“I think the government should be ensuring that families that earn less and get nothing aren’t subsidising families that get more. As has been pointed out, there are other benefits/breaks that are calculated in that way; why is this different?”
People with less money are not subsidising those with more money – at least in terms taxpayers using PAYE. People on higher salaries are already paying for their own and others child benefits. They are in fact (Correctly IMHO) subsidising low earners.
Anyone paying using PAYE and many small business’s, sole traders are however subsiding organisations that fail to pay reasonable levels of corporate taxation and the super rich who are both avoiding tax to a huge and highly immoral extent.
“you’ve not really grasped how the state is funded have you, or what the tax is/ should be used for.”
I do, but your grasp seems tenuous.
“But it does highlight one thing, above the 40% threshold, comparing gross salaries is massively deceptive ( – until you get up towards 6 figure, perhaps?…) 50k sounds a hell of a lot if you are on 30k, but the difference is a lot less than the gross figures suggest – and not just from the net income, but also from loss of access to other state provision etc”
From my perspective, bang on with statement RKK01.
“Overall, its hitting a fairly small number of people, and being honest, are these people swing voters? has GO got to worry about them deserting the party? I would suggest that people in this financial position have probably got more to lose by Labour getting back in, so perhaps its actually quite a ‘save’ move?”
It hits me and I have never voted Conservative in my life and never will. TBH Labour are not socialist enough.
It is one thing removing a benefit or increasing a tax for the right reason – to improve the situation for society in general and those with very little , it is another to do it because it is opportune as the Conservatives have.
