Wednesday, 2 February 2011

I can’t support the coalition anymore

I never wanted to have to write this post, but I just can't do it any more. I can't go on while being kicked in the face by the government and still support it.

I have to admit, I'm not very happy with the coalition from a personal prospective. I earn just a few hundred pounds over the new 50% tax band threshold* (this was an error I meant 40%). Which in itself is fine, I don't mind paying 50% tax on this income. But this put me in the squeezed middle. The movement of the threshold will result in my partner from 2013 will no longer receive child support for my son, a loss of over £1,000. National Insurance is also going up above £35k.

The government have also cut the office where my partner worked. This means that I am the only income earner as we can't really afford to pay for childcare despite the support provided with child care vouchers which would cover about 10%-15% of the cost if working full time.

Also I only live in a one bed flat so I need to move however I don't have the equity for a 10% deposit (flat has gone down in value) so I will need to rent. That's fine I'm not asking for a council house (although I won't expect to get one if I tried, and if I did it would take too long). If the banks offered some better mortgage deals which accepted lower deposits then perhaps this would help. Why are the government not doing more to encourage the banks to lend at better rates?

Before you say it was my choice to have a baby. Actually due to a medical condition we thought that we could not have children. But low and behold we have had a son (Landon), a miracle baby. We won't have an apportion for us its not right (although I fully support the rights of other to have them) and we didn't know if we could ever have this chance again. So actually we had no choice and I'm extremely happy we had a wonderful son.

I also understand that I'm still lucky to live in Britain and not many countries where these benefits would not be paid. But as these benefits exist, should couples like us should not be encourage to live apart to get greater benefits for our son. Surely it is unfair to have one family earning £80k (£40k each) to still receive child benefit when a family earning just over £40k lose this benefit.
So I can no longer support the coalition as it is detrimental to the up bringing of my son. I blame the banks and the last government for the financial mess we are in as a country but I also blame the coalition for the way the taxes and cuts are being distributed. I still support the Liberal Democrats as I believe in what they/we stand for as an independent party. However many Tories or Lib Dems never voted for a child benefit cut which although progressive is essentially unfair to many families in similar positions and does not encourage families to say together.

* This was an error I meant 40%


  1. Wow, then what a smug self-righteous twat you've been, if after all, it's just about you.

    You're earning over £40,000 so shut the fuck up and remember the large amount of people not half as well off as you that you were asking to lend their support to a coalition you were too thick to realise would result in policies like those you now cannot countenance.

    You whiny cock

  2. Could you just clarify whether you are earning over the 50%/£150,000 pa or the 40%/£43,000ish pa.

    @Anon 1

    Nice, real nice.

  3. You earn over 150k? Is this a spoof? Lib Dems have always argued for a more progressive taxation system. Your taxes are going up SLIGHTLY so people who are actually poor can pay less. If you dont like it, join the Tories.

  4. I'm Anon3.

    I should point out that if you are a higher rate tax payer you only pay it on the money that you earn over the higher rate. Also, you don't actually appear to be in the 50% tax band (unless you're earning over £150,000 a year)? Frankly, if you're earning over £150K a year, it is difficult to have sympathy with the concerns you raise ...

    The plans for cutting child benefits for higher income earners have not yet been brought forward (and I would imagine will look different after they do - as people have pointed out the situation does not necessarily seem fair for single income, just-in-the-higher rate families - although this loophole has always existed in income tax).

    TBH, the "squeezed" middle is an odd concept - the median income in the UK is about £26K. Any higher rate tax payer is considerably better off than that. Plus take into account the increase in the personal allowance.

    Your main concern is about child benefit - and the precise details of who will benefit from it. I'd suggest that until such things become clear, you are rather jumping the gun.

  5. Sorry I do not earn over £150k I wish, there was a mistake in the post sgoulbof read 40%

    Also politics is always both personal and national, doesn't seem fair to other families on just over 40k joint income, I'm using me as an example, if I feel like this how do non LibDem Tory members feel who voted for this govt in a simluarvposition

  6. The real "squeezed middle" are those earning less than £20,000

    You're not in the right position to feel sorry for yourself.

  7. So the 'new' tax band isn't in fact new. It is old. And while the child benefit cut is bizarre in its form it is not unfair on anyone who cannot afford it.

    The only person I feel sorry for in this is your partner, who has lost their job because of cuts implemented by a party you still seem to support.

  8. I'm with you here. It is rubbish having these non-entities above claiming that people on 26k have it so much harder.
    I have worked very hard to get my job paying £40k, so didn't slack off at school, take drugs and piss my education away. I also have a large mortgage as I don't get council housing and have no desire to live in central London where my old road was blighted by anti-social behaviour by people who did get council housing but did nothing but drink, vandalise and take drugs.
    There is a squeezed middle - it is those people on 35-65k who work like dogs but get taxed like buggery and consume none of the state's services.
    So my 40k will be 24k or so after tax, then I pay 20% on anything I buy so there is another 4.8k to the govt. Petrol and alcohol are horrendously taxed so in essence I get about 15k of my own money. Most of this goes on a mortgage and huge train fares. Great.

  9. Oh well I'm not after people feeling sorry for me, just getting a bit personal on the coalition. People earning under 20k quite rightly do ok on income tax. Which I support natually. What's new is now the bam moves down to capture the lower tax payer

  10. Scary,

    "So my 40k will be 24k or so after tax..."

    Um, no. It will be about £29,524.20 after income tax and NI:


  11. "So my 40k will be 24k or so after tax"

    Rubbish. 40K salary would incur income tax of £6610 and employee NI of £4800 at 2011-2012 rates, leaving you with post-tax income of £28590. That;s still above the median UK salary. My heart bleeds for you - NOT

  12. I worked very hard, having to re-build a new career after the Labour recession of the late 1970s took away the extremely lucrative career I was working and training for.

    I work a basic 40 hour week, sometimes get the 'opportunity' to do unpaid overtime evenings and weekends and I haven't had a pay rise in four years. Even though the firm I work for is very profitable. (The bosses' words, not mine) I take home just over £1,000 a month. My wife has to take a part time job, even though with her health problems, I'd rather she did not work, but because I work she can claim no benefits.

    You really have very little to complain about.

  13. @scarymary Many people who "didn't slack off at school, take drugs and piss my education away" earn £20K rather than your £40K.

    £35-£65 is not in 'the middle', it is towards the top.

    I'm interested to hear that you use 'no state services'. Do you not walk on the pavement, drive on the roads or ever visit a GP?

    Others have pointed out that your figures are wrong.

  14. Are these complaints real? The seem to be of thisa variety: "I earn "250,000 per year, and the evil coalition government propose to tax me £400,000 per year! I have voted Tory/Lib Dem all of my life since the age of five, but I'll never vote Tory/Lib Dem ever, ever again!"

    Or, are they, as I suspect Labour Party "Trolltavists" spamming fora with utter twaddle?

  15. Very surprised at your whinging if I'm perfectly honest.

    Most of the cuts proposed by the coalition are for reducing the deficit and sorting out the economic mess the previous government left behind. But a substantial element of these cuts is to offset the tax relives given to those on the lower end of the pay scale - which is one of Nick Clegg's promisses - zero tax on the first 12K!

    So not only am I surprised - I'm equally dismayed that you did not do your homework on that one.

  16. There are a few miss understandings of my post here, but I admit I did post thi from an emotional propective rather than a logical one. But as we are all human do these polices not also effect other middle earners emotionally?

  17. "But as we are all human do these polices not also effect other middle earners emotionally?"

    I should think that the emotional impact on a low earner of struggling to make ends meet far outweighs the emotional impact on you of your having to pay a bit more tax for the good of the country.

    On £40K you are comfortably off - you are in a position to make choices which poorer people can't make.

    Stop bellyaching

  18. Shocking post. You're in the same position as me but earning twice as much; yet I'm earning twice as much as the lowest earners I know. You've simply got no idea and this post stands testament to that.

    I've just been talking to a single mother of 2 (both under 8) that's being forced into work and has been living with a budget of only £5 a week for the past 3 months, after housing, bills and food. Think it through before you start blabbering about how it's effecting you "emotionally".

    We elected histories poshest and richest government, what did you expect?

  19. As a 40p band tax payer you are actually in the top 10% of earners in the country. However, I think it is perfectly legitimate for you to be miffed by the tax and benefits changes. As you earn only slightly above the 40p threshold you're going to get stung disproportionately by the removal of CB.

    But also the majority of tax lost by increasing the income tax threshold goes to middle income earners. Only a fraction of it goes to taking people out of income tax and doesn't do anything to help the poorest at all. The original libdem policy of a £10k personal allowance on its own has been shown by the IFS to not be progressive. Add in the VAT increase and the policy is the standard tory policy of replacing progressive direct taxation with regressive indirect taxation. A £10k personal allowance still means the poorest have to pay NI and VAT. That in a nutshell is nick clegg for you, thatcherism with better PR.

  20. Binfield watcher3 February 2011 at 20:41

    [Anonymous] is a socialishit who has nothing positive to say and prolongs a class war by disrespecting others on a public medium.

    Scary Mary is right.

  21. I would like to contribute to this economic debate.
    The last goverenment spent more money than it should have and got the UK plc into debt by borrowing money.
    Did we vote for that policy?
    That debt needs to be paid back to those who lent UK plc the money - who-ever they are? So let UK plc tell'um "we owe you so go wish".
    The Condemlibs say that the debt has to be paid back by us the people (are we now UK plc?) through higher VAT, NI, income tax threshold adjustments and so on.
    Did we vote for that policy too?
    That policy is now causing inflation so now the people (not UK plc) get a lot less for our money.
    I say that the UK plc debt can be repaid more rapidly by stopping UK Governement spending on
    .Foreign Aid,
    .EU payments,
    .benefit payments to immigrants,
    .climate change stuff,
    .art subsidies
    .railway subsidies
    .muliticulti shite
    and we could also sell off the forests if necessary.

    Why not? Leave the people alone - we didn't vote to get into debt.

