The working class 'earn' their wages. The upper class, politicians and pop stars 'receive' their excessive wages.

Illegal immigrants and scroungers are given 'entitlements and benefit' and the pensioners are handed a pittance!

The working class 'earn' their wages. The upper class, politicians and pop stars 'receive' their excessive wages.

Illegal immigrants and scroungers are given 'entitlements and benefit' and the pensioners are handed a pittance!

Anyone working part time (ie mainly part time, low paid women) will now not benefit from the old 10% tax allowance, previously allowed on the amount over that of the personal allowance, as the govt in their wisdom have scrapped it. This is to subsidise the previous 22% tax payers having their rate cut to 20%.

Gee thanks Gordon and co! Where's the fairness in that then?

Anyone working part time (ie mainly part time, low paid women) will now not benefit from the old 10% tax allowance, previously allowed on the amount over that of the personal allowance, as the govt in their wisdom have scrapped it. This is to subsidise the previous 22% tax payers having their rate cut to 20%.

Gee thanks Gordon and co! Where's the fairness in that then?

Message to Michael Foster - PLEASE EXPLAIN

Message to Michael Foster - PLEASE EXPLAIN

Varien, I had the temerity to call one of his comments "silly" on one occasion. He was obviously looking for an excuse to opt out of these posts so he "seized" on the word "silly" and we have seen sight nor sound of him since.
When he comes knocking at my door in the future, I will introduce his good friend Alan2 and ask him why he did not respond to our requests for a response to these blogs.

Varien, I had the temerity to call one of his comments "silly" on one occasion. He was obviously looking for an excuse to opt out of these posts so he "seized" on the word "silly" and we have seen sight nor sound of him since.
When he comes knocking at my door in the future, I will introduce his good friend Alan2 and ask him why he did not respond to our requests for a response to these blogs.

This "muck up" with the tax situation was announced at the Interim Spending Review.
The anomoly where the worst off were going to be worse off still, was headlined in almost every newspaper the following day and the general feeling was, that a mistake had been made which would be righted in the Budget.
However, in the days leading up to the Budget, the papers were full of how the "middle earners" or "middle England" had been well and truly clobbered by Brown and demanding that the position for them be relaxed.
What Darling did in the Budget, certainly removed the feeling that a "mistake" had been made with the tax situation because he did precisely nothing about it, neither did he make any mentioned, extra provision for "middle earners".
As Helen says, the opportunity was taken to "subsidise" those in the next tax bracket up.
We must conclude therefore that no mistake was made in removing the 10% band WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LOW EARNERS WERE AS A RESULT - they knew perfectly well what the consequences would be for the low paid.
It was quite clearly, deliberate policy where a New Labour Government stung the low paid. They must have a death wish.

This "muck up" with the tax situation was announced at the Interim Spending Review.
The anomoly where the worst off were going to be worse off still, was headlined in almost every newspaper the following day and the general feeling was, that a mistake had been made which would be righted in the Budget.
However, in the days leading up to the Budget, the papers were full of how the "middle earners" or "middle England" had been well and truly clobbered by Brown and demanding that the position for them be relaxed.
What Darling did in the Budget, certainly removed the feeling that a "mistake" had been made with the tax situation because he did precisely nothing about it, neither did he make any mentioned, extra provision for "middle earners".
As Helen says, the opportunity was taken to "subsidise" those in the next tax bracket up.
We must conclude therefore that no mistake was made in removing the 10% band WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LOW EARNERS WERE AS A RESULT - they knew perfectly well what the consequences would be for the low paid.
It was quite clearly, deliberate policy where a New Labour Government stung the low paid. They must have a death wish.

According to press details, the Treasury will gain £7.3 billion from scrapping the 10% band, mainly from part time workers, whilst cutting the 22% rate to 20% will "cost" them £8 billion (hence taking from the lowest paid workers to subsidise the 20% taxpayers).

According to press details, the Treasury will gain £7.3 billion from scrapping the 10% band, mainly from part time workers, whilst cutting the 22% rate to 20% will "cost" them £8 billion (hence taking from the lowest paid workers to subsidise the 20% taxpayers).

This explains it very well.

http://www.thisismon
ey.co.uk/tax-advice/
article.html?in_arti
cle_id=432672&in_pag
e_id=11

This explains it very well.

http://www.thisismon
ey.co.uk/tax-advice/
article.html?in_arti
cle_id=432672&in_pag
e_id=11