My proposal was to decrease the current amount of income tax paid by most middle earners of 40% to 30% as more and more of the population have fallen into this band in the last 10 years.
This is entirely due to this govt's refusal to move the income tax thresholds in line with wage inflation. The UEL is now not very far fom the national average wage.
I would then increase tax of the 'wealthy' and then increase again to those who could be termed rich, imo
Again, I ask: WHY? Why should the 'wealthy' be subjected to punitive taxation? Is earning this amount of money somehow a crime? Why should hard work and enterprise be punished?
Disruptive pupils tend to be from those families who could be considered caught in the poverty trap
Horsesh1t! Poverty does not cause anti-social behaviour. There are 4 billion poor people in the world - they are not all anti-social scrotes. There has been an astronomic rise recently of 'middle class delinquency' (just watch programmes like 'brat camp' to see what I mean), due mainly to 2 factors: a) The spread of 'progressive' parenting, where discipline in the home is discouraged, and b)Mothers going back to work as soon as the child is out of the womb, dumping the kids on childminders and any institution that will take them. Anti-social behaviour can be found in all socio-economic groups; it has cock-all to do with how much money you have. Being 'poor' is NEVER an excuse for bad behaviour - proper discipline and manners cost NOTHING!
I am all for offering places in good schools to poorer kids, but there is no point in giving an opportunity to someone who either cannot, or will not, make use of it. Places should be given to poorer kids who can show that they have the ability and the motivation to make something of themselves, not just because they are 'poor'.
Once it is broken for a generation I think it highly unlikely it would occur again.
I agree with this, and there are proven ways of breaking the poverty chain. I have benefitted from a number of them, namely:
1. Assited places at private schools for capable youngsters who cannot afford it.
2. Giving council tenants the right to buy their home, allowing them to see some benefit from the money they would have spent on rent.
My parents did this, and now live quite comfortably in a very nice property, despite my father only ever earning a very modest wage. Both these policies were designed to allow people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale to make something of themselves under their own efforts, and free them from dependence on local authorities. It is interesting to note that:
Point 1 - a TORY policy, abolished by Labour the minute they took power.
Point 2 - a TORY policy, now severely restricted by Labour.
Labour do not want people at the bottom of the pile to be freed from dependence, since this would erode their core support. They would rather attack those higher up the scale, bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator in the name of 'equality'. Were it not for the above-mentioned TORY policies, I and my family would not be where we are today. Think about that.
16B