Do They Think None Of Us Can Remember Pre 2010?

[New Judge]

Just watching the news. The Labour Party is accusing the Tories of pandering to the rich by suggesting that they are thinking of cutting the top rate of income tax from 45% to 40% (which, incidentally, the Tories deny):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32188499

Mr Balls is suggesting that a cut to 40% would mean a “tax cut of hundreds of thousands of pounds for the very richest in our country”

For all but about a fortnight of Labour’s term in office from 1997 to 2010 the top rate of income tax was 40%. Only a few weeks before they were certain to be booted out of office did they implement the 50% rate for incomes over £150k (which the Coalition reduced to 45%).

If Labour thought 40% was an inadequate rate to tax top earners why did it take them thirteen years to do something about it? The BBC, of course, when covering the issue, "rolled back" only to 2010 and stated that it was the new (Tory led) government that reduced the top rate tax but neglected to mention that it had taken Labour 13 years to introduce it. But that's par for the course.

[tonyav]

Thats the thing with politicians, NJ they always thing that the public must have short memories.

[jno]

because the country's in worse shape than it was in 1990, thanks to international recession?

[ToraToraTora]

it wont pander to the rich, it'll make it fairer for those earning a reasonable salary. Why must people pay a higher percentage at certain thresholds? They already pay more that's how percentages work.

[tonyav]

Typo, thing should be think.

[Svejk]

The BBC is an absolute disgrace. The sooner it's consigned to the dustbin the better.

[Old_Geezer]

They should pay a higher rate because they have managed to grab excessuve wealth for themselves and so should pay it into the kitty for the common good.

Maybe some parties have learnt along the way and despite what they thought years ago now realise how soft they had been.

[ToraToraTora]

£150k is not "rich" OG.

[tonyav]

''Not our plan'', the usual weasel words then.

[Orderlimit]

I'm surprised anybody listens to this shower.

[SirOracle]

TTT .... Maybe not "rich",but a damn site richer than someone on the minimum wage, which is in the region of 10% of £150,000.

[DaisyNonna]

TTT £150,000?
Beyond my wildest dreams

[naomi24]

//They should pay a higher rate because they have managed to grab excessuve wealth for themselves and so should pay it into the kitty for the common good.//

This really annoys me. Most people who earn well haven’t ‘grabbed’ anything and no one has given them anything. They have usually worked damned hard to achieve what they’ve achieved. They already give more for 'the common good' and still they’re expected to give even more. If the lame ducks of society were expected to work that hard for the ‘common good’, they wouldn’t know what had hit them!

[DaisyNonna]

Only if you work in a well paid sector Naomi.
Do lame ducks swim in circles?

[naomi24]

We're talking about well paid sectors, aren't we? - but yes, I think lame ducks do usually swim in circles. That's why they never branch out and remain reliant upon everyone else to support them.

[DaisyNonna]

Ever wondered why the ducks were lame?

[naomi24]

Not really. In most cases it's clear.

[DaisyNonna]

As you know, do enlighten me

[naomi24]

My pleasure. I have no objection to helping people who are unable, for whatever reason, to support themselves – but I do object to those who, although quite capable, refuse to go the extra mile and expect those who've had their running shoes on for years to prop them up.

[icecreamicecream]

To be honest with you,NJ...No party represents me anymore.Unless we can invent a commonsense party.No chance of that happening in poor old benighted old Britain.

[icecreamicecream]

...or create a common sense party..However good luck with finding any one with proper common sense in UK anymore.