WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

ISA's and tax 'avoidance' were being compared. Evasion is the criminal refusal to pay taxes due. Avoidance is organising finances legally so that as little tax as possible is paid. Bank accounts that deduct tax at source yes, are taxing savings on which tax has already been paid. Now if we're getting into immorality....

Chil1234 I actually agree with you on something. I think it is right that successful and rich people should advise the government (as well). I would prefer though self-made hard-working billionaires as opposed to someone inheriting a large offshore trust fund and never having a proper job in their life.

@ISNT... Back in 2008/9 the welfare bill cost £150.1bn. The revenue that year from income tax was £152.5bn. The following year 2009/10 the treasury got £140.5bn from income tax and spent £164.7bn on welfare payments. It's not a 'small part of the UKs expenditure'

The welfare budget (excluding the state pension) is £87 billion a year so its not a small part of expenditure.

It's not a question of 'a good kicking' but everyone knows that if you're poor you are vulnerable. Bread goes up 10p a loaf and the poor are going to suffer proportionally more than the rich, even if their income from benefits or top-ups stays exactly the same.

Welfare payments are a very small part of the UKs expenditure. A very very small part. Deliberately targeting the very poorest in society is standard tory policy, ideological.

Pallette is right it is nigh on impossible to cut public spending and not hurt the poorest the most as they are far more reliant on the state than those on higher incomes as they don't need/want or aren't entitled to certain Government provisions.

So giving the poor a good kicking will teach them an excellent moral lesson?

I've said it before... but if we don't all fundamentally understand that wealth provides cushioning and security against the slings and arrows of economic cycles... then no-one would play the lottery. We can't guarantee that crap never happens to us but we know that if we have a few bob around, it'll hurt a lot, lot less.

Everyone in the country will be scathed in one form or the other but some will come out of the public spending reductions in worse shape than others. The poorest will probably be the most affected but I don't see how you can make public spending cuts and not hurt the poorest the most as they are most dependent on the state and public services.

good point, well made.

On the other hand, I don't think this will put many of them in financial peril.

The Coalition cabinet, like a lot of other people in the public sector, may not be in their current job after the next election.

How exactly will any of the members of the Coalition Cabinet be scathed?

I don't envy Osborne's job either, but I really wish somebody who gave the impression of having a clue was doing it.

'All in this together' is something of a hackneyed phrase. But it is going to be true that - even though the net effect will vary from person to person - there will be very few that emerge totally unscathed. Trying to spread the pain around when you've got the blunt instruments of 'tax rises' on the one hand and 'spending cuts' on the other is an inaccurate science, at best. And for all his 'advantages' I don't envy Osborne's job one iota.

"So we should only ever allow someone to run for office if they've lived rough or on benefits?'

No, but if they honestly think "We are all in this together" when it comes to cuts to public services and can't see the difference between themselves and somebody who hasn't had their advantages, they really are far too stupid to be in office.

And not even their cronies, themselves.

I will eat my hat if the tories do anything about closing the legal loopholes which allow their cronies to save £millions in taxes.

"We are not 'ALL IN IT TOGETHER' because George Osborne will never have to decide which member of his family really needs a winter coat, or do without proper food himself so that his children can eat, or worry about turning on the heating"

So we should only ever allow someone to run for office if they've lived rough or on benefits?

I don't have any problem with people who engage in tax avoidance as someone who owns ISAs. Similarily I don't mind people who claim benefits provided it isn't benefit fraud. You can't blame anyone for wanting to exploit a system to their own advantage (provided it is legal).

I would go along with the idea that people will always try to avoid tax whether that is through ISA's or offshore tax havens.

However, equally, I don't think George Osborne, (avoiding tax, benefiting from the cushion provided by his family wealth), is in any way morally superior to somebody who maximises their benefit claims and benefits from the (much smaller) cushion provided by the state.

We are not 'ALL IN IT TOGETHER' because George Osborne will never have to decide which member of his family really needs a winter coat, or do without proper food himself so that his children can eat, or worry about turning on the heating.

I also think that the reason that some people become incredibly rich is because money attracts money, and the more power you have, the more able you are to funnel all the money towards yourself. They aren't actually that much better at managing the small change than anybody else. I say this having worked in finance departments in a variety of industries, and seen what goes through expenses.

"I don't actually believe you can't see the difference."

Of course I can see the difference. The opportunities to pay less tax are significantly lower for the average Joe than they are for a billionaire. But I still come back to the point that if the law is structured (intentionally or unintentionally) so that a billionaire's very expensive tax-advising team can find chinks in the rules that allow savings to be made then it was badly written.

And I'd quite like that billionaire advising the government, actually. Along with other successful business people who work in the real world & understand how to squeeze the pips out of every penny of expenditure. We can all see why it's a stupid idea to pay £2000 for a laptop for one government department and £400 for and identical one in another. Why can't the people heading up those departments?

Beaware - setting up and running offshore companies is not difficult at all, just relatively expensive. You do need to comply with local laws which means that not every business can register offshore.

Chil1234 It is very different to "legally invest in a tax-free cash ISA" from bringing in laws where other must less well off people have to pay more than fair share of tax, while the legislators (in this case of Mr Osborne) protect their own minority interest. It is hypocrisy at best.