Chancellor Alistair Darling announced that the Government will go ahead with an increase in alcohol duty of 2 per cent.
The alcohol cost increase will anger the ailing beer and pub industry which had called on Mr Darling to scrap plans for the tax rise.
The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) has said the increase would mean an extra 5p on the average pint of beer.
The UK pub industry is already under great pressure, with pubs closing at an average of 39 a week.
The 2 per cent rise in alcohol duty will be implemented at midnight tonight.
Tobacco duty will also go up by 2 per cent, starting at 6pm this evening.
Mr Darling said said these measures would raise more than £6bn by 2012.
Mr Darling also said that fuel duty would increase by 2p a litre in September and there would be further rises of 1p a litre for the next four Aprils.
The AA described the rises as "an unexpected bombshell", while the RAC said the announcement was "a brutal blow for motorists" and the Freight Transport Association (FTA) said the increases "could be the death knell for parts of the logistics sector".
Having slipped below 90p a litre at the pumps, petrol prices are now around 95p, with this month's planned Government fuel duty rise adding 2.12p a litre on prices.
AA president Edmund King said: "No-one was expecting another rise in September. This is a bombshell. More money will be raised from this than will be paid out in the car-scrappage scheme.
"What this means is that the scrappage scheme will be paid for in a year by motorists at the pumps."
RAC motoring strategist Adrian Tink said: "Today's announcement is another brutal blow for motorists who have already witnessed a decade of non-stop increases and price rises. It's time for the Government to stop treating motorists' pockets as a bottomless pit of money and recognise their right to drive at a fair, affordable price.
"We urge the Government to abandon its preoccupation with overtaxing motorists and instead focus on providing them with a safe, reliable, efficient road network that all concerned can be proud of.
"With the Government confirming that VAT will remain at 15 per cent until December, we expect the fuel duty hike that offset this benefit to motorists will be reversed."
FTA policy director James Hookham said: "The logistics sector is the lifeblood of the UK economy, and rather than the transfusion we need, Alistair Darling has turned Dracula.
"Insolvency in the logistics sector has doubled in the last year and the number of heavy goods vehicle drivers looking for work has almost quadrupled. What more evidence does the Government need that parts of the sector are on their knees?"
Meanwhile, Mr Darling announced that income tax for anyone earning in excess of £150,000 would rise to 50 per cent from 40 with effect from next April. The change will affect the top one per cent of earners.
And from April 2011, pension tax relief would be restricted for those with incomes over £150,000.
I think this is annoying, but to be honest I am far more irritated by the rise in tax to 50% for those who earn over £150,000. Why on earth should someone who works really really hard to earn that kind of money give half of it to the government, plus all the other stuff they ask from people. It makes very little sense to me. People who earn that type of money do actually have to work for it, and I always thought 40% was quite enough. I do recognise that the government needs an income from somewhere to put money into the NHS etc, but taking half your earnings? Not fair.
I'm not crazy, I'm just a little unwell. I know, right now you can't tell. But stay a while and maybe then you'll see A different side of me Unwell - Matchbox 20
"Why inflict pain on oneself, when so many others are ready to save us the trouble?"
George Pacaud (1879 - 1937)
The duty increases are in no way surprising. They go up every year.
I agree with the above about the 50% tax. I think the 10% tax rate has to come back in and maybe increase the top amount to 45% or even, at an absolute push, 49%. It's a sad fact that the people who pay the most taxes are the least likely to use or need the welfare services paid for.
I think this is annoying, but to be honest I am far more irritated by the rise in tax to 50% for those who earn over £150,000. Why on earth should someone who works really really hard to earn that kind of money give half of it to the government, plus all the other stuff they ask from people. It makes very little sense to me. People who earn that type of money do actually have to work for it, and I always thought 40% was quite enough. I do recognise that the government needs an income from somewhere to put money into the NHS etc, but taking half your earnings? Not fair.
Can I point out that A LOT of people who earn that much are celebrities and they dont exactly work hard as you put it when people such as doctors, fire fighters, police put their lives at risk and dont get paid enough as what I believe they should.
Yes if the people who earn over 150,000 genuinely work hard and not just for entertainment then yes I think its wrong to take their money but as I say footballers, celebrities and other "stars" get paid well over what they should be worth, whilst people saving and risking their lives don't get paid nearly enough. My view on it anyway.
Can I point out that A LOT of people who earn that much are celebrities and they dont exactly work hard as you put it when people such as doctors, fire fighters, police put their lives at risk and dont get paid enough as what I believe they should.
Yes if the people who earn over 150,000 genuinely work hard and not just for entertainment then yes I think its wrong to take their money but as I say footballers, celebrities and other "stars" get paid well over what they should be worth, whilst people saving and risking their lives don't get paid nearly enough. My view on it anyway.
Celebrities and the others are likely to be out of the country for a lot of the time and so not actually pay tax, or they'll be employing accountants to decrease what they need to pay. Or they'll just move to a tax-haven.
Though there has been a lot of talk lately about them trying to crack down on tax havens, which would be no bad thing IMO.
I can see why you feel it's wrong to tax the highest earners so much, but I really don't see any other way of doing it. Unless you increased the amount to some astronomically high figure and then taxed them even more than 50%.
I don't know I guess I'd be tempted to provide tax breaks for high earners who are philanthropists, though I doubt that'd ever go actually be made law. I just feel if you are voluntarily already trying to use your wealth to help other people maybe the government should give you a bit of a reward for doing so.
Well the celebrities thing happens to be another pet hate of mine... But don't get me started or I can rant about it for ages, I did a paper on it last year. Footballers being my worst thing indeed.
And I also agree that certain people, like firefighters and policemen, do an extraordinarily hard and sometimes difficult job, which should maybe be better acknowledged.
Maybe they should have another bracket, for like 50% tax on those who earn over £750,000 a year (or however much it is they earn) which would get most of the so called 'stars'.
But also, does anyone know if bonuses that you earn are included in the bit you have to pay tax on? If not, I would please request an official pay cut to £149,950, and just ask for a nice bonus instead please! (Maybe when we're out of the recession...)
I'm not crazy, I'm just a little unwell. I know, right now you can't tell. But stay a while and maybe then you'll see A different side of me Unwell - Matchbox 20
"Why inflict pain on oneself, when so many others are ready to save us the trouble?"
George Pacaud (1879 - 1937)
The thing is, the 50% tax thing is just headlines. It will only affect 1% of the economy. Therefore, howver much you tax those 1%, you will never gain a huge amount from it. The government is just clutching at straws to fill a huge deficit mostly of its own doing. The only things that can make any major difference is to raise the main rate of tax and national insurance. However, both of these are unpopular (for obvious reasons) as they care solely about winning another term in office come the elections next year. Therefore, they went for the popular option of leaving income tax alone for the majority and massively increasing borrowing instead. In the next two years the government will be borrowing more than every single government in the last 300 years combined. By their own figures, they will eventually have owe 79% of GDP. That's an obscene figure and will cripple this country financially for decades and solely to avoid losing a few votes doing anything that could actually work to fill the hole of their own making. The 50% rate and fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty just paper over the cracks and badly at that.
But also, does anyone know if bonuses that you earn are included in the bit you have to pay tax on? If not, I would please request an official pay cut to £149,950, and just ask for a nice bonus instead please! (Maybe when we're out of the recession...)
No getting away from it From the HM Revenue & Customs website:
Quote:
Bonuses
If your employer pays you a bonus, it's just part of your pay for the job - and you'll pay tax and National Insurance contributions on it through PAYE. Your employer includes it on your payslip with the rest of your pay.
Nice try, but accountants have already tried that work around and the Conservatives came up with a tax for it in the 80's although the exact change of law that brought it in has slipped my mind for now.
Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money.
They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
What I find funny is our (the U.S.) founders revolted over around I believe a 6% tax rate. Now we think nothing of close to 40% paying for ridiculous unconstitutional wars, police state measures, drug wars, deficit financing, bailouts, nationalization, etc. If you refuse to pay on a moral basis on not wanting to support killing people, they come and take your house and put you in jail.
****ed up system.
This is nothing but revenue generation. They raised cigarette taxes here a dollar and 1 cent I believe. It's funny, they raised taxes on cigs a lot in California a while ago; they promoted it as a way to help people stop smoking but really they just wanted more money and were talking about how much money it would help bring it. It ended up actually causing people to smoke less or going across the state boarded to get cigarettes, and they actually lost money lol
The thing is, the 50% tax thing is just headlines. It will only affect 1% of the economy. Therefore, howver much you tax those 1%, you will never gain a huge amount from it. The government is just clutching at straws to fill a huge deficit mostly of its own doing. The only things that can make any major difference is to raise the main rate of tax and national insurance. However, both of these are unpopular (for obvious reasons) as they care solely about winning another term in office come the elections next year. Therefore, they went for the popular option of leaving income tax alone for the majority and massively increasing borrowing instead. In the next two years the government will be borrowing more than every single government in the last 300 years combined. By their own figures, they will eventually have owe 79% of GDP. That's an obscene figure and will cripple this country financially for decades and solely to avoid losing a few votes doing anything that could actually work to fill the hole of their own making. The 50% rate and fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty just paper over the cracks and badly at that.
I agree. However, instead of hitting the poorest workers with another basic tax rise we should reinstall the 10%, especially if we want people working instead of going on benefits because you get more for doing less.
It would not surprise me if we go begging to the World Bank and IMF again to bail us out. Although, to be fair, since we help fund those reserves it would be nice to get something out of it for once.
The other thing is, with the 50% rise, it's only 50% on earnings over £150k. I think that's right?
But I disagree with any system that involves paying more in tax than you're taking home at the end of the day, with the provisions we get in the UK. In Scandinavian countries, yes, it is more acceptable, because they have such a fantastic national service, and it's a lot more centrally focused, whereas we're still stuck in this sort-of good public system, but drastically in need of an overhall.
But, I'm not impressed with the budget this year. Sigh.
From the HM Revenue & Customs website:
