The Mailites don't seem to understand how the tax system works. Some are under the impression that the higher rate applies to a person's entire income.
The case study the Mail has chosen doesn't help. By my calculations, if inflation stays at 2.6%, John Bilbrough isn't "perilously close" to paying the higher rate. He won't have to pay it until 2015, and even then, he'll do so on less than £600, which is barely 1% of his salary. If he could continue to pay the lower rate on all his income, he would be about £120 better off — £10 a month.
Mr Bilbrough said that he and his wife Helen, 39, who earns £7,000 a year as a part-time office manager, will be paying more tax without actually being better off.
That's simply not true. The tax they pay at the higher rate will amount to less than £240; meanwhile they'll have an extra £267 of untaxed income because of the rise in the personal allowance. If Helen's salary increases with inflation, the percentage of their earnings they pay as income tax will actually fall by a very small amount (from 13.53% to 13.49%). So they will be just as well off, while paying a fractionally smaller proportion of tax. If her salary does not increase, well, they would be worse off anyway, higher rate or no higher rate.
Since they have not been wronged, I think this qualifies as a sadface: