Budget 2009: Expert reactions

We've all heard what the Chancellor has to say, but what do the accounting and business communities think of this year's Budget?

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments

What about the new FHL rules

Anonymous | | Permalink

there have been a lot of reaction about the changes to the pension relief, 50% tax rate etc.. but no one seems to have mentionned the proposed changes to the Furnished Holiday Lets. while I welcome that this is being extended to include properties in the EEA which fullfill the conditions to qualify as a FHL, it would appear that these rules are being abolished as from 2010/11. Losses (either from UK or EEA properties) will not be able to be set off against other income. Does it also mean that this business will not longer qualify as a trade so will not qualify for BPR, entrepreneurs relief, Roll over relief, hold over relief?????

The excuse we are being given is that it is all the fault of the EU.... I can understand the extension to EEA properties but surely the decision to repealed the rules on FHL is purely a decision from the UK government and I have not seen any where that the EU is twisting their arms to do so. I can see the £ signs and Mr Darling rubing his hands in glee at the prospect of all these extra revenues generated from these businesses which will no longer qualify as a trade (extra IHT, extra CGT, less tax to repay when losses arise)...

The statement mentionned that we will be able to submit until 31 July 2009 amendments relating to the 2007 tax return. What about earlier years?

What I hate about this government is their under hands tactics. And the other parties are just as bad.
I see that they have voted themselves a bigger pay rise than they have given to the nurses, teachers, police, fire brigade.
And why should they have a second home allowance at all. After all a lot of people have to travel, commute to work every day and they can't claim any expenses as it is normal home to work travel. Why should politicians be any different? they want to be members of parliament then they should pay for their own travel to work like the rest of us, any subsistence should be allowable only if travel is allowable and restricted to a reasonable amount (and not include expensive meals and wine in top restaurants).
After all most of them don't bother to attend parliament anyway, anyone can see that when you look at some of the news...

If they really meant to show the country that they are trying to help they should show restrain and not take any second allowance until the debt is cleared up. That money would be better used elsewhere... If we have to tighten our belts so should they?

Now I have to go and explain to our clients that they are going to be worth off next year....

Despair!

MikeBellisimo | | Permalink

Does Labour not understand that people earning more than £150K are quite likely to have IQs and be financially literate and mobile?

Labour are just encouraging more and more people that working for a living and working hard and saving is a mugs game.

Not for turning

mikewhit | | Permalink

I guess Darling was just too much of a wimp to undo Gordo's last Income tax (and CT?) change as chancellor, the 20%, 10% one.

But IMHO that would have been better

soak the rich

rcbarrettandco | | Permalink

I'm half surprised they didn't announce a one off "wealth tax" effective immediately. Confiscate some of the assets of the wealthiest; would seem to fit with the new Socialist Labour way!

Would be a surefire vote winner as it would hit the city bankers right in the pocket - shame about the collateral damage to the genuine wealth generators and entrepreneurs, but that would be the next government's problem to sort out. (MPs of course would have to be quietly exempted...;-)

Oh god the mess we are in and Darling/Brown just keeps digging and looking for cheap vote winners to save their own jobs...

davidwinch's picture

Does anybody remember Prudence?

davidwinch | | Permalink

It seems a long time ago, but we used to have a Chancellor who talked about prudence and keeping to golden rules.

Now we have a chap who is talking about absolutely huge amounts of public sector borrowing with no prospect of sorting that out for years.

I cannot understand how some commentators are saying the worst is behind us when we face these very serious difficulties going forward.

David

An entirely political budget

markfd | | Permalink

For every million pound earner who decides to leave the country (or not come in the first place) rather than give another £100k to Gordon, 40 people earning £250k pa have to stay just to break even.

The measure will not raise a penny of tax, net. It is simply a political gesture with two motivations (i) to persuade Labour votes that the party is still anti-rich and (ii) to hoodwink the electorate into believing that they don't have to worry everything will be paid for by a few rich people.

Not to mention another attack on private pensions again with no reciprocal measures affecting public sector (and MP) pensions.

Will the last entrepreneur out please switch off the lights. Actually don't bother they'll be going out soon anyway.