ChatterBank7 mins ago
Do They Think None Of Us Can Remember Pre 2010?
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://
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.
http://
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.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by New Judge. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//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!
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!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.