That and the VAT increase has a higher affect on the poorer people.
The point is that this isn't suprising, it's what the tories do all the time, they just denied it when they made the budget.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Aug 2010, 9:42, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

Well, if they don't cut benefits and increase VAT
What would you recommend them to do? Clearly, anything that the goverment does (torys or labours) to spend less money and collect more, is going to affect the poor people more. Rich people don't claim benefits, and usually have their money in banks where they don't need to pay high taxes.

To be fair here, I find it terribly unfair that I have to pay 40% (that's almost half of my salary) on taxes. I think it's a very high number and you don't realise how much it is because you've never seen anything else. So 40% of my very hard earned money goes to politicians; I think very little of it goes to pay benefits that are really deserved, I think most of my money gets wasted in stupid things. Do you think that number should be bigger? Really?
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 25 Aug 2010, 9:49, Reply)

If they spent 9 months closing tax loopholes
or even creating a law to say that taxation law is not there to be picked apart but to be followed not just by the letter but by the spirit in which it was written.
Secondly they should look at inefficiencies in government departments and waste. Benefit fraud is pretty similat in terms of total cost to internal failures in overpayments/payments to the wrong banks etc. They should sort that out.
Both those things would have no effect on 90% of the population but save billions, the problem is... they're hard, very difficult and very time consuming, the governments (both sides) are more likely to ignore them or "scrap the entire system" rather than tackle those problems.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Aug 2010, 9:56, Reply)

Oh and you're not taxed 40% of your salary, you really aren't
you're taxed 40% over a certain level, first £6k not at all then at the base rate to another level and the 40% on everything you earn over £37,400
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Aug 2010, 9:58, Reply)

Yes, I agree with you there
I wasn't considering all those things because, somehow, it seems they aren't part of the ecuation.

However, reducing wast and inefficiencis in government will mean make a lot, a lot of people redundant; which means a lot of money to be paid to those people, as civil servents are above everyone else.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 25 Aug 2010, 10:13, Reply)

You can't justify employing people who aren't doing anything.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Aug 2010, 10:15, Reply)

OK
I completely agree with you, but before making them redundant, which should definetely happen, they need to change the law so they don't get paid massive amounts of money; because if they don't it's more expensive for us to fire them than keep them doing nothing.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 25 Aug 2010, 10:19, Reply)