Chomper Higgot

You’ve addressed two different members in the same post with comments that can not possibly apply to both.

I wonder if she’s checked what the International Treaties the UK is bound by have to say about this latest ‘scheme’.

You clearly do not understand that raising the zero tax allowance gives a single flat rate tax reduction to all who pay income tax, regardless of how much they earn above the revised ‘zero tax allowance’.

Putting aside your facetious humour, raising the tax free allowance would have given very direct help to those on low incomes and would have avoided handing large tax breaks to the wealthy. All earners would receive the same assistance. But of course that would not have handed large sums to the already wealthy.

And asked a question too, you too failed to answer.

Did I say those on £100K are wealthy or was that you?

It’s gone from ‘Let’s give £350,000,000 per week to the NHS’ to ‘let’s cut welfare in order to hand tax breaks to the rich’. And no ‘sunny uplands’ along the way.

Oh right, so somebody earning less then £20,000 a year gets less than £100 help in tax breaks, someone earning £100,000 gets a £1000 oh tax breaks. Not a Trope, a fact.

I don’t think it a good idea to formulate national policies punitive to the poor based on what somebody else brags about on line. But of course opinions differ.

All we’ve seen so far is a desire to funnel borrowed money to the already wealthy.

I have no idea. Tell is how many. Or is this another of your baseless assumptions?

After over a decade of Tory austerity it’s difficult to claim people have been treated with ‘Kid Gloves’. But of course you need simple answers to address the complex problems faced by people you openly denigrate. Twelve years of Tory ‘tough love’ hasn’t solved anything, two more years of doubling down on failed policies will deliver nothing but more of the same failure.

Halting the civil case will put an end to the disclosure of his actions during the earlier bid and subsequent Musk antics. I suspect he’s trying to avoid criminal prosecution for share manipulation.

He’s getting desperate.

“I'm sure 30k earners is not the group that is being attacked yet very possibly could be wealthier than those in higher salary brackets. I await his answer with interest.” I’m not ‘attacking’ any group. The evidence I have provided relates to earned income. The Government are handing out borrowed money in the form of ‘tax’ giveaways (tax is paid on income). The whole giving away borrowed money is based on ‘income’.

I don’t need to defend ‘my definition of wealth’ I’ve provided the evidence of how much borrowed money the Government are handing out. The more you earn, the more borrowed money the Government is handing you.

I’ve provided a linked reference to the amount of borrowed money the Government is handing out based on individual income. The higher your income, the more borrowed money the Government is handing you. If you wish to dispute that provide an argument with evidence, I’m not interested in your semantics.

A disgraceful pejorative generalization.

I’m not about to get into making comments on the income of other members, it’s not the topic of discussion and it probably go off rails. You can review the chart I posted to determine an estimate of how much the tax cuts impact your income.

I didn’t say you lied. It’s simply an example claim (statement of a third party’s views) that cannot be substantiated.

Or so you tell us.

Yes she is, she can also fire the Chancellor she chose and appointed. She’s already blamed him for the idea of the cut to the 45% tax cut she’s had to U-Turn on. He’s obviously in the departure lounge. One erratic move after another.

It’s reached the stage now where Gove is arguing for £500 Million to be spent on free school meals for children living in poverty.

Truss is now dodging questions on whether or not she has trust in her Chancellor.

Well yes, that’s how progressive taxation works. Now explain the logic behind borrowing money to give most of it to tax payer 2.