What's going on in London?

[Furunculus]

What these pricks really want is for you and me to pay for their pensions and empire building.

agreed, these economic illiterates just don't understand that even with the election deficit plans from all three parties we are still on a trajectory to see a national debt of 400% of GDP by 2040.

that will require 27% of government revenue annualy to service the debt-interest. money that might otherwise be spent on worthy social causes such as gender awareness officers.......


http://www.bis.org/publ/work300.pdf

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ban...-over-400-2040

In the US & Canada - and I believe also in the UK, the top 1% income earners actually pay little to no income tax.

Then we should ditch the fifty% income tax band, as the last time we brought down rates/abolished higher tiers the top 1% actually generated MORE revenue for the exchequer:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle7031468.ece

By contrast, in his 1988 Budget, Nigel Lawson cut the top rate of income tax to 40p in the pound. And it raised more tax.

More to the point, Labour strategists might note, it raised more from the top paid in society. In 1978-79, after Mr Healey’s top rate of 83 per cent, the highest-earning 1 per cent of the population paid 11 per cent of all income tax taken in by the Treasury. After Mr Lawson’s cut in the top rate to 40 per cent, the top 1 per cent of earners now pay an estimated 24.1 per cent of all income tax.

There’s more. In the late 1970s the top 5 per cent of earners paid 24 per cent of all income tax, but now they pay 43.1 per cent. In the late 1970s the top 10 per cent of earners paid 35 per cent of all income tax, but now pay 53.3 per cent.

The message is simple — the lower the top rate of income tax, the less people will try to dodge it and the more money the Treasury raises.

same goes for business taxation:

http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/20...-tax-revenues/