Today the Institute for Fiscal Studies published an analysis of the likely impact of the tax and benefit changes due in April, with a complicated and mixed picture summarised by its balanced headline: Rich to lose most from new measures in April, as 750,000 brought into higher rate tax.
The media coverage however has been to latch onto the second half of that headline and bury the first part a long way down the story. Take The Independent, with its headline Teachers and nurses dragged into top-rate bracket. It goes on to point out how some tube drivers also will end up top rate tax payers (which myself I think raises rather at least as many questions about the level of pay for tube drivers as it does about where the top rate comes in).
That is one notch of journalistic quality above The Guardian story which doesn’t mention the rich to lose most at all. I mean, it’s not as if The Guardian ever takes an interest in how the rich and poor are affected relative to each other is it…?
Of the mainstream news outlets I’ve checked at the time of writing, it is only the Financial Times which leads with the rich to lose most, which may be something to do with the background of their typical reader…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Remembering Liz Truss and her dogs that barked at drones
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
61 Comments
Does this take into account public services?
“more to pay higher tax”
Good !
More of my income will now be taxed at the higher rate, but only because I have a relatively well paid job. I have stated before on this site that I would prefer to add a penny on both higher rates then to have raised VAT (or to have mitigated the rise). That’s not because I believe in higher taxes simply because I believe that taxation on earnings is the fairest system and that higher earners need to contribute more at this time.
If Tube drivers and teachers / nurses end up paying the higher rate it is because they are earning a reasonable wage. This and the raising of the threshold are the best things to come out of the coalition to date.
But there is bad here too such as the change to CPI from RPI for benefits.
In pure journalistic terms it isn’t really newsworthy as far as most papers are concerned to headline ‘Rich to Pay More’ because most people would be surprised if that wasn’t the case and I include the rich in that. Headlines are about sellings newspapers – not about balance.
I am also surprised that you seem to be advocating that newspapers should have used the ‘balanced’ IFS headline – Rich to lose most from new measures in April, as 750,000 brought into higher rate tax.
In space terms that headline would be ludicrous for a broadsheet so where does it put it as far as a tabloid is concerned. Off the top of my head I would go for: TAX HIKE SHOCK – So everyone would buy the paper to see if they were hit but then I used to earn my living as a journaliust and was very good at my job.
I really find your particular slur on tube drivers as quite disgraceful – why don’t you question whether teachers or nurses are worthy of their pay? Why save that solely for tube drivers?
I really think it is very unworthy of you Mark and it would be a mark of you as a person if you delete the remark – we all make mistakes and on reflection I’m sure you will agree you have made one here.
Do you actually know the weight of responsibility that tube drivers carry with the number of passengers they carry squeezed into tubes?
Rich to pay more! This sort of thing would never be allowed under Labour.
The more interesting question here is about income inequality. As a % how many people are actually in the brackets affected? That is the story here. That and how far the so-called boomer generation has housing wealth skewed in a system that taxes income rather than assets.
I also have to say Mr Pack, the comment about tube drivers is a bit low. They might be an unlovely bunch, but I don’t think that judging like that is very nice either.
Have just read the pdf and see that on top of the 750k being added this year to the higher tax bracket that there will be a further 850k by 2014-15 if the £10k allowance goes ahead.
As to the London tube driver’s wage it appears they get £40k for a 35-hour-week according to the DT which as we know never exaggerates. The 40 per cent rate kicks in at £37,401 but obviously there’s a £6400 personal allowance to be taken into account so a driver has got to be doing O/T to pay higher rate.
They do of course work at weekends, Bank Holidays and unsocial hours – I reckon they should be paid more!
Osborne hits hardest at those who can least afford it. It’s because he hates the poor.
Apart from the wealthiest 2 per cent, the IFS later calculated that low-income households of working age would lose the most because of the cuts to welfare spending.
EcoJon
“They do of course work at weekends, Bank Holidays and unsocial hours – I reckon they should be paid more!”
Would it be fair to say that you think that everyone should be paid above average wages?
I wonder if those 750,000 will then be happy when they find that their child benefit is stopped next year because they have been pushed into the top tax bracket. A double whammy for them I presume?
“I wonder if those 750,000 will then be happy when they find that their child benefit is stopped next year because they have been pushed into the top tax bracket. A double whammy for them I presume?”
Now that I don’t agree with as it’s lazy implementation and should be based upon household income and hits single wage families disproportionately. But the concept of higher earners paying more tax is to be welcomed.
@ Eco-Jon
“They do of course work at weekends, Bank Holidays and unsocial hours ….!”
Unlike our Deputy PM who only works part-time for a full-time salary.
A leaked memo from Nick Clegg’s office to the Sunday Telegraph reveals that the Deputy Prime Minister’s ministerial box closes at 3pm Monday to Thursday and at noon on Friday, so that he can see more of his family.
BB, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story eh!
@BB
What do you think all that “Alarm Clock” guff was for BB ? To remind him when it’s 3pm of course.
It certainly wasn’t because it was a well thought out piece of public relations policy wonk nonsense.
@Chris Jenkinson
Posted 31st January 2011 at 9:43 pm
Are you saying that the Telegraph has got it in for Clegg then? I wonder why Clegg’s office felt they had to respond if the story was not true.
@ I see no Iceberg
“What do you think all that “Alarm Clock” guff was for BB ? To remind him when it’s 3pm of course.
It certainly wasn’t because it was a well thought out piece of public relations policy wonk nonsense.”
Lol!
Going slightly off topic. The woman who has cleaned the public toilets in my area for twenty years is being made redundant. The youth club which my friends disabled son attends is closing. I admire the Liberal Democrats for helping to make these tough choices and that you are supporting Eric Pickles in cutting out waste in local government. I will certainly be voting for you in the future.
How many nurses or teachers earn above £44,000 a year? Not many – for nurses, outside of Central London, only those in Band 8 earn that much. A midwife consultant, a ‘modern matron’ or a nurse consultant would earn over £44,000, but these are hardly typical of nurses in general.
@BB
The box is not ‘closed at 3pm’. New, non-urgent material stops being added to the box at 3pm, and he works through that until it’s done (I have no idea how long this would take him to get through). I really see no problem with this – you can’t measure the effectiveness of a minister by such simple metrics. Reading Chris Mullin’s diaries, it is obvious that he worked all hours God sent at the Department of the Deputy Prime Minister, yet he acknowledged that his time was filled with ‘pointless activity’ and that he was unable to get the slightest thing done, e.g. he was unable to get past the first bureaucratic hurdle of doing something about leylandii (to my knowledge, nothing has happened about that to this day). Clegg in particular is something of an oddity as a minister – unlike, say, the Home Secretary, he doesn’t have many official powers, and so his job is essentially to run the constitutional change agenda and exercise an unofficial roving brief in other areas, so I doubt he has much urgent paperwork to begin with.
@Simon Shaw
What is an above average wage? And if everyone was paid above whatever it is would that not affect the average level figure?
@Foregone Conclusion
If he doesn’t have much urgent paperwork to begin with then why is he closing his box at 3pm and not leaving it open in case something urgent does come up after 3pm. Don’t expect me to feel sorry for him. Many people work long hours and then have to commute home and earn far less than he does.
@Foregone Conclusion
The leylandii is still growing 🙂
More seriously the way civil servants bury Ministers is in paper so they can’t see the wood for the trees or is it the trees for the wood?
“Are you saying that the Telegraph has got it in for Clegg then? I wonder why Clegg’s office felt they had to respond if the story was not true.”
Because they didn’t want misinformation? Wonder no longer.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/patrick-hennessy-telegraph-smears-22906.html
SociJon – “I used to earn my living as a journaliust [sic] and was very good at my job.”
My word, you do get about. Not content at being a top capitalist, setting up and running successful companies, you were also an ace journalist too. And modest to boot. And you still find time to be a socialist at weekends. Bless.
@BB
I am not ‘asking you to feel sorry for him’. I did nothing of the sort. What I asked is for you to accept that he might not be a workshy, shiftless individual, and that there are better ways of measuring how effective a government minister is than how many hours he works a day on formal paperwork. However, that involves being reasonable and even handed about Nick Clegg, and since most of the press and the entire Labour Party seems to be suffering from Clegg Derangement Syndrome at the moment, I suppose that’s too much to ask.
Tabman,
Politics of envy. Not very attractive!
BB: But according to the story urgent items that come in after 3pm *do* get passed on and handled. So what’s your basis for asking “why is he closing his box at 3pm and not leaving it open in case something urgent does come up after 3pm”?
The bottom 10% bear the second highest burden. You can’t credibly complain about the balance of media coverage when your own piece is an exercise in spin.
EcoJon: My reason for highlight tube drivers was simple – if you look at the levels of training and skill it requires to be a top nurse, a top teacher or a top tube driver, the first two of those take longer to achieve and make more of a difference to how the service they provide to the public. There are better and worse tube drivers, and they don’t qualify overnight, but compared to nurses and teachers I think it’s far more questionable that they should be amongst the best paid people in the country (even the expansion of the top rate tax band, it’s still only for a small minority of people). Plus the fact that the tube drivers I’ve spoken to have all agreed how very well paid they are compared to other professions – though they vary between those who think that’s fine (if their unions can negotiate that, why not…?) and those who think their unions have gone too far.
I love the fact that the more people coming into the top rate tax band is dues to the increasing of the personal allowance which means hundreds of thousands more will pay no income tax at all is completely omitted from most coverage even the BBC news failed to mention it. Talk about accentuating the negatives.
Also most of the losses are from removing people on £40k+ from tax credits which IMHO they should never have been eligible for in the first place. Why the hell should the government be giving tax credits to people on incomes way above the average?
David Allen – irony is not just American English for ferrous.
I agree with Peter 1919.
Overall this is great news. Half a million people at the bottom end will be taken out of paying income tax while those on the 15% highest incomes may a chunk more tax.
Most of the new people going into the higher rate are only doing so to accomodate the rise in the basic allowance.
@Mark Pack
Come on Mark it was a cheap shot worthy of the DT and DM – they don’t qualify if they don’t do OT. I actually thought you were a better person than that but you live and learn. And I think you are overegging the pudding a bit to say they are among the best paid people in the country on £40K.
God Bankers drop that running for a tube.
@EcoJon
I think Mark makes a very fair point. I find it difficult to see how the level of skills and responsibilities of a tube driver are equivalent to those of a nurse or teacher on a senior grade.
And if they are earning enough to be in the Higher Rate tax bracket then they are amongst the 10-15% of highest earners. They may still earn wll below the levels of the relatively small number of super-rich, but they are still on approaching double what most people earn.
@Liberal Neil
I just don’t see it that way Neil so I’m afraid we will need to disagree. It’s like the LibDems supporting the dismantling of Employment protection for every uk worker – I don’t think it’s right but it would appear that most LibDems do.
I watched a fair bit of the Health debate today and Tories and Labour were going at it hammer & tongs but virtually no LibDem input in fact I’m not sure I actually saw any. I was doing other things so could have missed it but I doubt it. But presumably the LibDems have marched into the Tory lobby on this as well and I don’t think that’s right either. And Cable’s claim that it will increase growth is actually quite bizarre and has no logical basis.
And then the latest news is about the jobs created by the private sector in the last 12 months. Turns out that of the 200,000 jobs only 6,000 are full time. And the Tory Coalition believes that this same private sector can take up the slack caused by the loss of hundreds of thousands of Public Sector full-time redundancies coming down the track. This is really getting quite scary but the LibDems continue to support the Tory cuts ideology and I don’t think that’s right either because everything is being gambled here on what increasingly looks like a desperate throw of the dice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352333/Part-time-work-Of-200k-jobs-created-year-3-time.html
Mark
I think picking out one particular job and attacking for them for being overpaid is a little petty – there are many jobs that are overpaid when compared to others. Nurses and teachers do work very hard and should be paid more – where are the LD proposals to do so then?
I work in a company where PhD qualified scientists earn less than 20K but the accountants and HR ‘professionals’ earn over double that. Not fair really but then if it gets to you then you will drive yourself mad.
I don’t know what a tube driver has to do for his/her money – they may be overpaid but then so are many other people – including journalists!
Bazsc: Remember that of course the reason I mentioned tube drivers was because the news story I linked to had picked them out for special comment. Journalists, HR professionals and others weren’t picked out in that story.
Baszc – “I work in a company where PhD qualified scientists earn less than 20K but the accountants and HR ‘professionals’ earn over double that. Not fair really but then if it gets to you then you will drive yourself mad.”
Fairness doesn’t enter into it. PhD scientists would be paid more if their skills were scarce and in demand. Companies aren’t stupid; if employing someone makes them more money they will do the maths. If they don’t, they go out of business.
A long long time ago in the 1990s I was in my secondary schools’ debating team for 2 years in a row. Each year we debated competitively with about five other schools in the area. The best went through to a regional final.
One of the years we got the debate “Higher Earners should pay higher taxes”.
There are many, many arguments for and against and even the VAT angle of indirect was brought up in questioning (much to the puzzlement of (not myself) but a 15 year old on our side that didn’t understand what an indirect tax was).
Equality has got worse under Labour. The rich have got richer, the poor poorer. Labour brought in tuition fees, putting another obstacle in the way of kids from less well-off backgrounds going to university. Labour spent the country’s money on sending troops to Iraq and bailing out their friends in the City. They got elected in ’97 on an “education, education, education” mantra, claimed to be Socialists, yet as Tony Benn put it, there was a new party called “New Labour” who were very powerful as they happened to all be in the Cabinet.
The Lib Dems & Tories now have to clear up the mess left by Labour. This will not make us popular. The Tories will blame taxes on the rich on the Lib Dems. Labour will steal our support by claiming to be the principled voice of opposition. Labour is using to great effect the spin and media manipulation they were criticised for in government, yet whenever an unpopular policy in the last 8 months has had to be defended, invariable the coalition govt has sent a Lib Dem into the fray.
Our party needs to be better at communicating to voters our successes and pointing out the difference between us and the other parties. The public, angered enough by the MP expenses fiasco, Phil Woolas’ racism doesn’t understand that a coalition is not a merger between the two parties. Labour are using the public’s anger to pander to the Lib Dem voters we picked up in May. They know it’s easier to steal a voter from us than the Tories.
The news about the economy just panders to Labour’s narrative of “I told you so”, when the real story is that basically we printed money, put the banks and financial system on life support for a few years and that what’s happening now was inevitable and something Labour deliberately put off until after the General Election by decision paralysis at the ministerial level and begging the unions not to kick up too much of a fuss.
Mark
In your post above you did suggest that tube drivers are undeserving of their salaries compared to teachers and nurses. I pointed out that this particular bête noire of the right-wing press is often trawled out as an example of excessive pay – do you really know if it is excessive? Perhaps they deserve it, have you a clear idea of the pay structure and the responsibilities – do you pay higher tax and do you deserve it?
In response to Tabman – the same company pays twice the salary to those based in the US or Europe and in the Far East this sort of technical skill is highly valued. Why this is the case is probably linked to a lot of things but I cannot believe that paying talented engineers/scientists such comparatively low salaries is going to help the long-term future of the economy
Tabman
I forgot to say that if you had read my post properly I was suggesting that things were not ‘fair’ and in this case the argument of Mark is moot regarding tube drivers.
The righ wing also uses ‘unfairness’ argument a lot – look at their ranting about public service manager salaries and tube/train drivers. As you said – life is not fair!
What we can debate though is how the potential disparities will help the long term future of the UK economy. We talk about lack of innovation and that the manufacturing sector needs to support the recovery when those who will contribute to it could earn more by being an HR manager or accountant or banker, even moving abroad to work for the same companies on twice the money.
Mr Pack – With respect (and to be clear, I do mean that)
‘if you look at the levels of training and skill it requires to be a top nurse, a top teacher or a top tube driver, the first two of those take longer to achieve and make more of a difference to how the service they provide to the public.’
