George Osborne is toying with the idea of removing a further £30bn in middle-class..

[AtW]

What "principle" is that? do explain.

Principle #1 is this - fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Principle #2 is this - never vote for party that is known to be pro-business, better vote for somebody else who is afraid to be seen anti-business.

[AtW]

I also joined UKIP last night, paid my £30 and will be going to a meeting next week. Safest Tory seat in the country I'm in. I'll see if I can change that.

[vetran]

That's just below the belt...

[darmstadt]

Quite interesting to look back through this forum prior to the election and see the amount of people pushing for the Tories yet many of those same people are now moaning about them. Either put up or shut up, you voted for them, you're now getting your just rewards

[AtW]

Quite interesting to look back through this forum prior to the election and see the amount of people pushing for the Tories yet many of those same people are now moaning about them. Either put up or shut up, you voted for them, you're now getting your just rewards

Well, in my defense I did not realise that Tories (specifically Osborne) would be such blatant liars.

LibCons had sensible policies, dropped 50% to 45% and Osborne claimed it was LibDems who were stopping him to get rate down to 40%, nothing was indicating that he would suddenly go on a high taxing spree in zero time.

I did not actually expect him to drop 45% to 40% quickly, but I sure as heck did not expect 30% increase in taxation on dividends and a lot of other tulip that is still incoming.

If he told me that he planned to do then I'd certainly vote Labour - much better to have 50% rate back than all the stuff Osborne did and will do.

[centurian]

Well, in my defense I did not realise that Tories (specifically Osborne) would be such blatant liars.

I did, although I still voted for them as they were the least worst option - compared to Miliband propped up by the SNP.

None of the party's plans added up, not one of them - they were all based upon wildly optimistic assumptions, which were never going to come to pass.

Once you work out all the "protected" spending, and the "protected" tax promises (not raising basic rate of Tax/NI etc.), then it was blindingly obvious (to me anyway) that things like divs/pension contributions etc. would be in the firing line.

If he told me that he planned to do then I'd certainly vote Labour - much better to have 50% rate back than all the stuff Osborne did and will do.

Which would have raised peanuts - if anything, so Labour would still have come after your income group through other means anyway.

[AtW]

I did, although I still voted for them as they were the least worst option - compared to Miliband propped up by the SNP.

On reflection I don't think so.

Miliband would have increased political income tax to 50%, he'd have to extend HS2 to Scotland, the key difference is that they clearly said they would not cut deficist as quick as Osborne, hence less tax increases would have been required. Corp tax would have also gone back a few points up. Still much much better than the tulip Osborne ALREADY dished out.

What insulted me most is Osborne's justification for increasing tax on dividends - he said: "well, we've cut down corp tax (very slowly over 5 fooking years)", so now we take away all that and more!

That's just insulting, and particularly wrong because div tax is double taxation on top of corp tax, which is why div tax credit existed in the first place - worst of all those who use foreign vehicles to receive dividends won't be affected.

The "least worst option" is utter lie - in state with two parties one must be tax cutting and the other tax increasing, if Tories turned to be party of high taxes then what's the point???

[Waldorf]

The only valid ticket for Cons must be REDUCTION OF TAXATION, not "we'll tax you a lot but it might be less than the others".

I would love that, however not enough people vote for the cuts that would be necessary.

[AtW]

I would love that, however not enough people vote for the cuts that would be necessary.

People voted for it!!! Cons had mandate to REDUCE GOVT SPENDING, SECOND TIME NOW! First time they could claim that LibDems don't allow them to cut spending ... but not now!

Yet, what Osborne wants instead is to increase taxes on his core voters in order to buy more traditional Labour voters and for that reason he isn't cutting the spending as fast and as much as was promised.

One can't even argue that they would lower taxes in time for next election, they might PROMISE to do so IF they get elected again, but the problem is that once Govt gets nice tax revenues it won't be going back on it - this creates problem for the future, that's why Govt spending should have been reduced - taxation is very high as it is.

[SueEllen]

I did, although I still voted for them as they were the least worst option - compared to Miliband propped up by the SNP.

None of the party's plans added up, not one of them - they were all based upon wildly optimistic assumptions, which were never going to come to pass.

Once you work out all the "protected" spending, and the "protected" tax promises (not raising basic rate of Tax/NI etc.), then it was blindingly obvious (to me anyway) that things like divs/pension contributions etc. would be in the firing line.

The idea was to work out how to get a hung parliament again so we could get another referendum on the parliamentary voting system.