Extra 11,000 North-East residents lifted out of income tax, Government says as tax free allowance increases to £10,000

REG CHUNKY Extra 11,000 North-East residents lifted out of income tax, Government says

REG CHUNKY Extra 11,000 North-East residents lifted out of income tax, Government says

First published in News The Northern Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Regional Chief Reporter

AN extra 11,000 people in the region will no longer pay income tax from this weekend when the tax-free personal allowance increases to £10,000, the Government says.

Ministers say 123,000 North-East residents have now been lifted out of income tax following a series of rises in the tax-free bracket.

The Government claims that more than one million people in the region have benefited from the personal allowance increases over the past four years.

The Prime Minister said: “A key part of this Government’s long-term economic plan is to cut taxes so that people can keep more of the money they earn and feel more financially secure.

“From this weekend, you will not pay a single penny of income tax on everything you earn up to £10,000.

“Nearly every single worker across the country will get a tax cut and over 3 million will pay no income tax at all. It says to the hard-working people of this country: we are on your side - and it’s one of the proudest things I have done in Government.”

In response, Middlesbrough South MP Tom Blenkinsop said the figures ignored the fact that in his constituency real average weekly incomes, adjusted to the consumer price index, were down £116.

He added: “This also doesn't take into account that the lowest paid have had tax credits taken from them, the lowest paid are the worst affected by the bedroom tax and the lowest paid are still facing national insurance anomalies.”

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:56am Wed 2 Apr 14

bambara says...

People getting poorer in the North East to the point that they no longer even reach the minimum threshold level at which they begin to pay tax, and the Tories are trumpeting this as a triumph.
People getting poorer in the North East to the point that they no longer even reach the minimum threshold level at which they begin to pay tax, and the Tories are trumpeting this as a triumph. bambara
  • Score: 3

10:07am Wed 2 Apr 14

nigel d says...

bambara wrote:
People getting poorer in the North East to the point that they no longer even reach the minimum threshold level at which they begin to pay tax, and the Tories are trumpeting this as a triumph.
Well said
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: People getting poorer in the North East to the point that they no longer even reach the minimum threshold level at which they begin to pay tax, and the Tories are trumpeting this as a triumph.[/p][/quote]Well said nigel d
  • Score: 2

12:17pm Wed 2 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

bambra..............
.......Smacks of generalisation so called poverty codswallop,. I 'see 'Supermarket Car Parks and betting shops packed and overflowing with people and cars.. Pubs and Clubs full of punters(some overflowing) and packed with families, many drinking like fishes 'weekend after weekend'. Many people on numerous 'free state benefits', don't use Buses to get around now they order and travel either in their own car and/or 'TAXI' nearly everywhere, nearly all grasping at least one mobile phone. 'Burger Outlets top heavy with 'quick-fix meals, people including 'benefit families', day after day, shopping to they drop.. How can you call it poverty with Plasma TVs, Mobile Phones, every Nanny long term state free benefit from 'A to Z'. It begs the question has ?....the *definition of so called poverty been rewritten to suit some people, so (not all) who live well beyond their means..
bambra.............. .......Smacks of generalisation so called poverty codswallop,. I 'see 'Supermarket Car Parks and betting shops packed and overflowing with people and cars.. Pubs and Clubs full of punters(some overflowing) and packed with families, many drinking like fishes 'weekend after weekend'. Many people on numerous 'free state benefits', don't use Buses to get around now they order and travel either in their own car and/or 'TAXI' nearly everywhere, nearly all grasping at least one mobile phone. 'Burger Outlets top heavy with 'quick-fix meals, people including 'benefit families', day after day, shopping to they drop.. How can you call it poverty with Plasma TVs, Mobile Phones, every Nanny long term state free benefit from 'A to Z'. It begs the question has ?....the *definition of so called poverty been rewritten to suit some people, so (not all) who live well beyond their means.. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -1

1:00pm Wed 2 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

nigel d wrote:
bambara wrote:
People getting poorer in the North East to the point that they no longer even reach the minimum threshold level at which they begin to pay tax, and the Tories are trumpeting this as a triumph.
Well said
Well, some don't reach the threshold because that threshold has risen by £2525.
[quote][p][bold]nigel d[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: People getting poorer in the North East to the point that they no longer even reach the minimum threshold level at which they begin to pay tax, and the Tories are trumpeting this as a triumph.[/p][/quote]Well said[/p][/quote]Well, some don't reach the threshold because that threshold has risen by £2525. laboursfoe
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Wed 2 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

Would these lefties have preferred that income tax had been increased? is it good news or not? If they think not then they need urgent help.
Would these lefties have preferred that income tax had been increased? is it good news or not? If they think not then they need urgent help. David Lacey
  • Score: -1

3:14pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Thisismyyear2014 says...

I don't no about anybody else but I'm the best off I've ever been i even got made redundant 2 years ago and found a new job 2 weeks later paying 5000p.a more
I don't no about anybody else but I'm the best off I've ever been i even got made redundant 2 years ago and found a new job 2 weeks later paying 5000p.a more Thisismyyear2014
  • Score: 1

3:46pm Wed 2 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

Never had it so good, Cameron is trying to help **real decent working class WORKING people but remember he is often impeded by 'Clegg and Co' who want NO cap on further immigration to Britain and are **against deporting immigrant criminals convicted of serious crime backed of course by your corrupt scewiff EU so called human rights. The EU Circus,, MAKE and DICTATE (in the first years of the EU it was FRANCE running the Circus,),...... to the British people what they should and should not do..
Never had it so good, Cameron is trying to help **real decent working class WORKING people but remember he is often impeded by 'Clegg and Co' who want NO cap on further immigration to Britain and are **against deporting immigrant criminals convicted of serious crime backed of course by your corrupt scewiff EU so called human rights. The EU Circus,, MAKE and DICTATE (in the first years of the EU it was FRANCE running the Circus,),...... to the British people what they should and should not do.. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -1

5:08pm Wed 2 Apr 14

darloboss says...

cushybutterfield wrote:
Never had it so good, Cameron is trying to help **real decent working class WORKING people but remember he is often impeded by 'Clegg and Co' who want NO cap on further immigration to Britain and are **against deporting immigrant criminals convicted of serious crime backed of course by your corrupt scewiff EU so called human rights. The EU Circus,, MAKE and DICTATE (in the first years of the EU it was FRANCE running the Circus,),...... to the British people what they should and should not do..
ball ox what dribble
[quote][p][bold]cushybutterfield[/bold] wrote: Never had it so good, Cameron is trying to help **real decent working class WORKING people but remember he is often impeded by 'Clegg and Co' who want NO cap on further immigration to Britain and are **against deporting immigrant criminals convicted of serious crime backed of course by your corrupt scewiff EU so called human rights. The EU Circus,, MAKE and DICTATE (in the first years of the EU it was FRANCE running the Circus,),...... to the British people what they should and should not do..[/p][/quote]ball ox what dribble darloboss
  • Score: -2

8:10pm Wed 2 Apr 14

punkrocker says...

cushy the glue bag ain't working if you think pubs are full and overflowing. they are more likely to be empty and near to closure. bitterness is a horrid trait. you need to live on £71 a week.
cushy the glue bag ain't working if you think pubs are full and overflowing. they are more likely to be empty and near to closure. bitterness is a horrid trait. you need to live on £71 a week. punkrocker
  • Score: -2

8:41pm Wed 2 Apr 14

bambara says...

For 2013-14, the personal allowance was increased by £1,335 to £9,440.
It now goes up to £10,000 for 2014-15.

£10,000 - £9,440 = £560

"Well, some don't reach the threshold because that threshold has risen by £2525"

Maths not your strong point then "laboursfoe"
For 2013-14, the personal allowance was increased by £1,335 to £9,440. It now goes up to £10,000 for 2014-15. £10,000 - £9,440 = £560 "Well, some don't reach the threshold because that threshold has risen by £2525" Maths not your strong point then "laboursfoe" bambara
  • Score: -3

9:48pm Wed 2 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

bambara wrote:
For 2013-14, the personal allowance was increased by £1,335 to £9,440.
It now goes up to £10,000 for 2014-15.

£10,000 - £9,440 = £560

"Well, some don't reach the threshold because that threshold has risen by £2525"

Maths not your strong point then "laboursfoe"
You're only quoting 1 years difference. look at 2011 to this next year.
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: For 2013-14, the personal allowance was increased by £1,335 to £9,440. It now goes up to £10,000 for 2014-15. £10,000 - £9,440 = £560 "Well, some don't reach the threshold because that threshold has risen by £2525" Maths not your strong point then "laboursfoe"[/p][/quote]You're only quoting 1 years difference. look at 2011 to this next year. laboursfoe
  • Score: 1

9:52pm Wed 2 Apr 14

bambara says...

