English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

A Labour Chancellor abolishes a tax band that mainly assists the lower earners, and reduces a rate that puts more money in the pockets of the better off.
£15,000 pa = £62 pa more tax,
£30,000 pa = £250 pa less tax.
Nice one, mate.
The man is an absolute menace. Wake up, Gordon, smell the rebellion!

P.S. I am one who benefits.

2007-03-23 22:27:45 · 5 answers · asked by lulu 6 in Politics & Government Politics

5 answers

I used to be a tax adviser in the UK, until I moved to live in the USA. This is the first chance I've had to catch up with the Budget (it's tax season over here and very busy).

There is a whole lot more to this than just this issue, although you have highlighted a very real one. What it does is catch the single person trying to earn a living wage - perhaps someone with a high school education or a couple of years in college - the sort of person that doesn't qualify for a lot of tax credits because they don't have a family. What this does is force those people to spend their money just so they can live, when they should be saving what they can. It might also encourage some to get involved in unstable relationships because they see friends who are in such relationships and who have more money than they do. Where is the sense in that?

They have also punished small companies who legitimately incorporate, simply because others choose to abuse the tax system. Incorporation should be more about protecting assets than it should be about taxation. if someone has a commercial need to incorporate (like a shop-owner for instance) why should they be penalized because of those who are really employees working in an office or workshop who incorporate to save the employer and employee some cash? There are already rules on the books and enforcement mechanisms to deal with that. Indeed there were such things long before we had this mishmash of rules to deal with personal service companies. I know, I used to enforce them in my time as a PAYE auditor for the good old Inland Revenue.

The Budget has been presented as a good thing. It is not. It is socialism that is worse than anything Harold Wilson's governments ever put together. Remember what the cure was for that?

2007-03-24 02:32:45 · answer #1 · answered by skip 6 · 0 1

It is a deliberate ploy used by Labour in the final throws of leadership - they did the same thing last time they got booted out of power - then blamed the Tories for the mess.

Gordon Brown is a con man - he has created a black hole of debt and is now trying to recoup the money by way of hidden taxation - just the same as last Labour government -

Watch out - when the Tories get in power they will have a lot of mess to clear up form Brown and Blair's days in charge.

2007-03-24 05:37:57 · answer #2 · answered by jamand 7 · 1 1

The 75pence a week rise oap pension wonder has struck again .Brain dead moron Brown Does he think we are all as daft as him .He quotes everything for 2010.I thought the budget was for 2007 .And if you work out his quotes in 2010 they amount to no better than in the past He has also give the Tories a free bus pass to the next victory at election time Bye bye Brown thank you for doing us all a favour first one for years better than his budget.Blair and Brown went to Town the Tories pulled their trousers down .And exposed them for what they really are a right pair of Dicks

2007-03-24 09:25:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Anyone with half a brain can see that the budget is a complete suicide attempt by Brown, which by definition excludes anyone currently in the cabinet.
My personal fave was that he increased duty on wine, but not on Scotch.
Coincidence?

2007-03-24 05:34:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Gordan Brown is top go for the top job mate prime minister!

2007-03-24 08:31:27 · answer #5 · answered by Delboy 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers