Tory tax cuts (or not?) made simple
• Do the Tories want to cut taxes?
Yes. They think tax cuts are necessary to keep the British economy competitive and they want "to roll back the state" (in old speak) or "roll forward the frontiers of society" (in Cameron)
• Will they cut taxes by £21 billion?
No. That's the total cost of the proposals produced by their Tax Commission. The shadow chancellor George Osborne said this morning that he would not be promising a reduction in taxation at the next election
• I'm getting confused. Are you saying that the Tories won't cut taxes at all?
Sorry but that's a "No". The Tories say they will cut what they call "family taxes" but they'll pay for that by putting green taxes up. They also say they will cut business taxes but that will be paid for cutting the many tax rebates which businesses currently pay.
• OK, I'm getting there now. So, the overall level of taxes will be the same under the Tories as Labour ?
Sorry again. That's another "no". The Tories say they'll share the proceeds of growth between increases in public spending and cuts in tax. In other words as the economy grows there'll spend some of the extra cash the Exchequer gets in on tax cuts whereas, they say, Gordon Brown would take it all for the Treasury.
• So, what taxes will they cut and what green taxes will go up?
They're not going to tell you that for quite some time.
• What have they got to hide?
To be fair - nothing. They don't know the state of the economy at the time of the next election. They don't know what Gordon Brown or the next chancellor will have done by then. They don't know what the political situation will be by then. And, most importantly, they haven't finished their policy work yet
• Shall I ignore this Tax Commission Report then?
No. Today's report (which you can download - it's a PDF file) is a very detailed study of the problems the Tories believe are created by the over-complex tax system created by Gordon Brown; the book that details tax codes has - they claim - doubled in size since he took over. The shadow chancellor George Osbourne pledged to follow their advice on simplifying the tax code; cutting business tax rates to be paid for by cutting tax rebates and to look at their ideas for family tax cuts
• So, do the Tory leadership secretly agree with this report?
No. There's been quite a row behind the scenes between its authors and George Osborne. He wanted them to focus on tax reform and simplification. They insisted on arguing that tax cuts are easily affordable, would boost the economy overall and thus partly pay for themselves. Osbourne believes that's economically risky and is politically unsellable. They did a deal before today. The Commission would not demand upfront uncosted tax cuts and, in return, he would welcome their report.
I'm 
Comments
Can a Tory change his spots. Can a Cameron do a Blair. Can a Tory Party change its deepest hue. Can a Tory turn from Blue?
Timescale: When hell freezes over
Seems to me whatever leader they put in place the old Tory Skeletors come out in the end. When will Tebbit stobbit.
Nice work on the more detailed reporting Nick.
Pleased to see you getting to grips with this blogging thing.
More! We say more!
Nick, do you think that it is appropriate that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ led each of its news reports on this Report not with coverage of the Report but with the Labour Party's rubbishing of it?
As I understand it, the present stepwise linear regression (i.e. a system of discrete tax bands, each with their own tax percentage) was introduced to keep tax fair (those who earn most, pay most) while keeping calculations simple. Of course, this was all in the days before computers .....
How feasible would it be, given that computers are commonplace now, to move from the old stepwise linear regression to a polynomial regression (i.e. with a constant term, a term which depends on the amount, a term which depends on the amount squared and so on)?
>• What have they got to hide?
>To be fair - nothing.
I am not suggesting you ever DON'T try to be fair - but this is still a rather curious expression...
The tories must be very grateful to have such an uncritical commentator putting the best gloss on their policies. I think once again Nick you are showing where your sympathies lie.
Nick,
I was there this morning and heard you ask your question. I suspect you knew as well as everybody else there that you were not going to get a straight answer to the question.
But also, as I suspect you know, simplifying taxes and reducing tax rates mean more money in the kitty for the treasury to spend. It's there on page 47, item 4.4.2. When the Dutch government cut Corporation Tax rates by 10% their tax revenues from Corporation Tax went up by 10%.
Perhaps you should stop trying to fit up the Conservatives and trying to make the proposals fit to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ agenda of the ever increasing role of the state being a good thing and "educate and inform" your listeners and viewers of the facts about tax.
Low tax rates and simple tax structures means lots of tax revenue and higher spending on health and education.
Perhaps your friend Evan Davies might do one of those clever presentations on this?
Looking at the green tax issue the Lib Dems have already got there with Green taxes to pay for 'family tax cuts'.
When the green taxes achieve their objective by reducing bad behaviour such as taking short haul flights, driving 'petrol guzzling' 4x4s etc. Surely the tax yield will go down?
Where then will the revenue come from to pay for the 'family tax cuts'?
What about tax incentives for businesses developing green technologies? Or has Labour has already got there.
Why would people give credibility to the Tories for changing their mind about everything from the minimum wage to the environment after they spent the last 10 years arguing against them?
What a shame the Tories have finally confirmed that for the near future they're indistinguishable from Labour and the Lib Dems.
On the plus side, UKIP's new tax policy appears far superior - less spending, less tax and reasonable distribution of that tax. So long Dave!
AJS - I like it. For PAYE taxpayers, it would be quite easy, I think. (While we're at it, how about a single formula that encapsulates taxes and benefits, in a single sweep?)
Unfortunately, I suspect in practice it would be very hard on people who want to calculate their own taxes without having to rely on a computer package that would be a black box to them.
Dear Nick
I'm with rob. Good blog report for us outsiders. Thanks,
Low rates = increased growth.
Lower rates of tax = increases reveues.
Low tax economies are better, and result in a higher standard of living.
More complexity more avoidance, and less inward invest from overseas.
Lower taxes please.
Unfortunately, I suspect that a "presentation" by Evan Davis would cloud rather than clarify the matter, as he tends to tow the "´óÏó´«Ã½" line when it comes to comparing the merits of Conservative vs. Labour tax policy.
clearly shows the benefits that would be realised by simplifying the UK tax system, even if this didn't go as far as moving to a flat tax regime.
I read Nick's blogs all the time and watch Nick often on the news. I think his style is refreshing and his analysis spot on. And now for the BUT......I'm sure, Nick, if you read your comments again and asked whether your words were honestly a reflection of balanced reporting you must surely have your doubts particularly in the section 'what have they got to hide?'. Both parties, when presenting tax and spend policies, have something to hide. Whether it's tax by stealth or giving the impression they will not cut taxes if it puts the economy at risk - despite their natural instincts. On this one Nick - I think your previous alliances to the Tory party shines a little too bright. But like Blair's improvement in PMQs this week compared to last, I'm sure you'll do better next time.
As part of the "competitive" argument that's being put forward it was said that we should be considering not just tax cuts, but tax simplification.
This is what I'd like to see. As an IT contractor, my burden in paperwork is more of a nuisance than my actual tax burden.
Please please please just scrap everything and create a simple system where I pay tax in bands and have a tax free allowance to fit my circumstances.
Credits, rebates etc seem to me to be designed to discourage claimants.
I thought I'd stumbled onto the Conservative Party web-site for a moment. This blog entry is almost a free party political broadcast explaining a key Tory policy. No mention of the damage tax cuts might do to the NHS, Schools, Police. I've seen the Tories cut tax 'when we could afford it' before. It ended up in very little extra money in my pay packet and massive underfunding of the NHS, Schools etc. No thanks.
I'm not sure reporters should even use the phrase "tax cuts". It could refer to reducing the total tax take, reducing tax rates, or reducing the number of different taxes. Comparing these approaches seems to get lost and never debated...
I agree with 6. This is a very one-sided review of today's announcement. No hint of objectivism or even the mildest hint of criticism, and certainly not slating handed out to such announcements by other political flavours. When will your Cameron/Osbourne hero worship stop?
Good job Nick. Your analysis of the tax situation is exactly what we want; taking a complex problem and simplifying it so that there can be some informed argument about it. Have you ever thought of trying to do a similar job on the Israel Palestine conflict or the Iraq withdrawal problem, both of which are often badly reported and based on half truths and extreme views rather than reasoned argument?
I think the Tories are onto a reasonable thing here. We would like to cut taxes (as they are Tories) but no idea if we can yet or not. Why is is so hard to accept that?
I like what Labour have done for the country, but what worries me is who will replace Brown at the treasury, as this will be a bigger factor in the economic future than whether or not the Tories promise Tax cuts for an Election they have a difficult task in winning.