    (Any political party that has 'democrat' democratic' or 'democracy' in its name can't be trusted.)

  22. "The last goverenment spent more money than it should have and got the UK plc into debt by borrowing money."

    We've had a national debt since the 17th century.

    "Did we vote for that policy?"

    Yeh, Labour won the 97, 01 and 05 elections on manifestos calling for the government to borrow to invest in capital projects.

    "The Condemlibs say that the debt has to be paid back by us the people (are we now UK plc?) through higher VAT, NI, income tax threshold adjustments and so on.
    Did we vote for that policy too?"

    Well, not really, no party set out their spending plans in detail and certainly promised to do things that they've subsequently not done.

    "That policy is now causing inflation so now the people (not UK plc) get a lot less for our money."

    What policy? The current spike in inflation is due to the devaluation in the £ and big increases in the price of basic food and materials.

    "Foreign Aid," - £10bn pa mainly spent in Britain.

    ".EU payments," - £10bn pa but could only be stopped by withdrawing for the EU.

    ".benefit payments to immigrants," - mainly a myth will save about tuppence in government spending terms.

    ".climate change stuff," - DECC budget is mostly spent on nuclear decommissioning. But green tech is a massive growth area and would be even if climate change weren't an issue as oil reserves are running out.

    ".art subsidies" - pathetic amount of money could find more if we looked down the back of a few sofas.

    ".railway subsidies" - already being chopped big time.

    ".muliticulti shite" - yeh real money spinner.

    "and we could also sell off the forests if necessary." - isn't even going to save any money.

    "Why not? Leave the people alone - we didn't vote to get into debt."

    We were already in debt before we had the right to vote. Stop reading the daily mail, pal, it makes you stupid.

    "(Any political party that has 'democrat' democratic' or 'democracy' in its name can't be trusted.)"

    Dictatorship is you favoured form of government then?

  23. So if someone like myself quinoa earning above the average feels like this then who do people earning below the average feel. Inst that the point of my post. I understand why bit I still think the irectiom of some of the taxes aren't right. Lower tax equals more economic activity and more money for the govt in the long run. Im happy to pay more tax. My point is please don't take away the child benefit , I do really need it. And so do others in a similar position. I know what it is like btw to earn less. I am from a council estate up bringing and was unemplyed under John majors govt.

  24. As someone who can only dream of average let alone your level of salary, my sympathy to your middle class "plight" is precisely zero. However, kudos for having the guts to be honest about this.

    Childcare is an issue however, but earning the kind of money you do, you have some cheek to complain. I'd expect this sort of middle class complaint about "poverty" from the Daily Mail or the Express, not from a fellow Lib Dem.

  25. "I'm happy to pay more tax."
    Doesn't sound like it.

    "My point is please don't take away the child benefit , I do really need it."

    No you don't. You're very comfortably off.

    However in my view - in fairness - the winter fuel supplement should be withdrawn from higher rate taxpayers as well.

  26. Your tax should be going up to help those who will be suffering and losing homes under your cuts you whinging fool.

    I would be ashamed of myself if I had the views you espouse here.

  27. Well I guess I'm on a middle class wage but I am not from a middle class back ground nor am I living in a middle class area.

    Sorry to offend many but just because I earn a good wage is no need to penalise those the do. It's not about life style it's just about having a reasonable home ie two rooms one for the mum and dad and one for the baby. I could of course go to the council but I won't as others are mote needy.

    So If this is wrong, so be it. I'm sticking up for others in a similar situation. Like u said I'm happy to pay more tax but it's the child benefit cut targeted in an unfair way that I'm not happy about. Other families earning 70k will still beable to claim it.

  28. One thing it sounds like people are forgetting here is that there is a difference between income and wealth.

    It sounds like you do have a relatively high income, but not much in the way of capital (house, savings etc). This puts you in a different position to somebody with a lower income but some more financial security. For instance obviously if you are still renting then a lot of your wage is going into somebody else's pocket. If you are on a mortgage, but are still largely paying interest then the same is true. If you have started paying off the mortgage itself then you are gaining a lump some of property value that you can use to move with, and if you actually own your home out right then your housing costs are very small.

    It amazes me that we take so little account of an individuals wealth when making policy decisions, but assume that all people on 40k are in the same boat. This is so clearly not true that it is almost laughable, or at least would be if it were not also utterly tragic, in that it really does lead some people to lose their homes whilst hardly toughing others.

    That said, I do think if you are earning 40k and facing a financial catastrophe you should carefully examine your financial outgoings, but I can imagine how somebody with negative equity and a big mortgage really would be in this situation and I sympathise. We need to start broadening the debate about where we can squeeze and where we cannot. For a start I would institute a land tax and rent controls, then try to combine income and savings when setting any means tested bar, but in a dynamic way so that people with no capital can earn a higher income before missing out, whilst outright home owners (like me) with savings in the bank would loose out whilst earning smaller amounts of income.

    Only thing is, if a programme like this where implemented I can easily imagine an almost carbon copy of the post you have written being published against it!

  29. Thanks Simon , wealth that must be my issue, although I think fairness on joint incomes to would help.