Not at all, I'm not even in the (old) top tax bracket. I'm just ideologically opposed to charging people more the more they earn.

It's based on the fact that you need a certain amount to live well and the rest is luxury. So you get taxed more on "luxury money"
I wouldn't have any problems with paying more taxes if the benefit system wasn't so corrupted ...

All the elections I can remember (say early 90's onwards) have been about what people want for the country. This election is about what we as a country can afford.

Would you believe one of my friends just said that the entire budget deficit should be made up entirely through tax rises and not through pay freezes and job cuts at all.
You can tell she's a public sector worker with a unionist background.

Joke of the day
LINK

I won't ruin it by hinting what the punchline is.

A greater proportion maybe, but they would still take home more.

That is a complete fallacy. They pay far less of their income on other taxes. Plus income tax would have to rise far more to have the same proportion on everyone. Also you ignore the fact that much of the wealth of the rich is shunted offshore so in order to raise the same level of taxation you would find that your own tax rates would be considerably.

I find it odd that many people have complained about the current system and its flaws and yet as the day gets closer they forget all that all swim along in the torrent of a biased two party system and won't vote for a party that wants reform, be they LibDem or numerous other parties.

It's understandable that people are scared but disappointing.

I wouldn't say how others should vote, that's for them and their conscience to decide. If you can live with voting for a party who you don't agree with just because of your fear then that's something that you'll have to live with.

One thing's for sure, election time does reveal the true nature of many and many base their votes on fear whether they wish to admit it or not.

I, for one, will vote for the party that talks most sense and sits well with my ideals.

Interestingly, this is the first time I'll have gone to vote and not been voting for something, but voting against something else.

Cameron's got talent: Tory leader is the Prime Minister Britain needs, says Simon Cowell

Cowell's priceless when he's writing for The Sun, who he just happens to share a load of views with:



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... z0n5VfNtcd

Clegg's Hairdresser Asks: 'Nick Who?'

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politi ... 6051?f=rss

He really shouldn't have admitted that

Simon Cowell dismisses somebody else as "made for TV". Hilarious.

Actually, it is understandable. I was a bit hasty saying fear can often affect voting patterns. It can do but then because of the nature of the voting system here tactical voting comes in to play, local issues, protest votes etc.

I really would like to see a change. PR is good enough for Afghanistan and Iraq, why not for us? I imagine when instigating "democracy" it would be hard to make our system look fair, especially when you can check a website to see that your vote is not as weighty as a vote elsewhere in the country.

Because PR would almost always mean a Hung parliament which would make it much harder for a government to be effective.

I don't think that's a bad thing TBH. Most of the mess we're in now is because Labour had such a vast majority they could force through any hastily devised and ill-thought out law they fancied.