It makes me laugh at how people interpet this blog.
Comment 6 says stop being a Tory, whilst comment 7 criticises Nick for being anti-Tory.
Maybe, just maybe, Nick is trying to help people understand what politicians are actually saying - acting as the enigma machine, deciphering the rubbish politicians say in to something coherant.
Bla, Bla , Bla: How is actually interested in politics anyway?
Pistol shooting.
I guess that many politicians and party workers don’t actually think that the cynical destruction of a particular freedom of choice for a minority of the British people, a destruction wreaked for no evident public benefit but for perceived electoral advantage back in 1996/7, is of any great consequence. They are, of course, quite wrong about that because any loss of freedom is of consequence to everyone in the UK, even if only a relatively small number of people are affected by it. However one can be forgiven for overlooking that those so aggrieved have influenced a large number of voters, who have no wish to shoot. It remains a significant harm when looking at marginal seats for the issue transcends the particular loss of freedom extending into a total mistrust of the initiating Party, which remains today.
Nick,
Personally I have never quite understood why a complex tax system is required. The system in the UK is so complex that it takes a legion of public servants to administer and I would dare bet that few people in the UK know exactly how much they are truely paying.
I am personally in favour of a flat rate tax system with no loop holes. It still delivers a "more you earn, more you pay" end-result, but uses a system that treats everyone fairly. Lets face it, if you are on the bottom end of the pay scale you cannot afford to employ tax advisers to reduce your tax bill.
Flat rate tax systems do operate in other countries and seem to be remarkably successful, enabling the government to generate revenue without encuring a huge administrative overhead. An added advantage is that a fair system encourages people to contribute. You never know, the tax take might even be higher than is the case with the present system.
I think that this report is a nice antidote to the spin I saw Ed Balls putting out today. Nick clearly sees how easy it is for Labour to misrepresent the Tory policy, and it's no bad thing that he made this one a little one-sided for the sake of actually understanding a very important debate.
Why is most of the focus on how much the government collects ie the various taxes and their rates rather than effectiveness of delivery when its spent? Surely the tax is in the end a function of dreams( ie policy and programs) divided by efficiency. ie as efficiency drops taxes rise even if the program stays the same or you cut the program to fit the tax take. Equally the converse is also true, you can either cut taxes or do more if you improve efficiency.
Given that this government has been the most incompetent spender ever its not difficult to see opportunities for savings. Its then a choice as to what to do with them.
For example this government has now spent and estimated £10 billion on IT projects which have just been scrapped or show no signs of delivery ie no benefit at all to anyone. Many other capital or social infrastructure projects, if completed at all, routinely have had huge overspends and late delivery both of which have reduced value and limited the opportunity either to do more or reduce taxes.
In addition to the sheer waste of cancelled programs the "routine" bureaucratic cost of government ie the "overhead" between the taxpayer and the delivered benefit is appalling and can perhaps be best illustrated by our schools. The LEA's typically give less than half the £5,500 per secondary pupil year this government now calculates we spend to the schools, the majority being spent running the LEA. And that doesn't include DOE&s costs! You'd get more spent on your kids education if you took their desk out of the classroom and put it in County Hall! Mind you some of Gordon Browns "money go round" schemes like the tax credit system, farm rebate systems, Child Support Agency etc are probably even worse, let alone the misery and suicides they have caused, but ministers hide behind specious needs for secrecy to avoid telling us what they have really cost. And as for the cost of poorly equiping and paying our forces for the Middle East adveturism heaven only knows. And as for the NHS , well it may be a bit better, but at heading for three times the cost is it really that much better? Just look at the reports of deaths through secondary infections, malnutrition, the shabby treatment of many of the elderly etc in our major hospitals and its hard to believe it.
Sorry Nick but its not about tax ( at least not directly) its about whether either party has the talent, training, experience and fortitude to eliminate the current incompetence and deliver projects on cost , on time to a defined quality standard. Labour clearly haven't but I'm not sure I see who has.
Why don't you challenge all of them more on why should we believe any of them capable of value for money on time delivery of their programs rather than just the headline sums?
The public should stop assuming that the additional funds raised by higher taxation under this government is being spent wisely. By way of example only:
Nearly 200 billion a year spent on quango's!
