Budget November 2025

[monmouth]

Let's hope nobody has or requests a pay rise in the next 6 years. The tax freeze threshold is waiting for you with this fiscal drag tax introduction.

Again, no help or incentives for businesses to grow and succeed. No VAT cut either.. Reeves needs to understand that companies need to grow then recruit people on decent wages but unfortunately she doesn't see the long game in business.

The timing of the minimum wage increase is interesting, although I agree this in principle and people should have enough to live on , the wider current picture of the economy and growth will not be sustainable.

Yeah, only getting 60% of any pay rise would be far worse than getting no pay rise.

You know it was the Tories that had the idea to freeze the bands and did it in 2021 through to to 2028? Let’s hope no one had a pay rise during those Tory years, or they’d have had to pay some of it in tax.

 

[Ringwood]

Yeah, only getting 60% of any pay rise would be far worse than getting no pay rise.

You know it was the Tories that had the idea to freeze the bands and did it in 2021 through to to 2028? Let’s hope no one had a pay rise during those Tory years, or they’d have had to pay some of it in tax.

I'm not a tory if this is your point you're making. The whole concept from both Governments is wrong on this. Politics need business savvy individuals and not these plastic so called experts who have never run a business in their lives.

 

[Pacemaker]

It's an interesting one, isn't it? Maybe EV owners will have to turn up at an MOT station once a year to have their mileage recorded and reported. Whichever way it's done, a whole new bureaucracy will have to be created.
I'm glad to say there's nothing like that here in Spain yet. In fact, I'm in a queue to get a €4,500 government rebate for buying my new EV, and a rebate on my income tax next year covering the car and the installation of solar panels and a charger.
Then again, it's not such a big issue to start with, because fuel duty is nothing like as high here. For example, I currently pay €1.25 for a litre of diesel, that's equivalent to £1.10 a litre.

I think because it will affect all EV’s from 2028 then it will be entered at first purchase of VED (car road tax) then on every annual renewal of VED and if you dispose of car then on a combination of mileage on V5 and claim on unused VED and entry on V5/VED by new owner. It will then be cross referenced after 3 years by MOT entry. I cannot see how in the first 3 years they can expect owners and MOT stations to check mileage entered as being correct MOT stations are busy enough as it is.

 

[rockinj]

I'd say getting the cost of housing and childcare massively down would be a more effective incentive than amending the tax code.

How do you get cost of housing down?

The reason I cite taxation is because it incentivises stability and it reduces State bureaucracy.

Childcare doesn’t have to be an either or either. It is ridiculously expensive in this Country. Agreed.

One of the reasons for this is much more stringent regulatory framework which could be reformed.

We don’t have the Nationalisation of decades previously but the State is huge now and that’s why the tax burden is so big.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

One of the most interesting parts of the budget and it hasn’t been mentioned here yet, is how obviously it was a budget designed solely to meet fiscal rules for the sake of the bond markets.

And it’s pretty much worked. The yields on long term government bonds dropped yesterday by a bigger percentage than has happened on budget day for about a century.

Today yields have risen again slightly as markets have digested somewhat the sleight of hand used to make the figures work. But the overall impact has been good for Reeves.

The sleight of hand she used is that many of the ‘balancing items’ to get the budget to meet her fiscal rules and to increase her budget headroom are back loaded to the end or close to the end of this term and may, or may not ever actually happen.
Stuff like mansion tax, EV per mile charging, NI on pensions, and others as well.

So what was the purpose? Well for every £100 tax we pay, around £10 goes to paying interest on government debt. So if the bond yields rise (interest we pay in government debt) that has a huge negative impact on what is left for everything else. (In contrast for example, around £0.30p of every £100 tax is spent on immigration).

So keeping ‘the markets happy’ has a very real impact on all of us.

She will hope that over the next three years (so before these measures kick in), there will be an uptick in economic growth which will mean that her rules (and headroom) are at least partially met through growth, meaning that some of the measures may not be needed. (As it happens, I think the mansion tax is a ‘look at us taxing the rich’ measure anyway - it doesn’t raise any money, it’s for show so will be kept whatever the need).

Her budget has, in effect, spent money now, largely on the poorer people in society (removal of the 2 child benefit cap, reintroduction of much of the winter fuel allowance, increasing minimum wage across the board etc), paid for a chunk of it with the freeze in tax allowances, increased taxes on unearned income (dividend and interest income taxes will increase in April) which are seen as measures which target wealthier people, and kicked much of the rest of it down the road to be brought in if needed when we get there.

So it’s a long way from being as ‘strict’ as it first appeared.

It will also have the impact, of course, of allowing her (or her successor) to say in the future (in an election year at that), ‘we aren’t going to bring in these measures after all because we’ve had economic growth’ which will look like tax reductions, or, at worst, we are bringing them in and it’s old news by then.

It’s effectively a budget that meets rules while allowing flexibility.

 

[Ringwood]

One of the most interesting parts of the budget and it hasn’t been mentioned here yet, is how obviously it was a budget designed solely to meet fiscal rules for the sake of the bond markets.

And it’s pretty much worked. The yields on long term government bonds dropped yesterday by a bigger percentage than has happened on budget day for about a century.

Today yields have risen again slightly as markets have digested somewhat the sleight of hand used to make the figures work. But the overall impact has been good for Reeves.

