David Cameron's newly-promised tax cuts won't be delivered until 2018, and when they are, as usual, it's the rich who will benefit the most.

<3 cassette boy

Jamiet99uk:

I hate rap, but that's pretty funny!

And weirdly doesn't annoy me. Maybe that's because it isn't really rap . . .

Not that I wholly disagree or anything but that Huffington Post article says the following.

"Despite Cameron's insistence that these pledges were aimed at "hard-working" households and would benefit around 30m people across the UK, expert analysis suggests these tax giveaways would, in fact, help the rich much more than the poor - or, for that matter, the 'squeezed middle'."

Is this trying to say that rich people do not work hard? Some may not but I have a hard time believing that Rich and hard-working are mutually exclusive groups.

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

-And no I'm not suggesting anyone is advocating beating up rich people. :)

@ ANimac: The Huffpost article is using the term "hard working households" in the context that David Cameron's rhetoric uses it. When he uses the term "hard working households", he clearly implies he is talking about the average man in the street, NOT the hyper-wealthy.

Huffpost have not introduced the term "hard working families", and they are quoting it in the correct context, as used by Britain's politicians.

Does that help?

It's also worth noting that the actual purpose of the Snopes article is to draw attention to the fact that the leading accountancy professor who was named in the 'parable' subsequently denied having written it.

@Jamiet99uk - yes it does. I have to admit though that come April next year I would prefer a simple unbiased summary of party policies (pie in the sky).

I did see the point of the article as well thanks - just trying to point out that percentage tax cuts are by nature more likely to affect those paying more tax (assuming they are of course - which is definitely not always the case). Of course the analogy I posted is a bit simplistic overall.

The 12500 limit is of greatest benefit to those working full time on minimum wage, for whom the impact will be akin to a 3% pay rise. I find the complaints against it strange.

If they get it straight away it would. Didn't the Prime Minister say that a future Tory parliament would do it? Not at what stage of that government it would happen.

@ ANimac - I answered that question above - the tax cut would not be until 2018 "once the deficit has been paid off"

I think any dates are very vague at this point, and subject to change. Still, the full time minimum wagers will benefit by around 400 quid whenever it comes in. Assuming it happens tomorrow it is around 3.2%. If it happens in 2020 more like 2.8%. I reckon 3% as a rough figure is fair.

I like a Conservative Party that supports the rich because that it what they are supposed to do, also I liked his speech where he promised everything because that is what you expect from someone desperate to hang on to his job.
We expect our politicians to over-promise and under-deliver so he ticked all of the boxes. He will have his hands full in the coming months with the Liberals and UKIP and defections etc,etc..
Labour Leader Miliband has his own problem, convincing people he actually wants to be the Prime Minister.
Very soon we have some by-elections which could give us some clues as to how the Tory vote will hold up come the General Election.
I'm watching with interest the UKIP election bandwagon roll into town.

The by-elections will tell us very little about the Tory vote. Carswell will likely win his as he's a decent chap who is very popular with the electorate. Indeed, I rather hope he does as it will restore my faith that there are still people who vote for the person and not the party. Reckless will lose by a country mile because he's a twat.

What will be interesting is how the Labour support holds up. I suspect an underwhelming performance.

Octo it's a by-election 7 months before a general election, they won't admit it but the Labour hierarchy will be hoping the Tories take a kicking at the hands of UKIP, regardless of their own support because they have very little hope of winning the seat themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if both Labour and the Lib Dems get 50% of their 2010 General Election result.
Are you still thinking that UKIP will only get 9% next year, if so you are sleep-walking your way to election defeat..... this is not the time for arrogance or spin, reality bites.

Nigs, even regular by-elections are poor at predicting national election results. When the battle is between the person and the party who won last time they are utterly useless. As I said, Carswell has a great deal of personal support and should do well. Reckless does not and won't.

What will this tell us about the general election? Nothing whatsoever.