My sister (a headteacher in primary education) and tells me that money has indeed been poured into education since labour has come to power. Mostly however into inner city schools populated by children who come from difficult social circumstances. Children in schools not fitting these profiles have not had the benefit of any signfcant additional funding. Thus children from working class/lower middle class backgrounds with two working parents have lost out. They have in the main held their own because of efforts of the teachers and parents combined. The common consensus however is that the schools provided with the massive additional funding have not materially improved- certainly not in proportion to the monies expended on the same. Has this money been wisely spent?
My brother and wife both work. They pay £700 per month nursery fees for their child. They have a massive mortgate on a modest semi. On Saturday a young pregnant lady cutting their son's proudly boasted that she didn't need the father of her unborn child/received £1200 per month net in benefits( as well as being able to work a limited number of hours)/had her rent and council tax paid for and got a free nursery placement. My brother thinks he is being a mug going out to work - I am reluctantly inclined to agree.
May be it is time that we stopped throwing money away. Isn't it time we stopped sneering at the socially responsible who are being crippled with tax.
Sorry, you're still not explaining what the "share the proceeds of growth" line actually means. The proceeds of growth are already shared - some is taken in tax and some isn't. They mean that public services will get below-inflation increases in spending, but don't want to say it that way because people would understand it too well.
I'm not sure quite how they expect to save all these rural cottage hospitals and rural Post Offices that are used by a dozen people a week, while cutting public spending in real terms, but it looks like town and city dwellers may have a hard time.
I for one was glad to see the proposals explained, without any politics. We, the electors, can decide if the country can afford the cuts in services compared with money in our pockets - but understanding how a potential Conservative government would raise the money is crucial to our understanding
(Nick must have succeded, since is accused of being both left and right wing in the same piece!!)
Seems to me the Tories are offering tax cuts for all. How can that possibly be believed? If you cut taxes you have to pay for it somehow. Will it be rises in other taxes or cuts in health and education spending? They seem to have forgotten that bit...
The Commission's proposals are neither economically risky nor politically unsellable. They could easily be funded by an administration that: spent taxpayers' money as wisely as if it were their own; did not waste billions of pounds on headline-grabbing public sector initiatives; on further expanding an already bloated public sector; or embarking on illegal wars.
As for politically unsellable, the Tories should stop trying to seduce public sector workers from their Labour allegiances, because they are in the main institutionally Labour supporters and culturally averse to voting Tory.
Instead, the Tories should target private sector workers whose taxes are funding unfettered public sector expansion, paying the wages of public sector workers, and funding public sector workers' feather-bedded pensions.
David Cameron might also refrain from obsessing about helping hard-working families. Hard-working singles have votes, are far more likely to use them, and are heartily sick and tired of subsidising married couples and one-parent families.
Nick,
Since there are comments accussing you of being both a Tory mouthpiece and a Labour mall I reckon you've got the balance just right here.
Do you think you could doorstep Gordon Brown and do the same 'made simple' guide with his tax policy?
If you take away the commitment to abolishing inheritance tax, stamp duty and note Osborne’s desire to increase ‘Green taxation’ then the Tories are just copying the tax plans accepted by Liberal Democrats at their Autumn Conference. How can you fail to mention this Robinson?
So what happened about their rather short love affair with the flat tax system?
Look forward to a VAT rate of 19% any time soon.
I notice that the trend now on these discussion boards is to ridicule the writer (In this case Mr Robinson himself) if the poster disagrees with the contents (policy or otherwise) of the article.
As clear a case as "Shoot the messenger" as I have seen.
Those agreeing with the reported policy aren't much better, and tend to give inappropriate praise to the writer.
I've been reading this blog, amongst others, for quite a while now. And I would suggest that Mr Robinson has done reaasonably well in steering a line between the 'party lines'. That's not to say there is never a hint of bias in any individual piece, but overall the reporting has been quite balanced.
So, a suggestion to posters: if you disagree with the contents of a report. Concentrate your vitriol on the policy or event portrayed, and not on the reporter.
Mr 16. Why do tax cuts have to impact on the frontline services? Surely anybody with any wit would shave money away from other, more needlessly bloated areas.
