to the capital gains tax (CGT) regime so that from April 6 all individuals will be paying at a flat rate of 18 percent with the only hope of reducing the charge being a special entrepreneurs’ relief that has stringent qualifying conditions, but may help the smaller business to take their charge down to an effective rate of 10 percent. However, some others clearly benefit under the new regime. For example, those looking to sell a buy-to-let property after April will find that the new rules help them as the best tax rate they would get under the existing legislation would be 24 percent.

For non-domiciled individuals, the Chancellor provided further details on the radical changes taking effect from April 6. If they want to continue to get the tax advantages of being non-domiciled in the UK after then they will have to pay 30,000 pounds for the privilege once they are resident here for seven out of the past 10 years. However, for those who would not remotely be able to pay such a high levy remitting just small amounts of foreign income (2,000 pounds) will not be caught. This is a slight increase on the original 1,000 pound proposal. There is also a new test of where you were at midnight to work out what days you were really present in the UK, which may be more useful to internationally mobile workers than the rules we heard of last October at the pre-Budget report.

So, overall Darling’s first Budget was short on drama, but long on minor detail. A massive 207 pages of back-up notes support the Budget Red Book. For most people this event will provide little to cheer, but equally little to passionately dislike.

March 12th, 2008

A good budget?

Posted by: Avril Ormsby

darlin2.jpgThe headlines say it was a budget that hit drinkers, smokers and gas-guzzlers.

Chancellor Alistair Darling hiked up the usual “sin taxes” in his first budget.

But he also postponed a 2p rise in fuel taxes until October.

He also made a bid for the green vote with a call for a new road pricing scheme and for retailers to charge customers for plastic bags.

Analysts said he had little room to “pull a rabbit out of the hat” because of the slowing economy and global credit crunch.

And indeed, he cut growth forecasts and ramped up borrowing.

Has it been a good or bad budget for you? - And was it a success or failure for Darling?

March 12th, 2008

Stub out and save

Posted by: Jennifer Hill

It’s “national no smoking day”, and stubbing out could help your wealth as well as your health. The 1.1 million Britons who quit a year ago have collectively saved more than 1 billion pounds by not feeding their nicotine habit, according to Yorkshire Bank. Meanwhile, the 13 million people who’ve carried on puffing since “no smoking day” last March have seen almost 12.5 billion pounds-worth of potential savings go up in smoke.

“It’s all too easy for long term smokers to forget just how expensive their habit actually is, but those smoking just 10 cigarettes a day could easily save almost 1,000 pounds during the course of a year,” says Gary Lumby, Yorkshire Bank’s head of retail. “By putting the money they’d normally spend on cigarettes in an ISA (individual savings account) or high interest savings account, smokers will soon see those savings adding up, particularly if there is more than one smoker in the household.”

And there are more savings to be made. Insurance companies consider ex-smokers to be ‘non-smokers’ a year after they have given up. And that could see your life and critical illness cover premiums fall by 50 percent. The monthly premium with Norwich Union for a 60-year-old male smoker wanting 100,000 pounds worth of life cover over 20 years is 181.30 pounds, while a non-smoker of the same age will pay just 84.30 pounds — 1,164 pounds per year less — according to figures from price comparison Web site Moneynet.co.uk.

In addition to the financial benefits, there’s a long list of other good reasons to kick the habit — having more energy and looking and feeling younger as the premature ageing effects of smoking are stopped in their tracks. Those who give up should also have lower stress levels, whiter teeth and an improved sense of taste and small, according to the “no smoking day” Web site.

But, as people addicted to the dreaded weed will no doubt testify, it’s a hard habit to break. And they can take some comfort in one little-known benefit to smoking. People with medical conditions and those who are likely to suffer poor health — such as smokers, the obese or those with a history of poor family health — generally achieve higher annuity rates. Their life expectancy might be shorter, but their pension pot will buy them a higher annual income in retirement.