New Labour increase the divide between the rich and the poor.

kenshaz

The removal of the 10% tax band has effectively reduced the gross pay of the lowest paid in this country ,including pensioners,tell the government what you feel about that in the local elections in May.

icefall

I know, where is the sense in that?

Mikeyorks

Not sure why yet another thread is needed on the same subject?

It's not the 'gross pay' that's affected .... it's the 'net pay'. And most pensioners (exception ... ladies not yet at 65) are not adversely affected .... as the significant lift in the personal allowances allied to the new 10% savings band will make most better off.

RayWolfe

Mikeyorks wrote: »

Not sure why yet another thread is needed on the same subject?

It's not the 'gross pay' that's affected .... it's the 'net pay'. And most pensioners (exception ... ladies not yet at 65) are not adversely affected .... as the significant lift in the personal allowances allied to the new 10% savings band will make most better off.

Aw Mike don't confuse these people with facts, it makes then very distressed.

Rogerb_2

RayWolfe wrote: »

Aw Mike don't confuse these people with facts, it makes then very distressed.

And some people are as blinkered as Gordon Brown, and couldn't care less as long as they are ok. A lot of low paid people are worse off.

dwileflunker

Rogerb wrote: »

And some people are as blinkered as Gordon Brown, and couldn't care less as long as they are ok. A lot of low paid people are worse off.

Quite right. The way to look at it is that Brown hasn't abolished the 10% rate, in fact he's doubled it to 20%.

nicko33

Rogerb wrote: »

A lot of low paid people are worse off.

Yes, but which ones. You can't just look at one measure in isolation.

single person on minimum wage - £68 worse off
single person on minimum wage with 1 child - £711 better off
(BBC calculator - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7290230.stm)

Rogerb_2

nicko33 wrote: »

Yes, but which ones. You can't just look at one measure in isolation.

single person on minimum wage - £68 worse off
single person on minimum wage with 1 child - £711 better off
(BBC calculator - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7290230.stm)

It is hardly right that anyone on minimum wage should be worse off as a result of a headline grabbing reduction in basic rate.

Pensioners have quite rightly largely been protected, once they reach the age of 65. A lot of other lower paid people, especially those without families, and often youngsters starting out in life will be hit.

It is just not equitable, and what makes it worse is the government have unsuccessfully attempted to deny it.

nicko33

Rogerb wrote: »

It is hardly right that anyone on minimum wage should be worse off as a result of a headline grabbing reduction in basic rate.

Aren't they better off because of that minimum wage in the first place?

Rogerb_2

nicko33 wrote: »

Aren't they better off because of that minimum wage in the first place?

I'm afraid I can't relate to your logic, but in simplistic terms Labour quite reasonably gave people a minimum wage to achieve a standard of living, which would consider amongst other things the tax and benefits etc at that point in time.

This cynical scrapping of the 10%, while headlining the base rate cut, has taken away some of that improvement from the people least able to afford it.

I think labour will pay the price for this, which is a bit of a shame really, but I think it is a major blunder similar to the pensioners 25p a week increase some years back

kenshaz

Mikeyorks wrote: »

Not sure why yet another thread is needed on the same subject?

It's not the 'gross pay' that's affected .... it's the 'net pay'. And most pensioners (exception ... ladies not yet at 65) are not adversely affected .... as the significant lift in the personal allowances allied to the new 10% savings band will make most better off.

We get taxed on gross pay ,what world are you living in?