Letters: Supporting a generation of non-earners

The move to extend the retirement age is desperate recognition that successive governments have been nurturing the growth of a hapless generation incapable of earning a taxable income other than as a result of winning X-Factor or the lottery. While we wring our hands over the effect of the cuts on the "more vulnerable members of society", is it worthwhile pointing out some of the "more vulnerable members of society" celebrate this label?

The planned cuts will affect countless people who, like me, repeatedly find their "hard earned" squandered on the hapless and hopeless.

While our soldiers return from war with horrific disabilities, keen to get back to their jobs or alternative employment, the state supports those who have never worked or contributed to the system because of their drug/alcohol addiction, stress or other self-inflicted disorders.

The incidence of large families with habitually unemployed or drug-addicted parents is an increasing norm in some communities because the state will support them more readily than families formed by conscientious planning. The incidence of single- parent families is on the increase as a result of positive discrimination and continued dismantling by government of traditional financially supportive family units.

It's laudable that "35 business leaders" endorsed the coalition's strategy, but these characters are likely to be more concerned about how to evade rather than pay tax. There should be a move towards suspending benefits to those who have never worked or won't work because they chose not to.

Why not suspend our EU subsidy and channel this into clearing the debt? Let's suspend our planned 12.6 billion contribution to developing countries over the next four years, too, until we're out of this mess.

As the banks instigated the problem and we incurred the debt baling them out, should their profits, bonuses etc not be drawn down to settle the deficit too?

David Cameron attained his premiership espousing his happy-clappy big community philosophy. I, for one, would like my taxes spent more judiciously. We can't continue to burn the candle at both ends.

Ron Connelly

Morlich Road

Dumfermline, Fife

It is interesting that we have a new leading economic think tank in our country in the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Perhaps to gain top spot you must simply manipulate the figures to create a story that the media are looking for.

The poorest families will bank 5.6 per cent a year less, according to the IFS. The wealthier families will only suffer a 4.5 per cent cut.

So there we have it, the cuts hit the poorest harder! Now I don't know of any family, poor or well off, who has ever banked a percentage point.

The institute's story would not have made any headlines if it had said that those earning 10,000 a year would be 560 worse off, while those earning 76,000 would be hit for 3,420.

Last week we were told of the severe financial hardships that a family with a single income of 45,000 would suffer by losing their child benefit. This was due to the fact that people live to their budget.

Cuts are cuts, pain is pain, and to suggest that one sector of our country is being hit harder is simply nonsense, no matter how "leading" an economic think tank you really are.

We're in this together, and the sooner we stop pandering to the fatalistic arguments of the previous government and bodies like the IFS, the sooner we'll move out of it.

Paul Sewell

Stevenson Avenue

Edinburgh

According to data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a cut of 5.5 per cent in net income could leave the bottom 10 per cent some 2,800 worse off (your report, 22 October).

By my calculations that leaves them with around 48,000.

I would have been happy with that before I retired, never mind now!

Stuart C Poole

Howdenhall Drive

Edinburgh

John Swinney and the SNP administration have, according to Professor Brian Ashcroft of the Fraser of Allander Institute, so far "dodged'' taking any painful but vital economic decisions (your report, 22 October).

Ironically, even the nationalist-leaning Crawford Beveridge report recommendations have also been ignored by the SNP and it would appear Mr Swinney and his fellow SNP ministers believe they can run - and hide also - until the election next year.

Most agree action is urgently required.

To avoid and postpone decisions is not only cowardly in the political sense; it is a clear case of putting the interests of the SNP's election chances before the good of the country they profess to love.

Alexander McKay

New Cut Rigg

Edinburgh