to not understand why the government couldn't just raise income tax?

[emkana]

I guess that wouldn't help with all the savings that had to be made (or so we're told), but why no tax rise at all?

German newspapers very critical of measures btw, saying it will kill the already ailing British economy.

Is Goodgollymissmolly also the OP (mollymole)?

Or is it just a coincidence that they both spout hateful ignorant drivel?

I agree with others re raising income tax being a fairer way to do things. DH pays higher rate income tax as it is. But nowhere near £184000 (if only ). Yes he works hard, but I don't think that he actually works harder than someone teaching, nursing, policing, putting out fires, cleaning, or any other employment necessary to keep the nation going.

Raising income tax severely disincentivises top paying public sector jobs like doctors, judges, etc. It's not as simple as saying we need to raise income tax - the proposal to create a super tax band would drive all the very wealthy out of the country, raising basic hurts everyone so it will never be popular, raising the highest band's rate results in 4 day GPs who are (rightly) paid very well but their salary is often fixed by the govt who then tax them out of any benefit.

Can't really win. The fairest thing would be to raise it by say, 1%, across the board but no-one will like that!

Me and DH are just above the 40% threshold and with 4 children and the loss of child benefit, rising childcare costs, rise in tax (June budget), loss of pension relief etc
we are set to loose hundreds, yes hundreds of pounds a month.

No we won't be starving to death but it certainly makes you reconsider your choices and priorities in life, especially when doing the sums you work out that you would be better off working part time and going below the 40% threshold. Where's the incentive to work??

My heart is with the hundreds of families who are being plunged into poverty as I was once that child and I know how it feels - and nobody, nobody can ever erase that feeling from you, even if you become rich as an adult.

So I don't know what the answer is. But as usual the only people truly unscathed by all this situation are people who are superwealthy, lucky them.

Raising income tax is not the solution. You can raise as much money as you like but when you are pouring it into a blackhole, no amount is going to fix it!

There are people on benefits who genuinely need them. I have no problem with them. There are also people on benefits who COULD work but choose not to.

I don't believe that anyone on benefits should be better off than someone who works. If they are, where is the incentive to work?? If we got more people into work, we wouldn't need to raise taxes as there would be less people on benefits and more tax being paid. I think it is unfair to always target the people who work regardless of their income. Most tax rises hit those on low/middle incomes as well as higher incomes.

We need to look at the waste that there currently is in the system and getting people into work. For those who can work but don't want to, perhaps we should look at linking benefits to work. I can think of loads of 'jobs' that could be done by people on benefits because they can't find work (not talking about disabled, single parents etc. more healthy individuals without jobs). Clearing river banks & picking up litter in the streets might not be their 'choice' of jobs but given the choice of doing that, finding a real job or getting no benefits, I think we would see a change.

Clearing river banks and picking up litter is a job already done by council employees.
If we followed your plan it would result in more job losses.

Yes there is waste in the system, that waste is in the form of too many layers of beauracracy hence the need to lose 500,000 jobs. If they get it right losing those jobs won't necessarily mean the loss of services.

Is anyone able to tell me how many jobs we currently have available in the private sector?

I agree with the cuts, I don't think income tax hikes will work. What's the point of creating more revenue if we are still haemorraging money through the deficit?

My household income has dropped massively, I've gone from being a higher rate tax payer with a household income of over 90k to having an income of 14k through redundancy.

Its been utterly shite but its a recession nd the economy is fucked, I firmly believe we need someone to make the unpopular choices to get the economy back on track.
Don't forget that labour were going to make cuts if they had stayed in power.
I feel for the public sector workers losing their jobs, but, I see no difference between them and a private sector worker losing their job.
There are no longer jobs for life, we all have to accept that employment is far more transient now and will be for ome time.

I do understand that, Pootle. But where are the jobs that are going to pay enough for anyone to live on without top ups from the government?

Oh, and just ignore the troll, emkana.

Expat - what inome do you think a typical famiy needs to live without topups?

Expat, your version of British colonialism is inaccurate. I think you are muddling us up with the Belgians. Wilberforce had abolished slavery a good fifty years before Britain carved up Africa. British slave trading was long over.

I wasn't suggesting that their is no waste. I've already said, where there is waste, it needs to be addressed. I just don't believe that these cuts are based on waste.

Of course increased taxes would hit those on low and middle incomes too, but it's naive to think the cuts aren't going to disproportionately affect those on the lowest wages. The institute for fiscal studies has already stated this.

The argument always seems to fall back on the notion that all the rich people will leave. I think it was ISNT who argued very effectively against this point a few weeks ago. Why is it always assumed that those who are doing well are selfish, self serving twats who refuse to join in with the 'we're all in this together' mantra. We're not talking about forever here, after all.

