Comments:UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling releases 2008 budget

Is this really all you lot can say about it?
 * If you know more information you can add to it --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to object
That image is AWFUL. Where are the scale markings? Shouldn't there be an indication of how much each column is (Like most graphs)? Also, Shouldn't the green be black? 68.39.174.238 03:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxes in England
It seems as if the government are intent on raising taxes by unfair means. For example, when I go abroad and see what other countries are being charged for petrol and diesel, it is clear that we are being vastly overcharged. Countries with no oil reserves are charged much less than we are. It is time that a progressive taxation system was introduced that relates directly to a person's ability to pay.

The removal of the 10% band for those earning less than £18,000 and do not have children is most unfair.

Currently taxes are collected through earnings, council tax, petrol/diesel duty, road tax on big cars and VAT.

Council tax does not measure a person's ability to pay. Pensioners are being discriminated against because their pension does not go up in proportion to the increase in council tax.

Clearly, people with large families will need a bigger car than those with a small family.

People earning less that £18,000 who do not have children, should not be subsidising those earning more than £18,000 who have large families. The tax credit system, which is being suggested by MPs to alleviate this problem, will lead to an increase in tax and revenue administrative staff within government (more empire building). Pensioners and low wage earners will be forced into a complex means testing procedure which many will be reluctant to go through and this will cause anxiety and stress. This is not the answer and tax should be based on income and a person's ability to pay (their salary).

Petrol and diesel have been taxed so heavily that low wage earners are being penalised more than the high wage earners and those with company cars. Clearly a higher road tax will not stop high wage earners, eg senior managers and company directors, from driving large prestige vehicles.

MPs have always looked after themselves. They have voted themselves large wage increases and increases in pension linked to their final salary. They have an endless expenses account and do not have to supply invoices or justify expenditure to the Inland Revenue. There seems to be one law for them and another for us, the voters. Tax payers who can least afford it are subsidising MPs, many of whom have grown rich on the likes of us, the working person.

In my job I meet many people and most of them agree with me:

We should not be robbing the poor to give to the rich.

MPs should be working to the same Revenue taxation rules that we do.

MPs should not be eligible to buy a second house using tax payers' money. With modern technology, telephone or video conferencing could be used for some meetings to reduce costs. It is widely used within industry to cut meeting costs and to improve management efficiency. Why doesn't the government use it? If a second home is needed then this should be owned by us the tax payers and should not be another benefit to the MP. Alternatively, hotels could be used, which is the norm for most senior managers.

Lastly, the Prime Minister is looking after his own constituents in Scotland. They get free medical prescriptions, they do not have to sell their house if they need to go into a care home in old age, they have better access to drugs which are not approved in England and they do not have to pay university fees for their children. The constituents in England are subsidising those in Scotland and to a lesser extent those in Wales.

Will I vote Labour again? The answer is clearly NO! No..! Most of my colleagues have voiced the same concerns and will not be voting Labour again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.66.218 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)