The Tory propoganda merchants have posed a few questions, so lets answer them..
1. Is it not a good thing that taxes have been "reduced" for the poor.
A. It would be good for the poor if the taxes they paid were reduced, but the increase in the Tax free allowance from £9,440 to £10,000 is a poor way to do that for several reasons.
i) It puts not 1 penny into the pockets of anyone who is on under £9440 a year.
ii) It reduces the Tax paid by a person on £10,000 or more by 20% of the rise, so a total benefit of £112. The same for everyone on up to the level of the higher rate. So £112 for a person on £10,000 p.a. & the same £112 for someone on £40,000 p.a. but a big fat ZERO for anyone on £9440 p.a. or less.

2. Would us "lefties" prefer that income tax was increased.
i) The Tories keep telling us that cuts to benefits are essential to tackle the deficit. If the deficit is such a threat that we need to push people to the point of using soup kitchens and food banks, how can ANYONE justify cuts to Taxes?
ii) An end to the cuts to benefits and tackling the low pay, & zero hours "jobs" are a higher priority than tax cuts. A higher % Tax rate on those who earn more reduces the amount they can spend on luxuries, but it won't leave them starving.
ii) If the options are reductions to the benefits of the poorest to pay for tax cuts and giveaways to the rich then the answer would have to be a qualified yes, higher tax rates are the lesser evil. So scrap the reduction from 50% to 45% for those earning over £150,000 p.a. for a start, take action to force companies like Starbucks and Amazon to pay tax in the UK on transactions that involve delivery in the UK.( If they don't like it they can always leave, I'm sure some local companies will happily open up to sell over priced coffee and books.).
iii) At the moment National Insurance drops from 12% to 2% on earnings above the higher rate threshold (that is the 40% one, not the one the Tories cut for the obscenely wealthy) So the difference in what you pay is not as it first appears the difference between 20% & 40% it is the difference between 32% (Tax + NI) and 42% Higher Rate Tax but lower Rate NI. Higher rate really isn't much higher at all.
The Tory propoganda merchants have posed a few questions, so lets answer them.. 1. Is it not a good thing that taxes have been "reduced" for the poor. A. It would be good for the poor if the taxes they paid were reduced, but the increase in the Tax free allowance from £9,440 to £10,000 is a poor way to do that for several reasons. i) It puts not 1 penny into the pockets of anyone who is on under £9440 a year. ii) It reduces the Tax paid by a person on £10,000 or more by 20% of the rise, so a total benefit of £112. The same for everyone on up to the level of the higher rate. So £112 for a person on £10,000 p.a. & the same £112 for someone on £40,000 p.a. but a big fat ZERO for anyone on £9440 p.a. or less. 2. Would us "lefties" prefer that income tax was increased. i) The Tories keep telling us that cuts to benefits are essential to tackle the deficit. If the deficit is such a threat that we need to push people to the point of using soup kitchens and food banks, how can ANYONE justify cuts to Taxes? ii) An end to the cuts to benefits and tackling the low pay, & zero hours "jobs" are a higher priority than tax cuts. A higher % Tax rate on those who earn more reduces the amount they can spend on luxuries, but it won't leave them starving. ii) If the options are reductions to the benefits of the poorest to pay for tax cuts and giveaways to the rich then the answer would have to be a qualified yes, higher tax rates are the lesser evil. So scrap the reduction from 50% to 45% for those earning over £150,000 p.a. for a start, take action to force companies like Starbucks and Amazon to pay tax in the UK on transactions that involve delivery in the UK.( If they don't like it they can always leave, I'm sure some local companies will happily open up to sell over priced coffee and books.). iii) At the moment National Insurance drops from 12% to 2% on earnings above the higher rate threshold (that is the 40% one, not the one the Tories cut for the obscenely wealthy) So the difference in what you pay is not as it first appears the difference between 20% & 40% it is the difference between 32% (Tax + NI) and 42% Higher Rate Tax but lower Rate NI. Higher rate really isn't much higher at all. bambara
  • Score: -1

11:16pm Wed 2 Apr 14

johnny_p says...

See the "glass half full", everything Labour just wonderful lot busy here as usual.

