Vote!

comments from readers

radius
25 November 2008

yes

The words 'squeak' and 'pips' come to mind.

Gerishnakov
25 November 2008

yes

How about a 50% rate on all earnings above £100,000? Oh wait, the Liberal Democrats already suggested that and then dropped it.

Carl Jones
26 November 2008

no

How many years have the moderately wealthy escaped their dues, remembering that the super rich pay ZILTCH?? This is nothing but a token gesture from Darling.....

.....we the people are being forced into greater debt with a poxy 5% sweetner on the well off.....looks like school fees will only rise by 5% for the next few years.LOL

The definition of a government minister, "a foot soldier guarding City banks"!

Its time for the people to march, carrying rope.

gnuneo
26 November 2008

yes

well, perhaps he could have actually BROUGHT IT IN!?!

plus, it is only £580M according to the BBC, and with the advantage of accountants, almost certainly far less than that at the end of the day.

nothing but a sop, that will very likely be dropped post-election anyway.

darling and brown have no shame.

seebream
26 November 2008

no

Abolishing direct tax and income for the very poor, those who are paid less than £200 per week totally for the runup to chrismas would have given a huge boost to the economy, as this bonus would have been spent by those it was targetted at. It woudl have cost a fortune but would have given poor people a Christmas to remember before we enter the massive slump that we are heading for. Doom Monger

ian summers
26 November 2008

yes

I do not understand the rage of the rich paying a bit more into the pot! If they want to live in a selfish society,then America beckons!

WebbP
26 November 2008

yes

the government need to start making the rich pay more tax, and why are we financially supporting a monarchy anyway? isn't it about time in this day and age that they support themselves finanancially? i work in the public sector and i cannot afford to take holidays due to poor pay. the country is in crisis because we are all paying for a war in iraq which the majority didn't agree with in the first place and it hasn't made oil any cheaper. it is time for change BIG CHANGE

Forlornehope
26 November 2008

yes

Yes, he should have gone for 95%; we don't need these rich bastards! Let them all go off to the Cayman Islands.

writeon
27 November 2008

yes

Why couldn't they abolish VAT completely? It seems a grossly unfair form of taxation. A flat tax. A kind of pole tax. It's regressive and dramatically favours people who are well off. Why on earth should a pensioner or a person on a low wage pay the same rate of tax as I do when my income is so much higher than theirs is?

But then this is par for the course. Successive UK governments have cut income tax drastically and at the same time have raised other taxes, moving the burden from the shoulders of those who have the ability to pay onto those who don't. It's quite shameful really.

handsome jack
27 November 2008

no

What a fool - He'll get no more money, and he's bought a big stick for the people who write down Labour politicians as naive bitter bolshies.

suell
27 November 2008

yes

Why not? No-one actually has the answers so the opportunity to be bold is incredible!

Sue Lloyd

npgdavies
27 November 2008

no

No, the 45% tax rate was a cowardly move, based on politics, not economics. It will raise little money, and encourage the energetic and enterprising to emigrate.

Frank Amies
27 November 2008

yes

Yes. Not only with the 'higher' tax rate, he should close up all loop holes which enable the rich pay nothing like the tax they should.

28 November 2008

yes

Yes, although he should concentraye on the "Tax Avoidance/Evasion Industry" to ensurethat the rich pay their share into the Community pot. Perhaps he should also consider a back- dated tax on the "City bonuses" at a 95% rate, after all no-one should expect a bonus for doing their job (and in the City, their pay is already very much higher than the norm).

usdawprinter
28 November 2008

yes

45% for earnings over £150,000 pa is a good start, but I think there should have been a 50% rate for earnings over £250,000 in addition. Further, all bonus earnings over £26,000 (the average wage) should be taxed at 75%.

Amir Cassam
28 November 2008

yes

Much bolder

jason from weymouth
28 November 2008

yes

The notion of tax in a post Thatcherite society is ideologically predisposed to nurturing market forces. Thus any economic policy that is defiant of this is perceived incongruous and thus unacceptable. I consider it a brave move by the government but just not brave enough.

nationalbankuganda
29 November 2008

yes

Increase tax on the wealthy, and you only lose those investors who compete at the bottom end in the global marketplace. Those high value added firms who compete at the top end seek strong investment in public infrastructure - science, education, technology, transport, healthcare. That's why Scandinavian countries can still tax the wealthy at 60% and not suffer a capital flight.

Peter Bond
29 November 2008

yes

The very rich are mostly overpaid, undertaxed & partly responsible for the mess we're in. Tax them properly & clamp down on their tax evasion. If they emigrate, we're better off without them.

digger
30 November 2008

yes

Could have been higher to start-- to get the message across -- and then reduced to accentuate New Labour

swatantra nandanwar
30 November 2008

yes

The rich are laughing all the way to the bank. Squeeze them till the pips squeak. Its an old adage but still relevant.

George Walker
30 November 2008

yes

50% at £150,000 is sure that not unreasonable. Also all tax exemption schemes must be looked at to ensure there is a benefit other than to the recipient.

Tim Mann
01 December 2008

yes

If he'd put it up to 50% he could have left national insurance alone!

doug aubrey
01 December 2008

yes

Whether their welfare state is taking a nose dive under its current leadership, everybody keeps looking to Denmark as a model nation. There the tax rate starts around 51% for all income groups. Top rate tax (est 62%, used to be over 70%) kicks in when people earn est £34K+ . Marie Olesen

seebream
02 December 2008

yes

Those can afford to pay more tax should not be allowed to cream off the benefits of living in the UK without paying a reasonable proportion of their income to maintain the services that are keeping them living in the UK.

William
03 December 2008

yes

MP's themselves with multiple employment can and should contribute to the larger excess.

james
04 December 2008

no

It wont raise the money needed. A 60% rate would raise less money. Better way cut down on the allowances and leave at 40% A max of£10K allowance plus 20% would raise 4 times the amount. It's window dressing