[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I wrote a huge response, the forum lost it.

Happy to contribute to balancing books, happy to pay for essential municipal services well in excess of those we actually use, not so happy to pay purely to supply a tax cut to others, that's redistribution of wealth plain and simple.

It's anti-growth as every tax increase is, and like it or not while those who benefit from this cut are the engine they are not going to be the main source of growth. This purely strikes me as compensating lower earners for loss of some other welfare by taking it straight from the pockets of higher rate tax payers, who have consistently been paying more for years anyway as the 40% threshold hasn't come close to keeping pace with inflation so to say it's only right we contribute is disingenuous.

I'm still not convinced it's anti-growth. While low earners may not be the 'engine', they are far more likely to spend the extra income they receive. For many (by no means all) high earners the reduction (which incidentally is £300 rather than £500 as I forgot to take the increased personal allowance into consideration) will simply mean less savings. And I don't think it's disingenuous to say that at all, as I'm simply comparing to last year. We are all facing cuts in real terms. The fact that you've been paying more for longer is neither here nor there.

Far better to deliver this tax cut by reducing spending elsewhere, not by simply shifting the tax burden. The tax burden is already far higher than it was 13 years ago - absolutely no need for it to be.

Ermm, yes. As a country we are facing the most brutal cuts in public spending for generations. It seems a bit silly (or rather egotistical) to me to simply suggest more cuts as the magic bullet. We are all in this together, and the cuts were going to be brutal but fair.

As a reminder I thought my receiving CB was ridiculous anyway, which it is.

36.865% of my income goes to the tax man, I don't see it. This ignoring all indirect taxes. How much is enough?

I don't know. All I'm saying is that we should all share some of the pain and contributing an additional £300 isn't the end of the world, and it's certainly not anti-growth when it pays for putting money in the pockets of people that, on average, are more likely to spend it.

Lastly I'm apparently, despite my income slightly below the average person's wealth, and for the pleasure of living where I do in a 2 bedroom maisonette I pay 1,360 / month.

Of course none of this is taken into account and I'm clearly super-rich and worth wringing some cash out of.

I've never stated you are super-rich, and I appreciate that money may be tight even on a high salary. I'm a bit puzzled about the housing comment though. Being the Libertarian that you are, you presumably have a choice in where you live (and work)? I seem to recall you extolling the virtues of renting a home rather than being one on account of your flexibility on the job market not too long ago?

Oh, I appreciate that you copied the thread title from the Telegraph, but don't you think 'LIBCON Middle Class Tax Squeeze' would be more appropriate? The tax cut may be the result of a LibDem manifesto pledge, but at the end of the day, it's a coalition measure.