Still, the gap in the polls significantly narrowed now. It ain't over 'till it's over. Remember that eh Mr Kinnock?
See the "glass half full", everything Labour just wonderful lot busy here as usual. Still, the gap in the polls significantly narrowed now. It ain't over 'till it's over. Remember that eh Mr Kinnock? johnny_p
  • Score: 1

11:22am Thu 3 Apr 14

bambara says...

laboursfoe wrote:
bambara wrote: For 2013-14, the personal allowance was increased by £1,335 to £9,440. It now goes up to £10,000 for 2014-15. £10,000 - £9,440 = £560 "Well, some don't reach the threshold because that threshold has risen by £2525" Maths not your strong point then "laboursfoe"
You're only quoting 1 years difference. look at 2011 to this next year.
I am indeed quoting 1 years difference, that being the difference between last year and this year.
"AN extra 11,000 people in the region will no longer pay income tax from this weekend"
So those 11,000 people are the number impacted by this years increase, not last years, or the year before that etc...
NONE of those 11,000 are in the group no longer in the threshold due to the previous £1965 before this years rise. That is 11,000 people who earn between £9440 and £10000 per year in the North East.
All of those who earn less than that will as previously stated gain not 1 penny from this increase. They will suffer from the Tory cuts to benefits and services though.
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: For 2013-14, the personal allowance was increased by £1,335 to £9,440. It now goes up to £10,000 for 2014-15. £10,000 - £9,440 = £560 "Well, some don't reach the threshold because that threshold has risen by £2525" Maths not your strong point then "laboursfoe"[/p][/quote]You're only quoting 1 years difference. look at 2011 to this next year.[/p][/quote]I am indeed quoting 1 years difference, that being the difference between last year and this year. "AN extra 11,000 people in the region will no longer pay income tax from this weekend" So those 11,000 people are the number impacted by this years increase, not last years, or the year before that etc... NONE of those 11,000 are in the group no longer in the threshold due to the previous £1965 before this years rise. That is 11,000 people who earn between £9440 and £10000 per year in the North East. All of those who earn less than that will as previously stated gain not 1 penny from this increase. They will suffer from the Tory cuts to benefits and services though. bambara
  • Score: 0

9:36am Thu 1 May 14

MartinMo says...

bambara wrote:
For 2013-14, the personal allowance was increased by £1,335 to £9,440.
It now goes up to £10,000 for 2014-15.

£10,000 - £9,440 = £560

"Well, some don't reach the threshold because that threshold has risen by £2525"

Maths not your strong point then "laboursfoe"
So the tories in an attempt to help the working class for a change (not before time) let us keep an extra £10.77 a week from our earnings. They could do a lot more for us by cutting benefits and then lowering income tax rates.

Now what has the local labour council done for the working class recently.......they kindly increased council tax and are looking at cutting salaries of lower paid council employees.

When I see someone on the streets wearing tatty clothes older than my grandfather begging for cash for his next meal or tv adverts asking for donations and depicting kids drinking dirty puddle water and scraping grains of rice from a dirty container as a meal then and only then will a say they are living a poverish life. When I see a tracksuit clad overweight woman speaking on the latest mobile device whilst escorting 5 grubby out of control kids into burger king, knowing she claims full benefits is not living in poverty, she is in fact living above her means at the expense of DECENT working class members of society. This is the image we all picture now we we talk about those on benefits, yes it is generalised and not all the time true but it is in fact happening acroos the whole nation more and more. How to resolve it, drastcally cut what they receive.
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: For 2013-14, the personal allowance was increased by £1,335 to £9,440. It now goes up to £10,000 for 2014-15. £10,000 - £9,440 = £560 "Well, some don't reach the threshold because that threshold has risen by £2525" Maths not your strong point then "laboursfoe"[/p][/quote]So the tories in an attempt to help the working class for a change (not before time) let us keep an extra £10.77 a week from our earnings. They could do a lot more for us by cutting benefits and then lowering income tax rates. Now what has the local labour council done for the working class recently.......they kindly increased council tax and are looking at cutting salaries of lower paid council employees. When I see someone on the streets wearing tatty clothes older than my grandfather begging for cash for his next meal or tv adverts asking for donations and depicting kids drinking dirty puddle water and scraping grains of rice from a dirty container as a meal then and only then will a say they are living a poverish life. When I see a tracksuit clad overweight woman speaking on the latest mobile device whilst escorting 5 grubby out of control kids into burger king, knowing she claims full benefits is not living in poverty, she is in fact living above her means at the expense of DECENT working class members of society. This is the image we all picture now we we talk about those on benefits, yes it is generalised and not all the time true but it is in fact happening acroos the whole nation more and more. How to resolve it, drastcally cut what they receive. MartinMo
  • Score: 1

9:50am Thu 1 May 14

MartinMo says...

btw bambi

Some of those earning less than £10,000 actually chose this because of benefits they could claim to top up their earnings.

