And with us are expert Budget busters, John Whiting from PricewaterhouseCoopers to answer your queries on tax, and Graham Hooper on your savings and investments.

Mr Sharrot in Cardiff asks if the personal tax allowance has been frozen and what difference does this make?

Let's start by clearing up something that confused a lot of people during the Chancellor's Budget speech on Wednesday.

When Gordon Brown talked about income tax, he referred to "allowances and rates being frozen".

Most people listening assumed that that meant there were no changes in any of the rates and allowances governing income tax.

It was only when the thick bundle of press releases arrived from the Inland Revenue (given out as soon as the Chancellor sat down) that many realised that in fact there had been some changes.

We were able to explain the position correctly when we summarised the Budget measures for Working Lunch viewers.

However, a number of people still had the wrong end of the stick for some time.

There are in a sense three bits to income tax.

The personal allowance - which we already knew was going to be frozen at �4,615 for most taxpayers; this is the amount of income you can have tax free. (Those aged 65+ receive higher personal allowances, which have risen.)

The tax rates - the rates of tax applied to income that is above the personal allowance; it was always all but certain that these would remain the same.

The tax bands - what slice of income would in fact be taxed at the 10%, 22% and 40% income tax rates. It's the tax bands that Gordon Brown sounded as if he was leaving as they were but in fact --they have moved up a bit. These are the figures:

TAX BAND CHANGES

Personal Allowance �4,615 ('02-'03) �4,615 ('03-'04) 10% rate �1,920 ('02-'03) �1,960 ('03-'04) 22% rate �27,980 ('02-'03) �28,540 ('03-'04) 40% rate above income of �34,515 ('02-'03) �35,115 ('03-'04)

So you start paying income tax at the 40% rate once your income is above �35,115 - for the tax year that's just ended, that figure was �34,515.

The modest increase - �600 a year - in effect means a stealthy little bit of tax increase as most earnings are going up faster than the 1.74% the Chancellor has given us and so a greater proportion of income falls into higher tax brackets.

But at least it's not as bad as if we had had no increase in these tax bands.

Su Kim, emailed us, as did Ken Gregory from East Yorkshire; they noted that Government borrowing will increase to �27 million.

They both want to know who actually lends this �27 million to the Chancellor?

The simple answer to this is that all the borrowing will come from "the market".

What it means in practice is that the Government will issue "Gilts".

Gilt edged securities which are basically an interest bearing loan stock.

You, I, anyone else in the world (including of course companies and pension funds) can buy this and get interest from the Government on what we have in effect lent them.

Clive Read asks: "I was interested to note in the Chancellor's Budget that Children's Trusts are to be set up for children born from today and, as I understand it, for children born since September last year.

I also learnt that from today Pensioners, or anybody on benefits who is admitted to hospital from yesterday will not have their benefits cut to contribute towards their accommodation and food costs whilst in hospital.

It also appears that this change does not cover those admitted to hospital since last September.

If this is the case, could you please explain to me why children are being treated more fairly than others?

This appears to be blatant discrimination over one section of the population over another.

My Mother was admitted to hospital in the first week of March following two minor strokes - she had a severe stroke whilst in hospital and may have had another one in the last few days.

After 6 weeks her pension will be reduced (despite an enormous increase in Council Tax) having paid during her working life, and yet some sprog born last September will receive taxpayers cash.

I submit the above for your information and would appreciate your observations, and I thank you in anticipation.

We have had a lot of questions about Child Trust Funds so I'll try and answer those all together.

I think the idea for the fund did come from the Government and its advisers.

We know the bones of the scheme - a child born from September 2002 onwards will be "endowed" with �250 by the Government (�500 for babies from "poorer households").

It's possible that the Government will make a further contribution when the child reaches 11.

Meanwhile the money will sit in a suitable account and it will be possible for parents and grandparents to add to it - �1,000 a year has been talked about.

The child won't be able to get their hands on the money until they are 18 years old after which time they will be able to do with it as they like - presumably including paying for university tuition fees or having a great 18th birthday party.

What we don't know is how exactly the scheme will run.

The Government talks about it being run by "the market" and we have quite a lot of consultations to go through before final details are announced.