£21bn is a tiny percentage of the overal tax take. Simply flailing around blindly repeating the matra 'Tory Cuts' - is pathetic.
If Gordon Brown reduces public spending increases to around 2 percent and inflation is 3 percent, would that also be a cut? Money has been poured into the public sector - and it only proved that money is not whole answer.
Sticking your head in the sand to tune of 'Tory cuts' is what's know as displacement activity. Having turned on the taps, what does Gordon do next?
Why all the fuss? The 2006 budget predicted a total tax take of £516B for 2006-07. (Interestingly, the 2005 budget only predicted £487B for the same year.) So the £21B by which the Tories may or may not cut taxes - depending on who you believe - represents a reduction of just 4.3%.
Would such a modest reduction in public spending really lead inevitably to the "meltdown" in public services that some are suggesting?
antifrank in comment 3, Don't you know yet?
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is crammed full of Tony's Cronies and Gordon's Gophers.
That's why no one with a brain takes any notice of their 'News' output.
Pityful really.
Is this tax cutting from the same tory party that wanted to maintain taxpayer's subsidies of uneconomic post offices, or a different one? It's very confusing.
And I hereby call for a moratorium on the use of the phrase "sharing the proceeds of growth".
Come on did anyone expect anything less from the tories,of course they will cut tax,what's more frightening is Osbourne's idea of balancing tax cut's with the green energy initiative,you dont have too be a bright light bulb too understand that those who can least afford it will be paying a fortune for their energy needs.
I keep hearing the word "family" from both Labour and Tories - does this mean us singletons are in for a tax battering?
Or, to simplify the "simplification" ...
Do the Tories want to cut taxes? Yes.
Will they be able to do it without damaging public services? No.
Isn't it time they admitted that? "They're not going to tell you that for quite some time."
What's next?
In reply to #29
Theoretically that's not a problem, as some of the other comments suggest here, the amount of public money that is 'wasted' on pointless schemes, failed IT projects and paying an army of civil servants and other public sector employees (including deputy PMs who have no function or junior ministers of small furry animals - ok not yet on the latter, but you never know) to push paper around all day rather than do anything useful is utterly incredible. The tax system is complex (full of pointless headline grabbing benefits and rebates) which wastes money in itself.
All you'd need to do (ofcourse this is actually a massive task) is cut out all the rubbish, sack a huge chunk of the civil service, stop pouring money into IT "experts" and that's a big pile of money saved right there.
Now whether or not the tories, or the lib dems, actually have the guts to do this is another matter...
Surely Green Taxes should be spent on solving other climate change problems (i.e. investing in renewable energy) not just be given away on 'family tax cuts'?
Also why do the Tories always want to recommend tax cuts that benefit the richest in society more than the poorest? The report proposes the same old, tired nest lining we had under Thatcher.
Why not just increase the tax free threshold - surely that ould be fair as every tax payer in the UK would benefit? It won't happen though, because that wouldn't help out the very wealthy.
Nick, Why do you persist in calling The Conservatives "the tories" ?
I appreciate you get accused of bias from all sides, but I am sure that you recognise that calling a political party by its correct name is important.
Isn't it amazing how, since 1997, it has become the received and accepted wisdom that any tax cuts would mean a cut in public services? The tax burden has increased year on year since New Labour came to power, but what have we to show for it? The NHS (which Labour claimed it had 24 hours to save) is crumbling, despite all the extra billions poured in. The Armed Forces have been slashed (the RN surface fleet by nearly a third, it's aircover, the Sea Harrier, scrapped completely, regiments merged, battalions disbanded) and at a time that the same government has been deploying them more than any since WW2, leading even the CGS to comment on the art of the possible. The Home Office staggers from one disaster to the next like a saturday night drunk. Education, the central plank of Blair's 1997 election appeal, is failing on every single measurable indicator. Pensions have all but collapsed (so much for the "hard working families" I keep hearing about). Post Offices in rural areas, once the life-blood of village life, are under threat because "there is no money".