There are 2 in my place of work, both were offered positions with more hours and an increase in salary and both declined on the grounds that they would loose certain benefits they currently qualify for and after tax their monthly expendible income would be less. Reforms are needing to the benefit system to lower what these people claim, the next time they get offered more work they take it as they will be better off.

Nobody should be better off claiming benefits regardless of their circumstances. The household income of a family on benefits should not exceed that of the income of someone working full time after tax (even at minimum salary).

Nobody should receive benefits for kids, unless through equality and fairness those benefits are paid to every family with kids, working or not.
btw bambi Some of those earning less than £10,000 actually chose this because of benefits they could claim to top up their earnings. There are 2 in my place of work, both were offered positions with more hours and an increase in salary and both declined on the grounds that they would loose certain benefits they currently qualify for and after tax their monthly expendible income would be less. Reforms are needing to the benefit system to lower what these people claim, the next time they get offered more work they take it as they will be better off. Nobody should be better off claiming benefits regardless of their circumstances. The household income of a family on benefits should not exceed that of the income of someone working full time after tax (even at minimum salary). Nobody should receive benefits for kids, unless through equality and fairness those benefits are paid to every family with kids, working or not. MartinMo
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Thu 1 May 14

bambara says...

"Nobody should be better off claiming benefits regardless of their circumstances. The household income of a family on benefits should not exceed that of the income of someone working full time after tax (even at minimum salary)."

I totally agree, and I would go further, in that no employer should be paying a level of wage so low that it is the case that a person on benefits can not afford to take the job without being worse off than they would be on benefits, and the benefits system should be adjusted to ensure that no person should be disadvantaged by choosing to work harder.
After all would you choose to take a pay cut just so you could work more hours?
"Nobody should be better off claiming benefits regardless of their circumstances. The household income of a family on benefits should not exceed that of the income of someone working full time after tax (even at minimum salary)." I totally agree, and I would go further, in that no employer should be paying a level of wage so low that it is the case that a person on benefits can not afford to take the job without being worse off than they would be on benefits, and the benefits system should be adjusted to ensure that no person should be disadvantaged by choosing to work harder. After all would you choose to take a pay cut just so you could work more hours? bambara
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Thu 1 May 14

bambara says...

"So the tories in an attempt to help the working class for a change (not before time) let us keep an extra £10.77 a week from our earnings. They could do a lot more for us by cutting benefits and then lowering income tax rates.

Now what has the local labour council done for the working class recently.......they kindly increased council tax and are looking at cutting salaries of lower paid council employees."

Cuts to council budgets are imposed by the Tories, the responsibility for the impact of those cuts also lies with the Tories.

The labour council is hamstrung by the restrictions put in place by the Tory government, the changes to funding which has seen funds removed from poor areas and given to wealthy areas. The 10 most deprived areas of the country have had central funding cut by 10 times the level (average 25% cut) that the 10 wealthiest areas have had (average 2.5% cut). Indeed some of the wealthiest Tory areas have seen funding increases.
As for increases to council tax, this is limited to a maximum of 2%, (so less than inflation, a real terms cut) again by Tory rules. So even if a council wishes to avoid cutting services by increasing the council tax, they do not have the option of doing that.

The cuts are imposed by the Tories, and imposed unequally with poor areas hit harder. They are only applied by the councils. But it is very convenient for the Tories that they can then blame the councils for the impact of the Tories cuts.

