Sting the rich?
In tonights ‘London Lite’, one of the free papers which litter the tube network, I see a report that the LibDems are to announce a new tax policy which reduces the base income tax rate (which is welcome, although its not being reduced to zero) and ’stinging taxes on the rich’.
This sort of language and policy is not only unhelpful but it is simply wrong. We should be seeking to be liberal and no liberal would ever seek to use that sort of language. We desperately need to reassess our policies and look where we can reduce the tax burden not simply shift it around and penalise the rich for being rich (or having a high income).
Is this rhetoric to try and placate the grumblers of the ‘red bookers’* who complain monthly in the pages of Liberator? That’s the only explanation I can see for this turn away from what was developing into a far more sensible tax policy.
I also notice the local income tax is back. When can we give up flogging that dead horse? At least council tax vaguely taxes wealth, yes pensioners sitting on a pile of wealth are penalised, but with income tax its the productive who are penalised, is that any more fair? (thus the nature of tax as fundamentally unfair is revealed).
(* yes I’ve just made that up but it seems appropriate to describe them as such given their pureile slur upon anyone who dares to be economically liberal as an ‘orange booker’)
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Suggest you have a read of the paper (it should be on the website) and I think you’ll be relieved to see that the ’sting the rich’ rhetoric comes from the journalist and is not backed up by our proposals.
But can’t agree with you on LIT. And there are much more equitable and effective ways than council tax of taxing ‘wealth’ - again, see the paper for details.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I still can’t see whatever proposal is coming from “Tax Commission II” to Brighton anywhere on the party website, so presumably only conference reps, if anyone, will have seen it yet?
And of course I do agree with Tristan on LIT (though not that Council Tax is in any way acceptable as a continuing system!). I despair that our party will never get back to Lloyd-George and Churchill’s big question on tax - not asking “how much have you got” but “how did you get it” and focussing taxation policy on wealth generated by milking others such as land appreciation and negative externalities.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Jock has hit the nail on the head here.
The proposals (and message) are mixed - on one hand the reduction in income tax for low earners is hugely welcome, even if it doesn’t go far enough.
To focus instead on “Green Taxes” (ie. on negative externalities) is also correct, but is let down by this class-warring notion of hitting the “very rich”. The “sting” line may have not come from the party, but even Cable’s appearance on Today let off a similar kind of rhetoric.
I don’t think this is to placate “red bookers” - I think it’s to lure in the huge number of voters with anti-wealth sentiments. What we should be doing instead is formulating more liberal policies which may include closing loopholes, and decide once and for all whether we’re promoting LVT and Green Taxes as a genuine alternative to income tax.
In conclusion though - this is still far better than anything being proposed by Gordo’s lackeys or Dave’s dirty tricksters.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I’ll certainly agree with that last bit Julian. My main concern is whether it is “better enough” to make it distinctive to voters rather than just a bit of change here and a bit of change there.
Even if we do not actually propose, for example, to abolish income tax in the first year of a Lib Dem government, for the sake of argument, we need to be able to present clearly and credibly the long term aim, whatever that is - and obviously my preferences are well known! It was that kindd of clear ideological plan towards lower taxes I’m sure that let Thatcher win in 1979 - even if she didn’t intend to halve taxes on the morning after collecting the keys to Downing Street their longer term agenda was clear. And that meant that they could keep promising that at successive elections so long as a little progress had been made in between towards that goal. At the moment, it is not clear to me at least whether our tax plans are an ideological move (Green Tax Switch probably is but not necessarily executied the best way) that people can depend on being the long term vision for a Lib Dem government, or tactical positioning, which I think iss less attractive to voters thinking of “giving us a go”.
Incidentally, however, I notice that the Telegraph is touting that “2 million households” would lose out under these plans today. We all know that with any tax change someone will see a negative difference in their tax bill and some a positive. I don’t think we’re on too difficult territory to defend if the experts are saying that the top ten per cent of earners will lose sllightly! It is the 90% that we need to win to win an election!
July 12th, 2007 at 10:19 am
It is hard to see how a policy of explicitly “closing loopholes” can be fairly described as stinging the rich. It is simply treating the rich more consistently with everyone else.
But I don’t much like the way Vince plugs it sometimes.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:42 am
Teens For Cash Videos…
Teens For Cash Videos…