That is not what you said in the article – you did not mention levels of training, that is a whole different question. I know a few teachers who argue that there should be greater differentials in pay in teaching. There is a world of difference between a ‘top’ nurse consultant and a nurse. For that matter, one could argue that a career structure with defined, national progression pathways is a very substantial benefit.
It is interesting to note that all three of your examples are unionised heavily – but that is for another day.
I simply think it is a bit low to start picking on individuals and individual jobs – these people pay tax as set out by government and have done nothing wrong, who are you to sit in judgment?
Basc/Eco John – Mark is entirely right to highlight the fact that tube drivers now fall in the top rate tax band. Given that they are entirely unnecessary – tube trains have had driverless capability for more than 40 years – and they earn more than teachers or nurses is disgraceful. Their trotskyite leader – Bob Crowe – earns more than £100,000 – and claims to be closer to an indentured Chinese labourer. One of the reasons that Londoners pay the highest transport fares has been the spinelessness of TfL management in dealing with the loony left unions who are basically having a laugh at tax and fare payers expense.
You seem to be equating “higher rate tax payers” with “rich”.
Great, so by that logic all we have to do is lower the upper-rate tax threshold until everyone is in it and then all taxes will only ever affect the rich.
The we really will all be in it together, yes?
@Iain
“Great, so by that logic all we have to do is lower the upper-rate tax threshold until everyone is in it and then all taxes will only ever affect the rich”
Actually George Osborne Favours a “flat tax”
It was his idea, to raise the personal allowance level to £15k, but then have a flat rate of tax for everyone.
I now know why one of my Open University students a few years ago got himself qualified as a tube driver! (He’s probably graduated by now – I wonder how that’s affected his career.) (Incidentally the figure quoted in last night’s Evening Standard for two drivers on suspension was £45k.) I believe £40k or so puts you on a par with the Deputy Head of a 1000 pupil school, who no doubt, also works evenings and weekends, and part of school holidays.
As for the HR and accountants being paid more than better qualified scientists – who do you think actually influences the pay scales and is on the track leading to top managerial and directorial jobs? (Of course, the PhD scientist might do like my wife did and qualify as an accountant.)
Salary alone is not the only way of measuring what someone gets out of a job – job satisfaction, and liking the work are also part of it, once you’ve covered the costs of getting the job and to work and a basic standard of living for the household.
EcoJon
“What is an above average wage? And if everyone was paid above whatever it is would that not affect the average level figure?”
Glad to see that you recognise the idiocy of that position.
So, on the basis that you recognise that not everyone can earn above average wages, would you like to tell us who you think should earn below average wages to compensate for your very highly paid tube drivers (who you previously said you think should be paid even more)?
@Foregone Conclusion
“involves being reasonable and even handed about Nick Clegg, and since most of the press and the entire Labour Party seems to be suffering from Clegg Derangement Syndrome at the moment, I suppose that’s too much to ask.”
I am afraid that is too much to ask. I don’t remember Clegg being very reasonable when he told us ‘lefties’ we were no longer wanted by the party after he had our votes securely in his pocket. He deserves all the negativity as far as I am concerned.
At the end of the day the Coalition tax plans put approaching a million people into the Higher Rate tax band and remove a much smaller amount from being taxed.
Bringing in the tube-driver red herring looks to me like a typical Tory ploy to try and divert the anger of Higher Rate taxpayers away from the Coalition government and onto a relative handful of tube drivers who only cross the Higher Rate threshold when they do OT.
@John Brace who said: ‘Labour brought in tuition fees, putting another obstacle in the way of kids from less well-off backgrounds going to university’.
Labour did bring in tuition fees and basically expanded university places with the money and opened up more opportunities for working class kids. The LibDems increased the fees but cut the university grants so the money will go to replacing the grant cut and probably end up in a contraction of university places. If people are to believe what you say then tell the whole story and don’t just pick the bits that suit your argument. And I won’t rub the open wound of the personal pledges on tuition fees that the public will never forgive you for which will cost you more votes than any vote ‘stealing’ by Labour.
@Mark Pack who said: ‘ the reason I mentioned tube drivers was because the news story I linked to had picked them out for special comment’.
Perhaps Mark a little pause for reflection on why the tube drivers had been singled out for attention by the paper might not have gone amiss.
@bazsc who said: ‘so are many other people – including journalists!’ I totally agree with you bazsc but then some of us journos thought we were underpaid 🙂
@Ian Sanderson (RM3)
This was a few years ago and my memory is hazy on the detail but one of the top PhDs at the Roslin Institute – of Dolly the Sheep fame – was having a break and a vending machine guy came in to fix a faulty soft-drink dispenser. The mechanic said to the PhD something along the lines of ‘I bet you earn a fortune here’ and the talk turned to wages. The PhD almost fainted when he heard what the mechanic earned and chucked his job and becamse a mechanic. This is a true story btw and I seem to remember that the PhD was actually happier in his new job because of the freedom he obtained from the ‘politics’ of academia. Wonder what he’s doing now 🙂
Just a thought , guys.
Shouldn’t we be talking about the median wage (50% of people get more than that level, 50% get less) rather than the average or “mean” wage? In 2008 gov stats give £26,020 as the mean wage (all) and £31,323 (just full-time).
But the median wage from the same source for 2008 is much less, being £20,801 (all) and £25,123 (just full-time).
The discrepancy is due to a long tail of high salaries in the distribution. Though few people are very rich, they are very, very rich and this drags the average up and away from the median.
However the really interesting figure is the modal (or most common) wage. Because the gov stats do not show an income distribution (or if they do, I can’t find it) this is uncertain. But it must be close to the national minimum wage. Two “guesstimates” I have come across are £13,000 and £15,000. Someone in the IFS must have a better idea.
Very rich people are statistically insignificant – and like the rest of us only have one vote each – but they make a lot of noise.
If you read my comments correctly Dan you will see that I was not defending tube drivers etc – what I was in fact doing was pointing out that the focus on one job of the many that are perhaps overpaid was petty and not useful. The fact it is a job that always seems to be a favourite of right wing ranters is suspicious.
The discussion of salary is a stagnant one as there are a lot of exaggeration and misinformation going on. Quoting salaries without context etc is misleading and I have no confidence in the numbers reported. There is always an agenda in there somewhere.
I am astonished though to see such comments as those from Tabman and Ian Sanderson who seem to take a very market-driven, laissez-faire attitude. I particularly like Ian’s comments on how PhD scientists should become accountants or be happy to do their job for a basic living standard. I hope I have misinterpreted him but I would hope for more after 6/7 years of study in an area where we seem to be lacking.
It is funny how those with low salaries should not be expected to be incentivised by salary but those at the top need have cash thrown at them!
A ‘fair’ reward system based on worth is unrealistic but I would have hoped that LD supporters would be more questioning of why certain jobs deserve high rewards and others don’t. GPs salaries have massively increased vs those of teachers and yet we still complain about the quality of people going in to teaching. Also, why an engineer in most of the rest of the world is held in esteem and is paid accordingly when in the UK it is a pretty low status job and most people think engineer’s fix things.
There are lots of things that progressive parties could do to challenge perceptions and bring a little more ‘fairness’ into what jobs are rewarded/valued but reading some of the comments on this thread it seems that this is a bit of a dream.
I do not think salary is all the story either – a move towards insecurity, short-term contracts, accepting poor employer behaviour (shame on you Vince for the changes to employee tribunal rights) is also something that could and should be reversed. This started 30 years ago and has continued up until now. I had hoped that the LD would try and do something about it.
By the way, on topic, good to raise the bottom threshold of tax. Still doesn’t make up for the rest of the policies though
I found it interesting that many of the centre-left papers like the ‘Guardian’ thought that ‘middle income’ meant £40k plus. Last night on Radio 5 at 4.50pm they interviewed a ‘stay at home’ mum whose husband earned over £50k. She didn’t ‘know how she could manage’ and might have to cut some of the children’s after school clubs. It’s a pity the interviewer didn’t ask her how she thought parents on half their household income (i.e. those on median incomes) managed?
That’s why I always distrust Labour apologists who cry crocodile tears over families on less than £20k, but refused to oppose Gordon Brown’s abolition of the 10p tax rate and still pitch their appeal to the ‘squeezed middle’ (i.e. those households on £40k plus).
There are many things wrong with the Coalition and I dislike and distrust Osborn and never warmed to Clegg, but their tax policies are more honest and just than anything Labour has done since Callaghan.
this post has gone on a massive tangent about tube drivers – i feel like we’re in the debate equivalent of aldwych station: on the map but not actually part of the network.
i also don’t see what’s wrong with the story – lots of people being taken out of tax at the bottom (and this is just the first step, by the time we get to a threshold of £10,000, there will be many, many more poor peolpe not paying income tax at all) and those at the top being dragged into paying more. That’s called re-distribution. If you don’t like, it, vote Tory!
ps and before any pedants state that aldwych isn’t on the tube map, i say get a life and appreciate poetic license in pursuit of a stretched metaphor.
@ Mark Pack
Stepping into the ongoing debate surrounding your snide comments re-tube drivers pay, I would like to state for the record that all train drivers appear to be fairly well paid down to the fact they’re responsible for the lives of the people they drive (intercity drivers get paid a fair bit more and Eurostar are paid more still) .
It’s a bit like Airline pilots, they’re paid for the lives not just for the training however detailed that may be.
OK, you might not like Bob Crow (many don’t) but I don’t think you should take needless shots at Tube drivers – if you’re so jealour with your poor pay why don’t you become one?
@Peter Chivall
Are their tax policies really more honest than Labour’s. It’s good to see the personal allowance increased at a higher rate than it normally is. But what about the extra indirect taxation such as VAT and fuel duty as well as benefit cuts which means those at lower income levels will be worse off despite the increase in tax allowance,
So I;m afraid I view the increase in the alowance as primarily a cheap vote winner.
@Simon Shaw who said: ‘Glad to see that you recognise the idiocy of that position’. Not my position Simon it was your’s. I was just asking for some clarification from you which you have failed to provide.
However having watched you in action befoe I have no interest in wasting any time on you as you seem more interested in setting traps than having a free and open exchange of views.
And your obvious inability to spot my humour really says a helluva lot about you and might I suggest that you lighten-up as it will make you feel better 🙂
EcoJon
“Do you actually know the weight of responsibility that tube drivers carry with the number of passengers they carry squeezed into tubes?”
EcoJon
“They do of course work at weekends, Bank Holidays and unsocial hours – I reckon they should be paid more!”
You seem to be suggesting that you didn’t mean one of those two above statements (you were just trying to be humourous).
So which one did you mean and which one was the joke? It might be better if you made it clear if you want to join in with “serious” political debate.
Strange how the article misses the increase of VAT.
That comes across, as a bit of a bombshell.
Lets not forget that only £1K increase in income tax threshold has been accepted by Osborne. Just because the LibDems want it to go up another £3K doesn’t mean that it will. When the other £3K fails to materialise, the excuse will be – we are only the junior partner in the Coalition and can’t have everything we want blah, blah, blah.
@Simon Shaw – go an raffle your donuts mate – you ain’t capable of political debate just spouting an entrenched position from a closed mind.
Looks as though Cameron has been caught-out on the NHS big-time Hope Milliband roasts him at PMQ
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/02/02/david-cameron-s-dodgy-claims-on-nhs-reforms-are-exposed-115875-22892385/
“Rich to lose most, more to pay higher tax – IFS”.
What they mean, of course, is “those with higher income to lose most, more to pay higher tax”.
Why is it always only about the income rich and the income poor. Rich means asset rich. What about the asset rich paying more. No suggestion of the only way to redistribute the ownership of wealth – which is at the point of transfer from each generation to the next.
Still, at least the Liberal Democrats stopped the Conservatives from increasing the exemptions from Inheritance Tax to a million pounds to add to all the other scandalously unlimited exemptions for the wealthy for lifetime gifts and agricultural, business and shareholding assets!
What kind of a country is ours? Feudal still? Certainly In thrall to a political ideology of unrestrained Dynastic Capitalism cascading down the generations! It’s time for a new Liberal political ideology of Popular Capitalism in each new generation with Universal Inheritance to spread more widely the private ownership of capital.