« Previous | Main | Next »

10p tax

Eddie Mair | 17:19 UK time, Tuesday, 13 May 2008

What do YOU think?


  • 1. At 5:30pm on 13 May 2008, jonnie wrote:

    I think it's the biggest climb down this week.

    I also thought Eddie let Frank Field off very lightly

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 5:35pm on 13 May 2008, visualgaloot wrote:

    I find it mildly entertaining to see the government do what I do and borrow its way out of a tight spot. I know it is unsustainable. Do they?

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 5:38pm on 13 May 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    Still not sure how it's going to affect me, but it does sound like an improvement.

    Mr. Field's behaviour over the past couple of days has been somewhat bizarre, but I thought it rather 'cute' that he apologised in the way he did.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 5:45pm on 13 May 2008, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    I think it's weird. Take away a lot of money; discover that people you have taken it from make more fuss than you had expected; find a way to give it back so they won't be so cross with you... What was all that about then?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 5:50pm on 13 May 2008, hollyhocksblue wrote:

    What a con trick - I hope the BBC explains that the lowest paid are still being penalised to the advantage of standard rate tax payers. This is just a bribe to try to lure basic rate tax payers into voting Labour. I hope they are not taken in

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 5:52pm on 13 May 2008, Olambda wrote:

    If, after having stolen my pencil, you gave everyone who lives in London a free pencil, I would still possess one fewer pencils than if you had not stolen one from me. How our Chancellors do like to bamboozle!

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 5:59pm on 13 May 2008, jonnie wrote:

    In response to Nils report on inflation and the owner of the 'Mind the gap Cafe' - the Hotel business is also in the same boat.

    We have seen less people this year at 'The Cransley' however food prices have soared along with gas and electricity.

    Although we are determined to keep the quality of produce to a high standard, it is becoming increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 6:39pm on 13 May 2008, steelpulse wrote:

    I found the seemingly staged apology by Mr Field and the theatrical acceptance of same by PM Brown more interesting.

    The 10p retrenchment wasn't enough for such a change - was it? The sneering he has had to endure from people who should know better than to sneer - they too have been hecklers when off stage in other Administrations.

    So Frank Field, why?

    What else has been said to give PM Brown the Field to himself - therefore a walkover? Ouch.

    Mr Field sounded very uncomfortable on both occasions I listened to him. It was all FiveLives fault seemingly. lol

    I will watch THAT space. When I am not being busy being vain that is, my Yahoo friends! Where is that mirror?

    Mammy error - me vain - just redder

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 7:05pm on 13 May 2008, miriamram wrote:

    I cannot believe that the poorest paid are still going to be worse off whilst many, many more who were already better off will benefit even more. How can the likes of Frank Field be satisfied with this? To only halve the loss of the poorest is no solution - it is just those very people who should bear no loss at all. It is incredible that this outrageous state of affairs seems to be barely got a mention

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 7:27pm on 13 May 2008, mygloriousleader wrote:

    A desperate attempt at fire fighting by a desperate chancellor, sorry ex chancellor.
    More failures.
    Time for a change.
    Now wheres the monster raving loony party?
    Some would say in 10 Dunces Street...
    I couldn't possibly comment

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 7:40pm on 13 May 2008, White_Rat wrote:

    The original decision was a major blunder, which Dr. Brown as a highly qualified economist ought to have recognised before he placed it into his last budget. The U-turn may be welcome but should never have been necessary. Chancellor Darling said clearly that there was no way to change the policy or the Budget measures, a change he has now made. So first they were embarrassed, now they look both foolish and weak.

    Then there is the fact of borrowing to return taxes to peoples pockets. This marks a clear breach of the GB-imposed Golden Rule of borrowing only to invest over the economic cycle. Cap that with the fact that this measure is only for this year, what happens next year is unclear.

    People aren't stupid. They won't be grateful for the change of policy because they know that that money should never have been taken from their pay packets in the first place. The government will reap no benefit from this flip-flopping, just ill-will and a reputation for cack-handedness with fiscal policy and the public purse.


    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 7:41pm on 13 May 2008, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    mygloriousleader @ 10, I wish it *were* the MRLP at No 10. They always seemed to me to talk more sense than the 'main' parties when i had a chance to hear their views.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 7:44pm on 13 May 2008, blondecarolem wrote:

    As one of the 1.1 millions pensioners still £8 per month worse off, I can't believe this poor excuse of a government. Good on yer Alistair, make richer ever richer and keep the poor down. Is this what the Labour government are now all about?

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 7:47pm on 13 May 2008, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    WR @ 11, I am reminded by your post that it is a bit more complicated than I had first thought. The 10p tax thingy was Gordon's to start with.

    So it goes: give it to everyone, then take it away at a time that means someone else will have to make the announcement that it is being removed, then make sure it is seen as you giving it back again.

    I *think* that's the sequence?

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 8:15pm on 13 May 2008, U11204129 wrote:

    But, but, but... but...

