A totally meaningless statement when you don't define what is meant by "better off".

My view is the top 1% who earn more than £150K have not been affected at all given the cut in income tax to 45%.

Take small amount away from the less well off and some will be plunged into poverty or face real hardship. Take a large amount off the wealthy and they are still wealthy. You'd have to be talking punitive levels of tax and cuts to hit the better off to the extent it would hit them that hard, not giving them a tax break.

They may lose child benefit and other things but they won't really notice.



It is certainly true austerity is just starting to take hold but it isn't a turning point. It was the plan all along that the plebs pay.

The simple way to get the better-off to contribute more without the need for increasing basic tax rates, is to introduce tax-debits. Gordon Brown wasn't stupid when he introduced the tax credit system, simply because it targeted those most in need.

The LimpDems keep crowing about how it was they who forced their coalition partners into raising personal allowances. The problem with that is, the greatest number of beneficiaries are those who need it least.

I am in favour of a multi-rate tax system but not one that is based on so-called simple rates. Tax rates of 20, 40 and 45%, with a "personal allowance" are stupid. I would charge 1% on even the lowest paid - even benefit recipients, that way no one could ever accuse them of not contributing at all. I would then levy 5 or 6 rates, rising according to remuneration to a top rate of 45%. I would also raise the top rate by 1% every 1/4 until we see evidence of the so-called tipping point, then simply ratchet it back one point.