No problem with top ups from the government. My concern is with those who don't want to do anything for their benefits (but could if they wanted to).

I know there are already people clearing river banks etc but they could use some help! I'm not saying cut any of these jobs but asking people to 'earn' their benefits by putting something back into the community.

Why raise income tax when the problem is spending?

Tax payers were raided by Labour for 13 years, so its good that they now have someone in power who looks after their interests.

The ConDems are exactly what this country needs, for a variety of reasons.

There will be a period of readjustment, where some will feel the sharp removal of Labours unaffordable vote buying generosity, then its business as usual.

Feel free to get the poison off your chests though. Tories are c**ts etc etc.

You cannot endlessly raise taxes, emkana.

There comes a point when people who work hard and earn a lot of money no longer see the point in working so hard if they don't themselves enjoy the fruits of their labour.

Why should we raise taxes to pay for people to do non-jobs in the public sector.

We do it now anyway. At least this way we will get something for our money from those on benefits!

'Wilberforce had abolished slavery a good fifty years before Britain carved up Africa. British slave trading was long over.'

That's funny, abride, because the Brits were bringing them into the US when it was still a colony. The Caribbean, too.

Who was working their plantations in Jamaica?

So sorry, but not inaccurate at all.

They, and Europe, went in there and raided it.

Go to the British Museum. It's full of stuff they stole from other places.

ccpccp, it's funny that the tories didn't think spending was the problem, ooh, right up until the banking crisis. Their opinion back then was that they were committed to Labour's spending plans.

The fact is, tax receipts have nose dived since the recession, so yes, increasing taxes is an option.

Georgie Boy did stick 2.5% on VAT by the way, so it seems that even tories believe increasing some taxes is fair. The truth is, they want these cuts, it suits their ideology.

Expat - the abolition of slavery act was 1833; well after the US ceased to be a colony, but only right at the start of the Scramble for Africa; so you are both right. Slave trading was abolished by the time the Brits/Europeans carved up Africa in the late 1800s; it was also abolished on the British caribbean sugar plantations by 1840.

The British Museum is indeed full of stuff Britain raided from other places, for hundreds of years, but that's not really related to when slavery was abolished....

maybe the gov should just refuse to pay the money back?

They should raise the 40% and 50% rates of tax, by 2p and 4p respectively, but for a fixed time, 4 years? Then they can go more slowly on cuts, assessing the effect on the economy as they go.

but it wont be fixed once implemented it wont ever go back down.

whats the problem with so many public sector jobs anyway? they keep people in work and run our services?

The richest 10% of the UK possess in excess of £4,000 billion.

The lower half - 50% - of the nation possess less than 9% of the wealth. The lowest 10% possess the least of all.

Corporation tax is the lowest in Europe, and it is actually going to be reduced!!!

The levy on the banks is barely equivalent to the amount cut in child benefit.

The Future Jobs Fund axed - helping long-term unemployed youth to find work.
Classroom assistants - reduced.
Surestart - skeletal service
Library services - but the wealthy will still be able to access books by buying them: hooray!
Bus services - cut: so the elderly and those without cars will not be able to access services or cheaper food. Yay!

16% cut in the BBC - which presently gives us everything it does for 40p a day. Great.

I like these comments of "some will feel the pain" - so that's okay then, is it?

Comments about benefit fraud - 1% of benefit claimants commit fraud and most of it is on the peanuts scale of getting a bit of cash in hand. Several billions are lost through government error in both the benefits office and in the tax office. But the 99% who need the benefits are going to be penalised. because this is a CSR which is ideological and out to punish people for being poor: let's take away housing benefit, incapacity benefit, child benefit, unemployment benefits, reduce our bus services, library services, Connexions career services - all of which hits the disadvantaged and lower-income members of society. And let's put another million or so on the unemployment register and then a) tell them to find a non-existent job (which the 2 million already out of work are looking for), and b) tell the ones who are still working, that they'll have to work harder to make up for those who are no longer alongside them. This in the country with the longest working hours and greatest amount of clinical stress.

So yes, more taxes please. I would rather pay to help the whole of society and have less in my own pocket.

I'd like to see an additional band of tax added to Stamp Duty. I don't know the facts and figures involved, but surely creating a 5% band on houses sold for over £1million will generate extra for HMRC?

The current top band is 4% for any property over £500,000, so an extra 1% on properties over £1million would be fair. Let's be honest, if you can afford a house over 31million you aren't going to care about an additional 1% in tax.

"31million" should "£1million". Darn shift key!

I'm puzzled by all these posts.

The country were given a democratic choice and they voted againbst tax rises and for spending cuts.