Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
I was referring to other things as well as this but excluding anything based on consumption.
|
Could you give us a rundown of what you included then?
You mentioned child benefits and 'shufflling money around'. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the eligibility of higher earners for child benefits. You also mention making it worthwhile for people to work, and this move being anti-growth. What you don't mention (but what is in the linked article) is that this bracket change is meant to pay for reducing the tax burden for low earners by increasing the personal allowance by £1,000, thus putting £200 in the pockets of everyone except those who are affected by the lowering of the 40% threshold. So how exactly is this anti-growth, and how does it disencentivise working, when it is meant to pay for lowering the tax burden (and increasing the income) of low income workers?
Sorry, but it just sounds like you are having a moan because you are personally affected. You are very vocal on these forums about needing to balance the books. Why the apparent hesitance to contribute? The reality is that the cuts in public services are going to disproportionately affect those on lower incomes. I think it's only right that those on higher incomes contribute.