So I am afraid that there is no point in trying to apply for it in any way but keep an eye on developments to make sure your offspring gets his or her entitlement.

As one of the viewer's points out, there does seem to be a bias in the Chancellor's pronouncements in favour of children and families with young children.

But the particular issue he points to in terms of the pensioner who is in hospital for an extended period may well be a ray of light in a sense - that particular provision is being reversed.

So the current provision whereby benefits and State Pensions are reduced after just 6 weeks in hospital is extended to 52 weeks.

This is a very welcome move and is something that Working Lunch and others have been highlighting as needing changing for some time.

The extension to 52 weeks applies automatically to anyone going into hospital from budget day onwards.

For anyone already in hospital, there are some transitional rules which will mean they will get onto the longer period, in May, at least to some extent.

Emma Ralding has two properties, which she would like her two children to inherit. In total they are now worth more than �250,000.

Is there a way of owning these properties or setting up a trust so that they do not end up having to sell one house just to hold on to the other after tax?

Her children are 14 and 23, and the elder lives in her other house.

This is becoming a more and more common problem.

House price in inflation is dragging more people into the IHT net, and the chancellor did not do anything about this in the budget.

Joyce Diment noticed that Gordon Brown twice mentioned "monetary policy" and "fiscal policy".

Please can you explain what these are and how they differ?

Monetary policy refers to interest rate decisions by the Monetary Policy Committee aimed at keeping inflation (RPIX) as close as possible to 2.5% (and certainly within a 1.5-3.5% range), typically looking 1-2 years ahead.

Fiscal policy is tax and spending as you know and is now target more at longer term supply side performance improvement (according to the Treasury at least) but is also intended to support monetary policy where possible within the constraints of prudence.

She also heard Gordon Brown state that UK inflation is measured using RPIX but he'd like to move us to HICP, to align us with the rest of Europe. What's the difference?

RPIX = retail price index excluding mortgage interest payments.

HICP = harmonised index of consumer prices. The latter is the official Eurostat measure using harmonised definitions across countries in the EU.

It is used by the European Centre Bank, who aim for HICP inflation of 2% or less on average across the euro zone.

RPIX is almost always somewhat higher than HICP, usually by around 0.5-1%, due to differences in calculation methodology (the HICP uses geometric rather than arithmetic averages in aggregating the raw price data, which always gives a lower answer for the overall inflation rate) and coverage, and most importantly, the HICP excludes all housing costs not just mortgage interest payments.

At present, the housing depreciation element in RPIX is being pushed up by rapid UK house price inflation, so RPIX is above target at 3%, while the HICP - which has no such house price effect - is only 1.6%.

Emma Ralding asks; "I own two properties, which I would like my two children to inherit.

Like many people, I now find myself unexpectedly owning property worth in total more than �250,000.

Can you tell me how I can own these properties - perhaps with my children - in such a way that on my death they do not end up having to sell one house just to hold on to the other after tax?

Could we be joint tenants or set up a trust?

My children are aged 14 and 23.

The 23 year old lives in my other house.

As you say, you will be one of many people who is surprised to find themselves in the Inheritance Tax net (which now starts at �255,000) thanks to the surge in house prices.

Understandably, you want to pass on the wealth that you hold to your children with as little tax on it as possible.

Inheritance Tax operates by taxing, currently at 40%, everything you leave behind over that nil rate band.

The basic planning technique is to pass on assets before you die - and providing you survive 7 years after the gift, no IHT is due.

Certainly sharing the properties with your children, possibly involving a Trust, might well be a route to follow.

What you might also consider is simply giving one of your properties to your older child now (particularly as that one lives in one of the houses and could therefore build up value CGT free).

You would then promise the children that your second house would be left to your younger child.

The snag is that is that giving one property now to the older child could trigger a CGT bill now and in 9 years time your younger child might come and say "Mum, you gave my sibling a house at age 23 so please can I have mine now"!

So I am afraid there is no set answer because like all IHT situations it depends on what people want to do, who they want to benefit, when they want those people to benefit and whether there are any other factors - children's own wives or husband or, of course, grandchildren.

You need to sit and have a think as to really what you want to do, probably involving the children and then talk to a properly qualified tax adviser is you want to take action now.