An attack of the IDS .....

[medsec222]

There are many wealthy pensioners but there are also many pensioners living on very low incomes and who do not have the means, or health, to increase their income. Thus they are stuck on a fixed income. Child benefit should be looked at. Benefits should stop after two children. Also, why are very high earners entitled to claim child benefit. I dont want to single out any particular group, but working as a medical secretary all my life I thought it quite bizarre that hospital consultants who are very well paid, were entitled to claim child benefit, often for as many as four or five children.

[Workingman]

If the giving of tax breaks to the rich and ring-fencing pensioner benefits is going to be funded by hitting the poorest and most disadvantaged in our society, that is not a society in which most moral people would want to live. It was totally unnecessary for Osborne to raise the personal and higher rate thresholds, and give tax breaks to landlords and companies while seeking welfare cuts elsewhere. That's reverse Robin Hood economics and purely aimed at winning votes. Social justice, it ain't.

Well said, Ossie. When a chancellor raises the threshold at which tax is paid every taxpayer except those on the highest rate, 45%, benefits. However, what Osborne did was stretch the basic rate band from £42,385 to £45,000 so that those on the 40% rate now get an extra £2,615 at the basic rate - a double bonus. It was an unnecessary move, but probably buys a few votes. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation found that Osborne's Budget changes to income tax thresholds would boost the incomes of the richest fifth of households by an average £225, and the poorest fifth by just £10.

So what was it that the totally wonderful MSPs did up in Scotland? They voted down an "all in it together" 1p in the £ tax rise across the board. It is obvious that those with more £s would pay more pennies, but the principle of everyone bearing some of the burden is a good one.

[TheOstrich]

Says it all, really ...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... n-fairness

Now, let's see Osborne do similar.

[Suff]

What reduce taxes on the wealthy to 8.8% for those earning £750k or more and a sliding scale up to 9.9% for those earning £75 million or more???

Of course that is not the whole story is it? Nobody and I do men absolutely NOBODY in America is asking to have the Federal tax raised. Even then the 39.6% federal top rate tax does not come in until nearly half a million dollars. The effective taxation on someone earning around £1m per year would be a federal tax of 2.9.4% plus 8.8% for state taxation in New York. Coming in at 38.2% far lower than the UK tax and way lower than the 50% tax we have just reduced or the 60% tax that Clegg wanted.

I'm sure that if those same new Yorkers were paying 45% they would not be saying a word about "paying more". Although someone earning $100m a year would have to pay virtually 49% on their income. Of course by the time the tax lawyers have had their way that $100m will be down to about $50m before they pay tax.

These millionaires were making a statement in which they could put this money into local infrastructure and businesses. Which, of course, many of them either own or grow their business from, putting a chunk of that money right back into their pockets.

I wonder how many of the $1-2 Millionairse signed up for that one. My guess would be _none_!

You can be damned sure that if they were paying 45%-60% they wouldn't be asking to pay more. They would be moving their business and their residency out of state....

[Workingman]

Why are we comparing apples and pears?

What do US or Eritrean tax systems have to do with us?

[Suff]

I was replying to Ossie's link which "claims" that these US millionaires are more social than we are.....

[Kaz]

I suppose the bottom line is should a country be run for the benefit of its people, along the Scandanavian lines, or should it be run for the benefit of the money men, making fewer and fewer people richer and richer?

When someone as right-wing as IDS resigns because policy is too harsh, then things have gone far too far.

[Workingman]

Kaz, you asked it, and in fewer words than I could have: Bravo!

[Suff]

I suppose the bottom line is should a country be run for the benefit of its people, along the Scandanavian lines, or should it be run for the benefit of the money men, making fewer and fewer people richer and richer?

Don't be quite too sure about the Scandinavian model. It's not quite as "social" as we think it is. Sweden bankrupted themselves in the 90's with their "social model" and the cheque through the door because you didn't meet a "social norm" pretty soon vanished. A Swedish businesswoman brought the government down by writing about how 105% taxes over a certain income bracket was holding back Swedish businesses. The Swedes, after all, do recognise unfairness and not only for those at the bottom of the ladder.

Also Sweden has the fastest growing Neo Nazi political group in the western world and it's been growing for much longer than Greece's Golden Dawn has.

It's very nice to have this view of "social bliss" but it was the Danes who passed the law to strip the immigrants of their valuables to pay for their upkeep until they ran out of money and, only then, would they receive any state benefit. In Norway people take their credit cards to the pub to pay for their drinks due to the extremely high taxation. Norway has the same population as Scotland, has had the full benefit of their north sea oil instead of the 10% Scotland has seen and yet their taxation is still astronomical.

The whole of Scandinavia has about the same population as Southern England and doesn't have to carry another 20 odd million in the rest of the country who are contributing about 30% of the economy.

It's all very well to hold up the "Scandinavian model" as some kind of panacea for a "social" conscience. But the reality is radically different to what is regularly portrayed in this country and the countries are nothing like the UK in structure, social compliance or expectations.

[Suff]

When someone as right-wing as IDS resigns because policy is too harsh, then things have gone far too far.

Interestingly he was constantly attacked for being not right wing enough. It was only after they had torn themselves apart fighting IDS's "social conscience" that they allowed Cameron to take his ideas on.

Maggie would have dumped him in a heartbeat for his "social tendencies". She believed that a good economy and low unemployment was all that was needed to give people the chance to get for themselves and if they could not then the state safety net was exactly that, a safety net. Granted she never really got the unemployed down, but then look at what she inherited. Orsborne's job was a walk in the park compared to the IMF indebted economic mess that Maggie took over.