    If the 10p rate HADN'T been abolished (and the attendant changes not brought in) and the personal allowance then raised by £600, if then, the Chancellor abolished the 10p rate etc, there would STILL be a tranche of people worse off. (The income band for which people would be worse off has just risen by 600 quid, that's all).

    Put the other way round, if the Chancellor reintroduced the 10p tax rate and reversed the other changes, given the 600 quid increase in allowances, people among the poorest in the country would be better off.

    The Guardian and BBC rough figures were that the 10p abolition would harm singles on 5 to 19 thousand.

    Well. given 600 increase, the abolition of the 10p rate, will harm those in the £5,600 to £19,600.
    Because they would have been better off with the extra 600, if the 10p tax hadn't been abolished.

    Last try: Those on the old personal allowance + 1200 or so, get to pay 120 less tax 'cos of the 600.

    But the next 600 is taxed at 22 instead of 10 which it would have been... etc....

    So people on incomes from the old personal allowance up to the old personal allowance + £5600, ie up to about £10,000 or so, would be better off if the old 10p tax regime were still in place.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 8:24pm on 13 May 2008, U11204129 wrote:

    11. WR.


    No. We're in a new economic cycle. The downturn around trend has begun. The economy could do with a flexible deficit spending tonic.

    In terms of accumulated debt the government is well below the Euro zone requirements for National Debt as a percentage of GDP.

    (Does Wikipedia agree, White Rat?)

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 9:32pm on 13 May 2008, HighPeakDrifter wrote:

    Yesterday we were told that the country cant possibly afford £6 billion to look after all our old folk. Today we can afford £2.7 billion to win one byelection and save the career of one middle aged man. Its a fully ol' world

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 9:52pm on 13 May 2008, Sid wrote:

    What a mess! What Darling didn't tell us today was this:

    1. Even after today’s announcement, 1.1 million people earning between just over £6,500 and £12,800 will still lose out under Labour’s doubling of the 10p rate.

    2. Of the 1.1 million people losing under Labour’s current plans, some will still lose up to £100 per year.

    3. Of the £2.7bn spent on increasing the personal allowance, only around £630m – less than a quarter – will actually go to the 5.3 million people who lost out under the 10p rate, making it an extremely poorly targeted policy.

    4. This additional spending will mean that net government borrowing for this year will rise to £45.7bn, a 6% increase from what was predicted two months ago and a 50% increase from what was estimated just one year ago.

    I do hope this is not seen as attacking anyone.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 00:10am on 14 May 2008, nikki noodle wrote:

    What do I think?

    I think that 2.7 billion pounds sterling is a very expensive sticking-plaster.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 01:03am on 14 May 2008, jonnie wrote:

    If only a square box £ was a pound.

    Perhaps they will be soon?

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 08:54am on 14 May 2008, Nigel_N wrote:

    Olambda (6) sums up the situation nicely. I thought that the PM Programme lacked analysis of winners and loosers. I assume that GB and AD hope to have bought-off enough mid-income electorate to see them through this sticky patch. It should be noted that one of the downsides of this solution is to make even more people "high income" earners in the high rate tax band.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 09:33am on 14 May 2008, RJMolesworth wrote:

    Frank Field is easily pleased. If the government is willing to borrow £2.7million to try to win a by-election, how much will it be willing to borrow to try to win the next general election. Let's hope they lose the by-election. Perhaps someone can calculate the cost of servicing that debt on the taxpayer.

    And after GB and his puppet have had their mighty thought, still there are 1.1 million losers. Never was the expression "lost the plot" more appropriate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 10:41am on 14 May 2008, primulaveris wrote:

    The removal of the 10p tax band reduced my part-time net wages against those of my full-time colleagues. Now my wages remain reduced by approx half the original amount, the new allowance means my colleagues' wages will increase, and so will my husband's, which will probably leave our 'household' without any loss or gain, but money has in effect been transferred from my wages to my husband's. The government have sought to favour approx 22 million of the electorate, against the 5 million originally affected, leaving supposedly only 1.1 million electors with a grievance (approx BBC figures) . I've now been removed from inclusion in the figure for the affected 1.1 million 'households' but my strong sense of grievance remains.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 12:38pm on 14 May 2008, U11204129 wrote:

    Well said Sid, 18.

    Starting rate: 10% £0-£2,230

    Basic rate: 22% £2,231-£34,600

    Basic rate: 20%* £0-£36,000

    (Figures in taxable income)

    The increase in personal allowance saves a tax payer £120 when fully claimed.

    But now on that first £2230 20p is paid instead of 10p so up to £223 extra tax is due.

    Thus those between £0 and £2230 are worse off. The maximum amount is £103 at £2230.

    Then the 2p reduction in tax kicks in. But to recoup that £103 loss the tax payer has to earn (in taxable income terms) a further £1030.

    And 1.1 million taxpayers are in that £0 to £3260 band and therefore losers.

    Do you agree RJD?

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 2:26pm on 14 May 2008, DI_Wyman wrote:

    On beige and pink stripped horse blankets.....?

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS


Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.