Why not? We used to get them whenever Labour were in charge, and you can't really blame the opposition for this one!

Well indeed.

You wont have to worry mate. You live in the South!

There is a danger if they did that people would have the information at their finger tips to be able to dismiss the kind of arguments used to justify cutbacks.

For example if this had been available when the student loan controversy was raging and pea-brain Willets was twittering on about how much Postmen pay towards university education and how wrong it was they did, they would have been able to find out it was about £40 or less [ua year[/u of their total tax paid that went that way.

Thought the budget was pretty much spot on. Good moves to cut the top tax rate and excellent move to cut corp tax to encourage growth. Britain is open for business again.

So - either clueless, utterly selfish or your balls haven't dropped yet.

Since the bast.. sorry, the government are so keen on localism with the regional pay deals then there should be a regional pension age taking into account regional life expectancy.

In the North East (2010-male) it's 77.2 years
In the South East (2010-male) it's 79.7 years

So if the retirement age is 67 in the South East it should be 65 in the North East. The Southerners are getting 2 extra years pension payments.

I vote for all three.

I don't find it a laughing matter that they have taken away my only income and made me feel like a worthless, lazy scrounger. My mortgage company finds it even less so.

Seems like the Tory media does not like what Osbourne has put on the table, maybe most of their readers helped put them in power with the prompting of the editors.

If the government is able to tell us exactly where our taxes are going (and I must admit, I'd be quite interested to see how much is being spent on feckless parasites like that Windsor family in London), and if the top rate of taxes is being cut to help promote growth, why not merge these together? Keep the 50% rate but tell those people paying it that the money raised will go towards projects that will help promote the growth they claim they need the tax cuts for? Infrastructure, for example. Or education. We have business leaders bleating about the UK not having enough engineers or scientists, so tell them the money raised from the 50% rate will go towards funding education in these areas. Surely, then, those 'wealth creators' currently avoiding paying the 50% rate won't be able to get their wallets out quickly enough. If they really [iare[/i interested in promoting the UK, that is.

While they're at it, they can cut health and safety because, although the government has admitted that any problems are because of misinterpretation, they have still decided to cut it because ... err ...

And only allowing unfair dismissal tribunals after two years (because obviously it only ever happens to someone who has been employed for at least two years) is also going to just shoot the economy forward.

And there will be people who applaud this sort of thing unthinkingly and actually believe it'll make some massive difference to the economy.

"Granny Tax" is apparently trending on Twitter. Huge own goal by the boy Gideon, made worse by trying to pretend it was just a 'simplification' intended to help poor old dears too daft to fill in forms.



The Tory Tabloids are up in arms because it affects a large chunk of their readership.

The economy won't start to recover fully until people have confidence to start spending money again. Businesses are failing and jobs going because of the uncertainty that still exists (consumers are not buying luxuries, and are cutting back on the less essential stuff). Nothing the coalition has done has kick started confidence enough.

But Gideon had a chance to give us all a small boost in that confidence, yet is still using the "inherited mess" mantra to keep things quiet. We get it, mate, but you're not helping, by not holding the price of petrol down (for example) to keep the costs of things like food stable, to give consumers more cash in their pocket, that they can then spend on goods, all of which keep the economy circulating and generates revenue for the exchequer. An increase in the tax allowance is fine, but when you're taking that back in other increases it sort of negates the good news.

The reduction in the 50p tax is a sop to the richest, who will all, of course, use that extra money to benefit the UK economy

He's also not let it run for long enough to get any meaningful data about the effectiveness of the initial change, so that was a complete waste of effort.

A classic "give with one hand, take away with the other" budget that has supporters creaming themselves and leaves the rest of us wondering about missed chances.

And that's without mentioning the raid on pensioners that HMRC, according to the BBC website, have admitted "will lead to 4.4m pensioners being an average £83 a year worse off than they would have been".

"But Chancellor George Osborne told the BBC no pensioner would be worse off in cash terms". Try real terms George. Inflation+below inflation pension rises+cut in pension tax allowances= (potentially) millions being unable to look after themselves. Giving pensioners an extra £5 is lovely, but not if you take £6 off them.

Millionaires will of course be unaffected.

So, if the solution to stopping the rich avoiding paying tax is to lower the rate of tax. When can we see this logic extended to other areas of societal behaviour and the tories decriminalising theft and drug taking?

Not just the pensioners either. The general public fuelled by certain media were "outraged" that people on benefits were to be given a 5% increase this year. I got my annual ESA figures last week for the year coming. My ESA is broken down into different parts. The main part I have got my 5% increase, I thank you George. Then I looked down the list, I have been given [idecreases[/i at random that, in total adds upto 5%. So far from getting a 5% increase which George wants you to think I've got and get as mad as hell because [iyou[/i didn't get a 5% pay increase in your pay packet this year, my benefit for this years stays the same. From reading comments on the internet this morning it seems its happening to other kinds of benefit claimants too. Sneaky, Gideon, very sneaky.

If anyone still doubted what/who this lot care about ...

Hey, at least we all got a tax break (and penalties in other essential places)!

That £83 is only for existing pensioners who already receive the increased allowances sue to them not keeping pace with inflation as expected. People retiring form now on won't get the allowance at all so anyone with a pension income of £10500 or above in the next tax year will £479 worse off then they expected to be as a result.

What people don't seem to get is that the majority of pensioners are not on huge pensions at all. There will be plenty who retire soon who will end up paying tax on any income over £8105 given that is the personal allowance for the next tax year and the increase in personal allowance announced in the budget does not come in until a year later.

Taking money away from pensioners via alterations in their personal allowances while at the same time cutting income tax from the rich who simply do not need the money is obscene and no wonder the budget has gone down like lead balloon in some unexpected quarters.

You've got to admire the PR though.

Ozzie reduces the 50p rate to 45p to make it more attractive to rich people.
At the same time he moves loads of standard rate tax payers up into the 40p bracket.

And the LibDems are crowing about taking millions out of tax altogether, which would be great except they are conveniently forgetting the 20% VAT that poor and rich alike are paying nowadays.
The LibDems giveth and Gideon taketh away?
Nah, Sounds ike the LibDems are happy with regressive taxation.

How does HMRC deal with those pensioners who currently have income in excess of their personal allowances, but no sources of PAYE income through which to collect tax?

If the answer is that they ask them to complete a tax return every year, that group is going to grow exponentially as the age-related allowances disappear.

If you have a state pension of over £155 per week from 6 April 2012, you're going to have to pay some tax on it.

Come the next election any politician worth his salt will be able to pretty much destroy the Lib Dems. They're making a good job of it themselves so a nudge should have them over the cliff quite easily. Cameron will have the knives out with about a year to go too, and the coalition will limp along until election time.

I've said before those LDs in the cabinet and ministerial posts are loving the trappings and the limos too much to control the Tory excesses. They have the balance of power FFS and could have stopped a lot of the legislation that traditional Lib Dems don't support. Clegg has let his party down big style.

Clegg doesn't give a flying one about his party, or the values of its core support.

He'll be contesting a nice safe seat somewhere for the Tories at the next general election - being LD leader has given him an "in" to cosy up to Dave, that's all he needed.

You could be right but I just see it as one public schoolboy deferring to another from the "better" school.

As do Private Eye..