During the life of this government the low paid minority have been more than looked after compared to those of us on average earnings. So reduction of the basic rate from 22% to 20% is more than wellcome and I would point out that 24 million of us will benifit from the changes. If the low paid want more money, do what I do, work longer hours, or go to night school and get educated.

Anthony J - I don't know where you get your figures from, about the 24 million who will benefit. Anyone earning less than £18500 will be worse off if the 10p rate is abolished. You may be interested to learn that many skilled people, some of whom have Masters degrees, are earning below that margin, and are unable to get paid overtime. Do you know, that research scientists in many parts of the country are earning less than £18500. Nursing and care staff can also fall into this bracket.
I would be interested to know what what you are employed as.

Substituting a figure of 22% with 20% is a generally accepted as a reduction. Why then is the substitution of 10% with 20%, when used in precisely the same context, is almost universally referred to as an abolishment? It is no such thing! The media in general would do well to stop using either of the words 'abolished' or 'axed' and call it what it is - an increase of 100%, aka 'doubling'. And, by the way, please do not forget that not only modestly paid young folk are affected, a good many 60-65 year olds are too.

20% income tax for the lowest paid....Just wait for the 20% VAT rate comming soon...to pay for the bank bail outs whilst trash like Rupert Murdoch and the Al-Fayed family pay bugger-all on their massive british operations says it all: let's tax the poor until their pips squeak...

"let's tax the poor until their pips squeak..."

Sounds like a plan.

Anthony J - the low paid haven't done especially well out of this government and certainly not if they don't have children as they don't generally receive tax credits. NI contributions have increased, and tax allowances have only been increased in line with inflation, not earnings, so they are paying tax on a higher proportion of their earnings.
New Labour has not been good to the low paid. They've either taxed them more or have created a poverty trap with high effective marginal tax rates (via tax credit withdrawal) if they have children.

AndyK, however, is wrong about this change hurting nurses. The starting salary for nurses is above £19k and most earn considerably more than that.

Brown's political epitaph will read : 10p TAX CRISIS ? WHAT 10p TAX CRISIS ? TELL THEM TO EAT CAKE

PJ - I would challenge you to go around nursing homes in the country, and find a majority of nurses (and I use that term deliberately), earning more than £18500. You may be correct in saying that SRN?SEN are earning that, but they do not make up the whole picture.
We are now living in a totally immoral country, where the leadership and elite treat us with contempt.
I was ashamed and disgusted to see Gordon Brown sucking up to the potential candidates in the US, we have nothing to thank the US for. They are probably the main reason why we need to pay more tax, to fund the illegal war in Iraq.

As a higher rate taxpayer with children, the tax changes benefit me - they give me a bit more disposable income. Yet two low-earning (in full-time work) members of my family will struggle further to make ends meet! How could anyone with a social conscience consider this fair? People on low incomes have already been hardest hit by the increases in food and energy prices since these expenses form a larger proportion of their income. And frankly, I am fed up with Gordon Brown trying to excuse this 10% tax rate abolision by talking about family tax credits or pension credits. There are plenty of people on low incomes who do not have children, and they are just as valuable to society as anyone else. They should not be crippled by these tax changes and alienated further.

...and why is this issue just being talked about now, when it was known last autumn? Are politicians just unintelligent? Or is it that they just didn't really care until they realised it could lose them their seats?

The scrapping of the 10% tax band will make me worse off than at any time since I took early retirement from BT in 1992. Taking ER was necessary as I was bringing up my granddaughter (becoming a single parent in the process) but as I was lucky enough to have a BT pension, I qualified for no help from the state other than child benefit. I used my nest egg to retain a reasonable standard of living for the two of us, making this last until I reached 60 and picked up the state pension; at the same time the child benefit ceased and my income tax increased, making my state pension worth only two weeks out of the four. Last year I reached 65 and received the increased personal allowance - but only after advising the Tax Office myself. This latest blow is only one of a long line seemingly designed to penalise people in my position, we who have worked all our lives with no state handouts. I don't pretend to understand what the new proposals re 10% tax on savings mean, but am confident they will be of no benefit to me whatsoever. I feel better for having let off steam and look forward to the next election !