So where has the money gone? Well, some (a lot actually) goes to Europe, and thanks to Blair, that figure will grow now the rebate has been slashed. But what of the rest? One thing that Blair has proved beyond doubt since 1997 is that high taxes do NOT necessarily mean better public services. Spent wisely, (and that means less politicians, advisors, quangos, monitors, and people with nebulous job descriptions) less money can achieve more. Lower taxes generally will stimulate growth, which in turn benefits everybody. The left-leaning will always shout about tax cuts, but will never vote conservative in any case. The floating voters, the ones who deserted the conservatives in 1997, are staggering under the tax burden imposed by Gordon Brown for no discernable benefits, and are longing for someone to sort it out. Clearly specific tax cut proposals will have to wait until nearer an election when the economic situation will be known, but as a principle Cameron should nail his colours firmly to the mast now. Tax cut is not a dirty word, and it is high time that the conservatives had the courage to explain why.
One of the first reactions I heard to the Report was Ed Balls talking a load of "BALLS" about it.
There is a great danger for the Tories from the huge debts that Brown has already run up in the past nine years.If they inherit these debts, as they almost certainly will, some time in the future, they will look very stupid when they realise they are Stymied when they try to implement their policies.
It may be better to leave it to Brown to explain the "balls-up" he has made of our finances ,if, and when he becomes the PM.
The tax commission response is basically ripped off the Lib Dems
but with extra cuts for the rich, and without the green taxes to
balance it. So then Cameron basically says "No, we wont cut taxes"
i.e. we will be tax neutral - just like the Lib Dems policy - and
then he goes on "We will have green taxes on polluters and carbon"
- er, just like the Lib Dems policy. So Cameron endorses that part
of his commission that is like the Lib Dems policy, and then says
he'll replace the rest with stuff...that is like the Lib Dems
policy. How then are they going to attack the Lib Dems policy??
And as Paul Pettinger notes, how did you fail to notice this Nick?
to Steve B. No 35.
The reporter is being targetted for bias. He's employed by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to report political news and provide unbiased analysis. His fervour for attacking Labour and his easy-ride for Cameron is plain to see. He provides a daily drip feed of anti-Labour/government spin. His position allows him to spin the political situation to suit his own agenda and reach a mass audience, and he does this very subtley and very well.
David,
I'm not suggesting that the tax calculation would require a computer to perform. Something like
y = a + bx + cx2 + dx3 .....
can be done with pencil and paper and maybe a scientific calculator (in all probability, there's no need to go higher than the cube or maybe even the squared). The computer is just there to make it quicker for the tax office to do everyone's calculation. I am actually a very strong believer in the ideals of the Open Source Software movement, and would never trust a program I had not at least been allowed to look inside.
The important thing is that the values of a, b, c, d and so on would be the same for all taxpayers, independent of the amount they are earning. And there is no way to manipulate the figures (e.g. by selling goods at a loss to another business you own) to end up in a lower tax bracket.
This method would also make it possible for employers to advertise wages after tax. Since anyone working for a company has their tax deducted before their wages are paid to them, advertising wages before tax is technically deception -- but the complicated tax calculation system means that they cannot know in advance how much tax any individual will be paying.
(By the way, there's no such time of day as "02:30 PM". Leading zeros mean VCR time. It's either 2:30 PM or, better, 14:30.)
Now that I've read some of this report, it looks like they are up to their old tricks with stealth taxes.
One of the policies in the report is to "simplify" corporation tax by "reducing" the rate to 20%. Fine for big businesses, but small businesses currently pay corporation tax at 19%. So that's not really a tax cut, is it. I guess they are planning to continue the current government's policies of hammering small businesses at every opportunity.
Propaganda gets you agreeing initially, and while you are in that agreeing mood, an oddball conclusion is inserted. By speaking of 'family taxes', the Tories are using something we can all agree with, that families deserve some relief from the tax burden because much parental time and effort is used up in ways that do not earn money, and we see those endeavours as necessary. Raising healthy, well-adjusted children is what we want to enable people to do.
But having agreed with this initial proposal, they sneak in their oddball conclusion, which is of course that Capital Gains Taxes and Inheritance Taxes should go. (Okay, they didn't say as much this iteration but the intention seems to be there under the surface). Never mind that these are taxes on assets that people are privileged in possessing, and the acrued monies would be the ideal subject for redistribution of wealth. These are not taxes on the hard working but taxes on the already privileged.
What about the families who live in rented accomodation? What about those getting onto the property ladder, paying off mortgages and such? Abolishing CGT and IT should help them proportionately less than those privileged folks.
The case for lower taxes generally is a good one, but the place for that reduction is income tax, not Capital Gains Taxes or Inheritance Taxes. Reducing income tax helps everybody concerned.
Oh Nick,Oh Nick I hate to have to tell you this but they will say anything to gain power and do the deed once in power.If I were you Nick I would be more worried about what I was going to do once the tories get in and sell the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to Murdoch's empire.
Malcolm offers his usual apocalypse view and subsequent 10 years fall out of New Labour's tenure, but as per usual, offers no New Conservative prescription for this ailment.
Malcolm talks big on tax raising for New Labour, but talks small for tax cuts under a fabled future Conservative Government(dream on).
I'm at a loss to think of one year under New Labour and one year of the Chencellors budget where Labour did not cut taxes.
The Tories have a history of talking tough on crime and talking even tougher on punishing crime.
All they did was to further violent crime and privatise industries that have continued to milk the electorate dry since they mis-led the Country.
Those that could afford to pay for a better health service for us all did not notice the increase.
Those that could never afford this increase, have never paid it.
We now have a better health service.
Paid for fairly.
And Malcolm reckons New Labour have mismanaged.
Dream on.
Gary
I hope all the Conservative party tax cuts are not like the proposed rise of the starting tax rate from 10p to 20p
I can remember when the Tories reduced Income Tax rates, though I can't remember the exact figures. They also 'reduced' VAT from 8% to 15%. The extra 2.1/2% came later as a temporary measure while we switched over from Community Charge (Poll Tax)to Council Tax. Unfortunately, that transition is not yet complete, apparently.
I don't wish to get into a personal argument with Gary Elsby, but can someone please tell me if Stoke-on-Trent is in some kind of parallel universe where nothing is really as it seems?
57. At 04:21 PM on 20 Oct 2006, Malcolm wrote:
I don't wish to get into a personal argument with Gary Elsby, but can someone please tell me if Stoke-on-Trent is in some kind of parallel universe where nothing is really as it seems?
Yes I can tell you Malcolm Stoke-on-Trent is NOT in a parallel universe where nothing is really as it seems? it is in this universe where nothing is really as it seems.
A general plea as tax & spending is bound to be a major battleground in the coming months: please always make clear in your reports the difference between a real "cut" and a reduction in the rate of increase. Most of us might have a problem with the former but much less with the latter. Both sides use the c word with abandon and seem to want to confuse the public. We need you and your colleagues to referee this. Also, when a figure (eg £21bn) is given, set it in context: in this case as a proportion of total Govt expenditure. Thanks.
Thatcher/tories was so keen to cut taxes that they would not spend the money to keep our north sea gas and burnt it off into the atmosphere (about 20/25 years supply) this also help them get elected again. Now we are having to buy gas from the Norwegians who stored there gas as they knew they would need it one day.Many at the time beg Thatcher not to do it but she done it I remember what she said at the time "I have agonised over this decision but feel it is the right one" Ya right to get elected again and know we the people are paying the price.
My take on this is there is huge room for performance improvements and tax adjustment. The issue I have is with employment and social policy. Here, I tend to think the more positive and fair approach of Labour will create a better outcome than the negative and unfair approach of the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats remain too foggy.
Here, I support Gary’s view that Conservative policies cut opportunity at the bottom while raising opportunities for the top, and fed a climate of social and economic fear and greed. The lag seen in turning this around and bringing some sort of well-adjusted balance back has taken a decade to get this far and will take another decade to come out of the tunnel.
Myself, I’d like to see an integrated tax, spend, and incomes policy. The poorest areas have little or no inward investment in terms of environmental projects, facilities, and jobs. This has been mirrored by cuts in real research and product development. This backward and negative view is cutting society and the economy off at the roots. Reversing it must be a priority.
Good idea: lower corporation tax in order to improve the economy
Bad idea: Withdraw tax rebates for R and D in order to be 'revenue neutral'!!!
Whats the point in lowering corporation tax and scrapping tax rebates for R and D??? This won't improve the economy, it will just mean highr short-term dividends for shareholders. Not long-term economic stability!!
All parties revert to type once the election is over.