1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Who should take the big hits in the budget?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by lanokia, Mar 17, 2016.


Who should financially pay more in the budget?

  1. Disabled people

  2. Unemployed

  3. Homeless

  4. Working poor

    0 vote(s)
  5. Middle Class

  6. Super rich [self determined definition]

  7. Corporations

  8. Evenly spread across working population

  9. Immigrants

  10. Others [please outline below]

Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    With the news covering the impact on the disabled I've tried to put together a poll evenly balanced to judge who people think should take the big financial hits from the budget...

    You have THREE choices.
  2. Flere-Imsaho

    Flere-Imsaho Star commenter

    What do you mean by big financial hit? Do you mean be the focus for cuts?
  3. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Lose money
    Or pay more.
  4. Flere-Imsaho

    Flere-Imsaho Star commenter

    Are you sure someone has to lose?
    emerald52 likes this.
  5. Dragonlady30

    Dragonlady30 Star commenter

    I ticked only one choice-corporations. To me, they are the biggest culprits for tax evasion.
    Mangleworzle and lanokia like this.
  6. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Nope... hence 'other'.

    Although we do seem to need to have more money from somewhere... we're still running a deficit so the debt continues upwards and with that ever higher interest payments.
  7. CedricDaniels

    CedricDaniels Established commenter

    Avoidance. Evasion can mean a criminal record so big companies don't do it.
  8. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    The budget seems to me to make a majority slightly better off and especially....teachers and those on middle incomes. I am not sure any government can be attacked for not doing more for those out of work as surely a Budget is all about working people and finance. Raising the tax threshold helps the poor, does it not?

    I think the almost lack of debate in the liberal press and well, even on here, does tend to indicate it wasn't a bad deal for most.

    Wanting the rich or corporations to pay more is a pipe dream. They never have, never will.
  9. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Those who can best afford to pay should do so. Successive governments have targeted mainly those who are least able to afford to pay more. The taxation system is far too complicated and is slanted in favour of the wealthy and large businesses.
    Mangleworzle likes this.
  10. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    I'd be fascinated to hear the justification for the voter on disabled and homeless.
  11. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    I question the whole drive towards zero deficit. It's seen as a moral imperative.

    The world runs on credit. Always has. Nowt wrong with it until one party tries to take advantage. Can you imagine personal finance without loans, without mortgages? What would this country look like?

    Responsible lending and borrowing is a good thing.
    lexus300 likes this.
  12. CedricDaniels

    CedricDaniels Established commenter

    Who can best afford it? The top 50% of earners? Where do you draw the line?
  13. CedricDaniels

    CedricDaniels Established commenter

    Can you imagine personal finance where you had to take a loan every six months to pay bills and other loan repayments while income was static?
  14. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    But the better off better off still. Moving the 40% tax boundary has about 3x the effect of moving the tax-free boundary, reducing the capital gains tax rate helps the wealthy almost exclusively with their unearned income.
    grumpydogwoman and lexus300 like this.
  15. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    At those least able to pay, it is that simple IMO.
    It is complicated for a reason, what the reason/s are is the issue.
  16. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    He could have boosted the additional rate from 45% to 50%.

    OK, that's on incomes over £150K. But why not? (Don't answer that. Rhetorical question. I'm really not interested in what the DM devotees among us have to say to that.)
  17. CedricDaniels

    CedricDaniels Established commenter

    Who are the least able to pay? Without quantifying the boundaries in some way it is not meaningful
  18. CedricDaniels

    CedricDaniels Established commenter

    He could have. The motivation would have to be that it raises more net revenue rather than appeasing envy. The case is not proven
  19. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    It's going to be a busy day playing catch up defending the Tories Madge.
  20. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    Thank you @Mangleworzle
    That's who it is. But of course.
    You have saved me a lot of time.

Share This Page