Swimming in the scummy side of the news I find this written in the Daily Mail regarding the budget:
By contrast, average households with net incomes of less than Â£30,000 have been winners under Labour – with the poorest, on Â£10,000 a year or less, now 12.6 per cent better off than they would have been. Daily Mail
What precisely is the problem here? It is part of the budget to help society as whole isn’t it? It is part of the budget to address inequalities be that in the tax on cider compared to beer just as it is that living costs have risen and those with less need more just to be able to stand still. And yet the Daily Mail cries because it’s readers – it aspires to the middle class I suppose even though it is definitely embedded in red-top land – will be worse off by a fraction of that 12.6%. So who the hell does it want to pay?
I believe we should tax more to redistribute wealth, that the 12.6 percent is far too low (12.6% of a small number is an even smaller number. Junk like the Daily Mail always use the dramatic over-inflated figures) and that unless we do more for those targeted here that the whole country will pay. And yes, that means I believe I should give more of what I earn to the taxman.
For the Labour haters go read Every Child Matters. Then find even one credible source that says it is a waste of money, find one credible source that says it does not benefit the whole of society and then email the Conservative leader and ask him why he will be killing that dead. Why? because he’ll probably use the money to make changes that crap like the Daily Mail will trumpet as a victory for common sense. Nasty paper is that.