The sleight of hand she used is that many of the ‘balancing items’ to get the budget to meet her fiscal rules and to increase her budget headroom are back loaded to the end or close to the end of this term and may, or may not ever actually happen.
Stuff like mansion tax, EV per mile charging, NI on pensions, and others as well.

So what was the purpose? Well for every £100 tax we pay, around £10 goes to paying interest on government debt. So if the bond yields rise (interest we pay in government debt) that has a huge negative impact on what is left for everything else. (In contrast for example, around £0.30p of every £100 tax is spent on immigration).

So keeping ‘the markets happy’ has a very real impact on all of us.

She will hope that over the next three years (so before these measures kick in), there will be an uptick in economic growth which will mean that her rules (and headroom) are at least partially met through growth, meaning that some of the measures may not be needed. (As it happens, I think the mansion tax is a ‘look at us taxing the rich’ measure anyway - it doesn’t raise any money, it’s for show so will be kept whatever the need).

Her budget has, in effect, spent money now, largely on the poorer people in society (removal of the 2 child benefit cap, reintroduction of much of the winter fuel allowance, increasing minimum wage across the board etc), paid for a chunk of it with the freeze in tax allowances, increased taxes on unearned income (dividend and interest income taxes will increase in April) which are seen as measures which target wealthier people, and kicked much of the rest of it down the road to be brought in if needed when we get there.

So it’s a long way from being as ‘strict’ as it first appeared.

It will also have the impact, of course, of allowing her (or her successor) to say in the future (in an election year at that), ‘we aren’t going to bring in these measures after all because we’ve had economic growth’ which will look like tax reductions, or, at worst, we are bringing them in and it’s old news by then.

It’s effectively a budget that meets rules while allowing flexibility.

I look forward to the translated version for us not too bright posters

 

[monmouth]

Another purpose was to buy her and Starmer some time, by not frightening the backbench horses, hence the two child cap removal (not doing it would have given her another few billion fiscal headroom). She had her eye firmly on survival. All in all it looks like it's paid off for her despite all the right wing hysteria bollocks that would have happened whatever she did. As you say it's highly unlikely some of it will come to pass, as they'll be looking to cut taxes in election year, not raise them.

One other welcome thing, was putting the millstone that is the OBR back in its box, other than once a year. Twice was at least once too many.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I look forward to the translated version for us not too bright posters

lol.

She put some balancing figures at the end of her spreadsheet to keep the spreadsheet police happy because the spreadsheet police charge very very high fines if they’re unhappy, but she will be hoping she may not need to use them if the earlier part of her spreadsheet proves to be more pessimistic than was necessary.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Another purpose was to buy her and Starmer some time, by not frightening the backbench horses, hence the two child cap removal (not doing it would have given her another few billion fiscal headroom). She had her eye firmly on survival. All in all it looks like it's paid off for her despite all the right wing hysteria bollocks that would have happened whatever she did. As you say it's highly unlikely some of it will come to pass, as they'll be looking to cut taxes in election year, not raise them.

One other welcome thing, was putting the millstone that is the OBR back in its box, other than once a year. Twice was at least once too many.

Yeah.

Not sure they’ve got longer than May but they’ve got at least a few months that they may not have otherwise had.

The OBR is absolutely ridiculous. Osborne’s fault of course.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

For those wondering how the electric car PPM or eVED (as us cool kids are now calling it) will work, the consultation document is at the link. It’s a riveting read I’m sure you’ll agree

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69282ac1a245b0985f034197/eVED_Consultation.pdf

Consultation on the Introduction of Electric Vehicle Excise Duty (eVED)

A consultation setting out further detail on how eVED will work.

www.gov.uk

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Yeah.

Not sure they’ve got longer than May but they’ve got at least a few months that they may not have otherwise had.

The OBR is absolutely ridiculous. Osborne’s fault of course.

I actually flinched when the news broke about the early leak yesterday. I felt really sorry for whoever it was who hit send out uploaded it or what we they did to it.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I actually flinched when the news broke about the early leak yesterday. I felt really sorry for whoever it was who hit send out uploaded it or what we they did to it.

The metadata apparently shows that it may have been available for hours overnight. It was only when Reuters found it and started tweeting out the contents that alerted anyone.

the link wasn’t posted it was just in the site.

Absolutely shocking mind. I think they’re investigating whether it was deliberate?

 

[exiledclaseboy]

The metadata apparently shows that it may have been available for hours overnight. It was only when Reuters found it and started tweeting out the contents that alerted anyone.

the link wasn’t posted it was just in the site.

Absolutely shocking mind. I think they’re investigating whether it was deliberate?

I’d be surprised if they weren’t investigating. I’d also be surprised if it was deliberate.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I’d be surprised if they weren’t investigating. I’d also be surprised if it was deliberate.

Agree.

Just someone not thinking is my guess.

 

[Jack2jack]

For those wondering how the electric car PPM or eVED (as us cool kids are now calling it) will work, the consultation document is at the link. It’s a riveting read I’m sure you’ll agree

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69282ac1a245b0985f034197/eVED_Consultation.pdf

Consultation on the Introduction of Electric Vehicle Excise Duty (eVED)

A consultation setting out further detail on how eVED will work.

www.gov.uk

I quoted 15ppm on hybrid vehicles, just watch Martin Lewis who confirmed it was 1.5ppm, so I messed up there. I've booked a sight test at Specsavers.