[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I have my doubts that most higher earners are saving - zero incentive to right now, they are investing. There's less money for them to invest with.

Well, we are simply using any surplus we have to pay off the mortgage early. If we earn more, we are unlikely to spend or invest it. It simply goes into the house. It might go into an ISA with a view to increasing interest rates in the future, but we're unlikely to invest.

No idea of the net impact of the policy as a whole, but taxing one income group to supply tax cuts to the other, regardless of which direction up the income scale, is wrong.

Ok, that's something that we can agree to disagree on, but it's rather different from the measure being anti-growth, which clearly is debatable.

After the most sustained increase in spending for generations. More cuts are absolutely the way things should go, many other things that should be chopped to reduce the state further in size. Even post-cut 40% of national income is too large.

It's not the end of the world, of course not, but it's another tax increase on a pile of them over the last 14 years that there's absolutely no need for.

Maybe, but there still is the issue of the speed of cuts, and the extent to which they are borne by the population as a whole. I still think it's right that higher earners contribute. Seeing they will feel the pinch of the cuts less than low earners, I have no problem with this move.

All tax increases are anti-growth, whether the increase in consumption from those less well off offsets it or not I do not know, we'll see.

Indeed we'll see. But, as we've established, it's an increase that pays for a decrease, so it's debatable if we should call it an increase.

Of course I chose to live here, however my point was that income and essential expenditure can be quite related. I am paid more because it is more expensive to live in this part of the country, so while my income is higher my outgoings are likewise higher.

I have little flexibility right now actually for family reasons, can't move too far

Yes, I understand that. I also said earlier, that I appreciate that money can be tight even on a high salary.

You are absolutely right there. This is the action of both the Lib Dems and their pretend Conservative coalition partners.

Yeah, I blame the Telegraph there. It reeks of smear to single out the LibDems for this. I don't see them harping on about the Tories increasing tuiton fees.

FYI I would actually have absolutely no issue with the government running up deficits if they were incurred through cutting taxes along with services in order to balance the economy back to its historical footings, and I remain utterly convinced that the deficit should be wiped out through 100% cuts not 80% cuts 20% tax increases.

These cuts are poorly thought out, which is frustrating as hell. They could be done so much better and cause far less grief for people even if they were 25% larger, but that would require competent government along with a civil service that serves only the populace rather than itself and it's been a while since we had either of those.

Hmm, I think it's well established that we have different viewpoints on what the role of the state should and should not be, and whether historical footing is an appropriate benchmark. Something for a different thread I think