Today's most viewed
| THIS LIFE - SPECIAL REPORTS |  | | | | | COMPETITION - WIN YOUR DAD A FATHER'S DAY TO REMEMBER AT VENTURE, WORCESTER | | | | LATEST | | | | | | | | | RESTAURANT REVIEWS | | | | | | RECIPES | | | | | | Click here for past polls
|
|
|
|
We’ll all be worse off come April 6
SIR - People have forgotten that because of changes made to the tax system from April 6, anyone earning less than £18,000 will be paying significantly more income tax and anyone earning more than £40,000 which, of course, includes our MPs, will be paying £445 less income tax.
However, adding these changes to the increases on alcohol, costs of licensing cars, taxing plastic bags and so on, I feel sorry for the huge majority of us (unless you earn more than £100,000 a year) as we will all be worse off.
Congratulations to a Labour' Government.
I can hear Mike Foster saying this is a budget for the working classes and pensioners which it most certainly is not.
MARK STARR,
Leigh Sinton
7:57am Monday 24th March 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: carolfarrell, Worcestershire on 9:39am Mon 24 Mar 08
The working class 'earn' their wages. The upper class, politicians and pop stars 'receive' their excessive wages.
Illegal immigrants and scroungers are given 'entitlements and benefit' and the pensioners are handed a pittance!
The working class 'earn' their wages. The upper class, politicians and pop stars 'receive' their excessive wages.
Illegal immigrants and scroungers are given 'entitlements and benefit' and the pensioners are handed a pittance!
Posted by: Helen Donovan, Evesham on 9:44am Mon 24 Mar 08
Anyone working part time (ie mainly part time, low paid women) will now not benefit from the old 10% tax allowance, previously allowed on the amount over that of the personal allowance, as the govt in their wisdom have scrapped it. This is to subsidise the previous 22% tax payers having their rate cut to 20%.
Gee thanks Gordon and co! Where's the fairness in that then?
Anyone working part time (ie mainly part time, low paid women) will now not benefit from the old 10% tax allowance, previously allowed on the amount over that of the personal allowance, as the govt in their wisdom have scrapped it. This is to subsidise the previous 22% tax payers having their rate cut to 20%.
Gee thanks Gordon and co! Where's the fairness in that then?
Posted by: varien, worcester on 5:28pm Mon 24 Mar 08
Message to Michael Foster - [bold]PLEASE EXPLAIN[/bold]
Message to Michael Foster -
PLEASE EXPLAIN Posted by: Alan2, Worcester on 7:21pm Mon 24 Mar 08
Varien, I had the temerity to call one of his comments "silly" on one occasion. He was obviously looking for an excuse to opt out of these posts so he "seized" on the word "silly" and we have seen sight nor sound of him since.
When he comes knocking at my door in the future, I will introduce his good friend Alan2 and ask him why he did not respond to our requests for a response to these blogs.
Varien, I had the temerity to call one of his comments "silly" on one occasion. He was obviously looking for an excuse to opt out of these posts so he "seized" on the word "silly" and we have seen sight nor sound of him since.
When he comes knocking at my door in the future, I will introduce his good friend Alan2 and ask him why he did not respond to our requests for a response to these blogs.
Posted by: Alan2, Worcester on 8:52pm Mon 24 Mar 08
This "muck up" with the tax situation was announced at the Interim Spending Review.
The anomoly where the worst off were going to be worse off still, was headlined in almost every newspaper the following day and the general feeling was, that a mistake had been made which would be righted in the Budget.
However, in the days leading up to the Budget, the papers were full of how the "middle earners" or "middle England" had been well and truly clobbered by Brown and demanding that the position for them be relaxed.
What Darling did in the Budget, certainly removed the feeling that a "mistake" had been made with the tax situation because he did precisely nothing about it, neither did he make any mentioned, extra provision for "middle earners".
As Helen says, the opportunity was taken to "subsidise" those in the next tax bracket up.
We must conclude therefore that no mistake was made in removing the 10% band WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LOW EARNERS WERE AS A RESULT - they knew perfectly well what the consequences would be for the low paid.
It was quite clearly, deliberate policy where a New Labour Government stung the low paid. They must have a death wish.
This "muck up" with the tax situation was announced at the Interim Spending Review.
The anomoly where the worst off were going to be worse off still, was headlined in almost every newspaper the following day and the general feeling was, that a mistake had been made which would be righted in the Budget.
However, in the days leading up to the Budget, the papers were full of how the "middle earners" or "middle England" had been well and truly clobbered by Brown and demanding that the position for them be relaxed.
What Darling did in the Budget, certainly removed the feeling that a "mistake" had been made with the tax situation because he did precisely nothing about it, neither did he make any mentioned, extra provision for "middle earners".
As Helen says, the opportunity was taken to "subsidise" those in the next tax bracket up.
We must conclude therefore that no mistake was made in removing the 10% band WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LOW EARNERS WERE AS A RESULT - they knew perfectly well what the consequences would be for the low paid.
It was quite clearly, deliberate policy where a New Labour Government stung the low paid. They must have a death wish.
Posted by: Helen Donovan, Evesham on 10:13pm Mon 24 Mar 08
According to press details, the Treasury will gain £7.3 billion from scrapping the 10% band, mainly from part time workers, whilst cutting the 22% rate to 20% will "cost" them £8 billion (hence taking from the lowest paid workers to subsidise the 20% taxpayers).
According to press details, the Treasury will gain £7.3 billion from scrapping the 10% band, mainly from part time workers, whilst cutting the 22% rate to 20% will "cost" them £8 billion (hence taking from the lowest paid workers to subsidise the 20% taxpayers).
Posted by: Helen Donovan, Evesham on 7:27am Tue 25 Mar 08
This explains it very well.
http://www.thisismon
ey.co.uk/tax-advice/
article.html?in_arti
cle_id=432672&in_pag
e_id=11
This explains it very well.
http://www.thisismon
ey.co.uk/tax-advice/
article.html?in_arti
cle_id=432672&in_pag
e_id=11
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
