General Discussion

Re The Millionaires Budget

Another example of neo liberalism reared its ugly head again today - despite evidence to demonstate the failure of so called 'trickle down' to promote growth in the past three decades. Simply making the rich richer does nothing to make the rest of us rich. There is, in fact, strong evidence to show that the best way to boost the economy is to redistribute wealth downward because the poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes. Releasing the billions to this group through welfare spending will have a greater economy boosting effect than the same amount given to the rich through tax cuts. Giving to the rich may benefit the rest of us if the money released to them is conditional on investment by both individuals and corporations but..... Greater income equality would also lead to greater social cohesion including less crime and serious industrial action. Its win win all round!

I disagree with you a bit there Libby. The bit where you say "the poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes" I would have said "the poor have no ******** option but to spend all of their income just on trying to survive let alone anything else!".

Can anyone on here defend this government's budget when at the same time as giving money to the rich the government are taking it from the working poor by removing working tax credit if a couple with kids cannot find 24 hours work between them or, if they have that amount (or even more than that) should one of them lose their job (not an unknown occurence let's be honest) and they go below that magic 24 hours worth of work then not only have they lost the money that the job brought in but they will also lose entitlement to working tax credit.

What's that? Did someone say something? Thought I heard a voice in the distance say "But, Lynne, that's only fair, after all we're all in this together"

BS!

I think I must have missed something in Osborne's doublespeak - how reducing the upper rate tax threshold from 50% to 45% means that the wealthiest in the country are paying more? can anyone explain?

the wretched man is talking pounds, shilling and pence i think @neilh - not percentage of income which most of us would consider to be a fairer way of calculating gain or loss!

@Lynne - agree completely - should probably have written that the lowest income households spend 100% of their income and have nothing left for contingency.

Only fair? I wonder what planet our beloved leaders are from

How is it fair that anyone has to pay a 50% tax rate? Fundamentally unjust and has now been rectified a little. Really everyone should pay the same tax rate.

Our problem isn't tax payers it is the people that choose to be on the dole.

People "choosing" to be on the dole, eh? Do you include ALL the unemployed in that statement?

is it fair that poor people get poorer and rich people get richer @Paul? and do you think that every unemployed person chooses to be unemployed? the only money the goverment has is the money it raises from us through taxation (there is no such thing as government money, only our money) - why shouldn't people who earn more pay more? why should some children go to bed hungry (and i can't believe that you or anyone would think it right to storm the bastions over the bodies of children) whilst city bankers go out and celebrating their further windfalls with another bottle of bolly?

The people who earn the least got a rise in the amount of money they can earn before tax is taken, that from next year will be over £9000 per person per year, tax free. On top of that those on low incomes have that income boosted with various benefits that are paid out. This budget did not hit low paid workers, it actually helped them.

No child need go to bed hungry in this country Lynne - there is plenty of money out there to be claimed by those in need but the Government cannot force those getting those benefits to spend them wisely on feeding, clothing or caring for their children.

To answer the question - do you think every unemployed person chooses to be unemployed? No, I don't think they do. But there are plenty who DO choose to be unemployed or choose to work the minimum they can to claim the maximum they can - and I know plenty of people who do that.

And yes City Bankers earn a lot of money, far too much in my opinion. But then so do plenty of Public Sector workers (how much money should a Council Chief Executive be paid and why should it be more than the PM of this country? for example). Plenty of Public Sector workers will benefit from the cut from 50% to 45% tax. As will plenty of Head Teachers, GPs etc etc. So it isn't all about City Bankers. But then the more you tax high rate earners, the more they use tax avoidance schemes to get round it. By reducing the top level of tax and closing the loopholes to stop them doing that, you are more likely to actually get more money into the country's coffers.

And as for fairness - life isn't fair, sometimes you just have to accept that and move on.

@bryony, i have personally found this budget shocking. perhaps fairness isnt a good work (and no, i don't have to accept it and 'move on' from it) and equality is a better one? children do go to bed hungry in this country (ask any primary school teacher) and its not good enough to default to the idea that the children who do have feckless and uncaring parents. some might, in the same way that all children might, but its really hugely unhelpful and arrogant to assume that poor, as in income related poor, parents love and care about their children any less than either you or i care about ours. i'm not suggesting that this is your default position bryony but its certainly one view that i perceive from many postings on this forum.

In any social democratic society with a welfare state you will get those who abuse it and play it for their own ends BUT most people dont. It should not be assumed that people receiving benefits are a lazy, feckless waste of space. Bryony knows plenty of people who are/do - I don't know anybody who is/ does. This only shows that arguments based on personal anecdotes are rather pointless.

Some public sector workers earn enough to be highest tax payers, most don't. Those who are should pay their 50% tax and not be made even wealthier paying 5% less. Totally agree that tax avoidance schemes should be rooted out and closed

My husband and I brought up our own children on a very low income and that was in the days before tax credits and all the extras that went with them. The only benefit we had to help us was child benefit. We had a low income partly through choice because I chose to give up working to look after our children until they were a bit older, and there were times when it was very, very hard. But that just meant that we went without luxury items - and by luxury I don't mean foreign holidays, I mean the better cuts of meat at the butcher, or name brands for certain items at the supermarket. But our children never went hungry, never went without things they needed. We just budgeted to make sure we could provide for them the best we possibly could. So please don't presume that my default position is that people with little money care little about their children - we certainly didn't and I know plenty of families who were in the same position as us. But there are feckless parents and frankly income has little to do with it - there are plenty of rubbish parents who have pots of money as well as those who have very little.

There will always be those in life with more that you and less than you - that is just how life is. It is what we do with the things we have that makes us who we are. It is Interesting what you presumed my family income to be though.

i think if you read what i said bryony you will see that i was very careful not to presume that your default position is that people with little money care little about their children (quote 'i am not suggesting that this is your default position @bryony') . and where have i made a presumption about your family income? i know nothing about you (nor you me) and assume even less so don't make this personal please.

'people that choose to be on the dole' - meaning people that want to be on the dole.

The most fair tax would be a fixed charge that we all pay. But this would be a bit silly since we can't all be the CEO.

Therefore we should all be on the same tax rate. Which obviously doesn't mean everyone pays the same amount of tax. The more you earn the more you pay.

However 50% was ridiculous why should anyone have to give up half their pay. I can't understand why people earning high wages should be penalised for doing well.

So many of these threads are interlinked.

I read somewhere that the average tax kick-back to the average "wealthy" person will be £17,500 per year. That would actually pay for a couple of youngsters to get into work at age-related minimum wage rates. The overall impact could be another 90 jobs in Dawlish.

i posed the question on another thread - why is it better to give the rich another £17,500 a year rather than create 90 new jobs in dawlish? no-one has answered. @Paul - can you explain?

But who would employ them and to do what? Governments cannot create real jobs in the private sector, only wealth creators can do that, which is why they are needed in the economy whether we like the idea or not.

@bryony. good question.

Many social issues are closely linked to unemployment so anything to get people back into work has to be good.

I was actually thinking of public sector rather than private sector jobs initially because the government has direct influence over these and could act quickly if it really wanted to.

Just a few ideas for helping locally in the community: keeping our beaches/streets clean (subject of a separate strand here); increasing care support for nurses (big issue in press recently); rejuvenating our open spaces/parkland - Teignbridge rangers place enormous reliance at present on volunteers, just think what could be done with some fully-staffed teams.

Just a few ideas that would get people back into work, improve our community and create a work ethic ready to progress into private sector employment (possibly) when the economy picks up.

I don't think that giving someone earning £500,000 a year another £17,500 is going to create those jobs!!

Plus of course paying people to do work then gives them money to spend (and yes I know that's stating the blinding obvious but I thought it needed saying) and if they have money to spend then they create demand and if they create demand then that demand must be met by supply and that supply is provided by others who in turn are being paid to work and who therefore have money to spend which in turn creates a demand and, and, and...........

But feel sure I must be wrong about all that as although it is so obvious to me it cannot possibly be correct because that just ain't 'appening. Is it?