& so nice of you to volunteer the poor, the weak, the disabled and the elderly for more benefit cuts to help pay for tax cuts. Rather proves my point about the right wing being sociopathic.
"So the tories in an attempt to help the working class for a change (not before time) let us keep an extra £10.77 a week from our earnings. They could do a lot more for us by cutting benefits and then lowering income tax rates. Now what has the local labour council done for the working class recently.......they kindly increased council tax and are looking at cutting salaries of lower paid council employees." Cuts to council budgets are imposed by the Tories, the responsibility for the impact of those cuts also lies with the Tories. The labour council is hamstrung by the restrictions put in place by the Tory government, the changes to funding which has seen funds removed from poor areas and given to wealthy areas. The 10 most deprived areas of the country have had central funding cut by 10 times the level (average 25% cut) that the 10 wealthiest areas have had (average 2.5% cut). Indeed some of the wealthiest Tory areas have seen funding increases. As for increases to council tax, this is limited to a maximum of 2%, (so less than inflation, a real terms cut) again by Tory rules. So even if a council wishes to avoid cutting services by increasing the council tax, they do not have the option of doing that. The cuts are imposed by the Tories, and imposed unequally with poor areas hit harder. They are only applied by the councils. But it is very convenient for the Tories that they can then blame the councils for the impact of the Tories cuts. & so nice of you to volunteer the poor, the weak, the disabled and the elderly for more benefit cuts to help pay for tax cuts. Rather proves my point about the right wing being sociopathic. bambara
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Thu 1 May 14

MartinMo says...

bambara wrote:
"Nobody should be better off claiming benefits regardless of their circumstances. The household income of a family on benefits should not exceed that of the income of someone working full time after tax (even at minimum salary)."

I totally agree, and I would go further, in that no employer should be paying a level of wage so low that it is the case that a person on benefits can not afford to take the job without being worse off than they would be on benefits, and the benefits system should be adjusted to ensure that no person should be disadvantaged by choosing to work harder.
After all would you choose to take a pay cut just so you could work more hours?
You have not gone further, you have tried to twist it around. Why should it be an employers resposibility to insure his employees, after tax, earns more than someone on benefits? There should be an increase in the minimum salary, this however should be to compete with the increasing cost of living and not the level of benefits paid out.

Labour parties can blame the tories for cuts imposed onto them but they are to blame when they pass those cuts onto the general tax payer and workforce. The are willing to cut the salaries of lets say 20 (nice round figure) of their lowest paid workers by 3k a year saving 60k. They could take that 60k from 1 senior member of staff and still leave them earning over a 100k pa. Now if they did this to all senior members salaries there would not even be a need for the council tax increase but they wont, they choose to push the tory cuts onto us so therefore they are solely to blame.

Whats sociopathic about wanting to keep and control more of the money earnt through working for a living. Surely through fairness and equality alone those whom work for a living should be allowed to improve the quality of their own lives and be given choice as to whether or not to donate large chunks of their income to better the lives of the less fortunate.

Tax is nothing more than theft and the level of benefits at current is a total missuse of those ill gotten funds.

BTW, you need to add to your list of benefit claimers because as many of the other bleeding hearts do you miss out the able bodied idle/lazy, the un-educated, the druggies and alcoholics plus a plefora of other social scum unwilling to better themselves as the benefit culture is an easy choice for them.
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: "Nobody should be better off claiming benefits regardless of their circumstances. The household income of a family on benefits should not exceed that of the income of someone working full time after tax (even at minimum salary)." I totally agree, and I would go further, in that no employer should be paying a level of wage so low that it is the case that a person on benefits can not afford to take the job without being worse off than they would be on benefits, and the benefits system should be adjusted to ensure that no person should be disadvantaged by choosing to work harder. After all would you choose to take a pay cut just so you could work more hours?[/p][/quote]You have not gone further, you have tried to twist it around. Why should it be an employers resposibility to insure his employees, after tax, earns more than someone on benefits? There should be an increase in the minimum salary, this however should be to compete with the increasing cost of living and not the level of benefits paid out. Labour parties can blame the tories for cuts imposed onto them but they are to blame when they pass those cuts onto the general tax payer and workforce. The are willing to cut the salaries of lets say 20 (nice round figure) of their lowest paid workers by 3k a year saving 60k. They could take that 60k from 1 senior member of staff and still leave them earning over a 100k pa. Now if they did this to all senior members salaries there would not even be a need for the council tax increase but they wont, they choose to push the tory cuts onto us so therefore they are solely to blame. Whats sociopathic about wanting to keep and control more of the money earnt through working for a living. Surely through fairness and equality alone those whom work for a living should be allowed to improve the quality of their own lives and be given choice as to whether or not to donate large chunks of their income to better the lives of the less fortunate. Tax is nothing more than theft and the level of benefits at current is a total missuse of those ill gotten funds. BTW, you need to add to your list of benefit claimers because as many of the other bleeding hearts do you miss out the able bodied idle/lazy, the un-educated, the druggies and alcoholics plus a plefora of other social scum unwilling to better themselves as the benefit culture is an easy choice for them. MartinMo
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree