Clegg sweetens the pill with a fairness premium

Phillipsof Chesterfield

Clegg dealt with none of the questions asked of him. To say that he did "quite well" requires the wearing of a desperate pair of post-coital Coalition beer goggles.

david

Do you get paid for writing this rubbish? Is it a Libdem pledge perhaps, well you can wipe yer arse with that can't you.

HJ

I'm not sure that it is correct to say that raised personal allowances also benefit high earners. I was under the impression that the higher rate threshold would be reduced (or at least, not increased in line with inflation or earnings) in order to compensate.

i pashley

They are punishing middle England again, if you are poor or extremely well off you're basically off the hook. Why don't you put more pressure on us and see where it gets you!

Pete Hoskin

HJ: By "higher earners" I just meant people earning more money - rather than high rate taxpayers. Have changed it to avoid confusion.

David Ossitt

“but the basic point is that £7 billion will be spent”

An utter waste of money, a nonsensical project, a namby-pamby attempt at social engineering, it would be wrong in any financial climate but in these times where drastic and necessary cuts are being made, it is quite simply obscene.

If this goes ahead, it is proof, if proof were needed that the government is paying much too high a price to keep the LibDems onside.

normanc

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may well be) but isn't the middle tax threshold (40%) being frozen so that the raising of the lower threshold will make it tax neutral to the so-called middle (or upper, depending on your point of view) class?

In fact, a quick google later, it seems that it's actually being lowered by £1,500 making a tax increase of 15% of £1,500 = £225 so the so called middle classes are actually losers with the new tax levels.

Charles

Normanc:

If they just froze the upper tax band then the "middle classes" would also benefit as they will save tax from the increase in the personal allowance. (By £225)

Lowering the tax band like this effectively offsets the benefit gain by all 40%+ tax payers.

(I have more of an issue with the withdrawal of the personal allowance for the higest rate tax player - a typically sneaky Brownian trick that implies that the highest earners have fewer rights than normal members of the population. If you want to tax us more just increase the tax rate. Just don't try and pull a fast one)

Bloody Bill Brock

When all is said and done, WE did not win the GE outright. A coalition had to be formed with the sandeled socialists in order to prevent a Labour "rainbow coalition", (can you imagine.) Therefore, we have to take the rough with the smooth, I personally think the LDs have behaved quite well, for them, and accept that some silly and annoying actions will be pursued. That's coalition government. When I read people on the Specie site saying "lets see where this gets um with the middle class's", whats their alternative? Another dose of Labour?

gordon-bennett

Generally speaking, the poor are poor because they are thick and ineducable. This pupil premium is therefore a complete waste of money.

My solution would be to search out the intelligent few among the poor by giving everyone an IQ test. In other words, go back to the Grammar School system from which so many poor people like me benefitted.

I passed the 11-plus, went to the local GS and was so successful that I retired at age 39 with a pile of money. The system works.

Bloody Bill Brock

@gordon-bennett
You clearly did very well. I had to wait until I was 58 for my retirement. However, like yourself a Grammar School boy and on the whole in agreement with your post.

Ex-Tory voter

I, too, benefited from a Grammar School education. Failure to endorse and encourage said system of education was the start of my turning away from Cameron's lilac party. I heard somebody on TV talking about these disadvantaged families. It turns out that for many their main disadvantage is not having English as their first language. Personally, I don't think it's fair to penalise indigenous workers to give incomers a "premium". What do the rest of you think?

Dimoto

The £7B is 'over four years' (i.e. mostly in the final two years - before an election - when the financial pressure may have eased a tad). It hardly makes much sense to apply a 'pupil premium' before the school reforms take hold.

It's fairly clear that some political schemer (Hilton ?) has decided to hijack the two Labour buzzwords "progressive" and "fair". Like "gay", Labour has completely distorted the meaning of these two words, so who can blame the coalition for putting it's own spin/tweak on them.

John

I wonder if Clegg has shared this news with Osbourne.....?

Charles

gordon-bennett

I think people get too hung up on the purity of the grammar school system.

Try to reintroduce grammar schools and you will be shouted down by the unions and the left.

Introduce the free schools and you may get away with it. Then after the next election you can allow schools to be academically selective. Capisce?

Bloody Bill Brock

'@EX TORY
I agree with you and I also agree with Charles. What I wonder is, where do you waste your vote now?

Frank Sutton

According to a headteacher talking about this on Radio 2 at midday, this will benefit children who, for instance, don't get any breakfast at home, can't speak properly by the time they start school, who, in essence, come from uncaring homes.
What nobody seems to be saying is that this money is to make up for bad parenting. Sure, children with such forlorn prospects need rescuing, but if it's the school's job to do this, can we not also address the problem of bad parents?

David Ossitt

Frank Sutton asks, “can we not also address the problem of bad parents?”

Sterilise the women and castrate the men.