thewanderer
Well-known member
This has been true for years. If we want European/Scandinavian quality public services then you have to pay for it.
that’s how the tax system has worked regardless of government , it’s a % based tax unless you choose to fundamentally change the way tax js calculated . The higher earner has paid more tax but i guess it just doesn’t seem as big a physical £ jump as their jump in salary. You do have to balance that there will highly likely be a reason that a person earns 50knover the average , more accountability , responsibility , risk etc so it’s not truly fair just to start whacking loads off them just because they earn more . Will they also get a reduction on accountability etc? I’m not trying to defend by any means just to highlight that’s how the tax system has worked for decadesIt is the Tory way with taxes. They cut the rate of tax to give the top earners more money than low earners and now aren't going to raise the threshold to take proportionally more money off the poor.
If you add 1p to the Basic Tax rate someone on £50k+ would pay £375 more. An average earner on £26k would pay £132 more.
If you reduced the Personal Allowance from £12,750 to £12,090 both the highest earners & average earners pay £132 more.
We are all in it together.
Furlow has to be paid for somehow guys
Hopefully that's the case.I think the furlough fraud is being called out Randy with no attempt by the treasury to recover it.
Not sure it does show that, government debt was entirely manageable under labour until the sub-prime crash. 97-08 the debt increase was negligible and in real terms almost non-existent, while we got the best GDP growth on record for the UK AND high levels of public service investment and performance. That negligible debt increase was very much worth it. I'm sure had labour stayed in power it would have stayed manageable.The graph shows to me Government debts have been rising well above inflation under both Labour and Tories since 1997.