Well if you're a lobby journalist scratching your head about what to write tomorrow, Ming Campbell's just given you your story. On the Andrew Marr programme he readily admitted that the cost of his so-called "Tax Cuts" would see "the rich" (which he couldn't define) paying £40-£50,000 a year more EACH in tax, as a result of his reform proposals. Let me spell that out again...£40-£50,000 MORE in tax per year! Each!
Feel those pips squeak! This will apparently enable him to fill the £12 billion hole in the LibDem tax calculations. I suspect that although they might be able to fill the hole in the first year, the would reoccur in the second. Why? Because every so-called "rich" person will have left the country. Perhaps someone should remind Ming of what Abraham Lincoln once said...
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.
UPDATE 1.20: Predicatbly several LibDem posters in the comments section have accused me of making this up. Well, it's in the transcript of the programme. A LibDem poster has also verified what I have written: "Marr said that the very rich who would be paying the extra would be about 250,000 & that this would average 40-50,000 apiece. Ming agreed. In fact Ming went rather further & got it wrong. Marr's figure were that the Lib Dems had undertaken to raise 20 billion, 8 from enviro taxes & 12 from the rich (actualy 12 billion divided by 240,000 averages 48,000 so Marr was being kind). Ming replied that the 40-50,000 would allow them to raise 20 billion from the rich. He had clearly forgotten the difference between the £12 billion & £20 billion figures. Granted it was a Sunday morning & he wasn't called on it but it does suggest he is not entirely on his brief".
Iain, you clearly did not clean out your ears this morning. Sir Ming did not say that and it is dishonest of you to claim that he did.
ReplyDelete"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer."
ReplyDeleteYes you do - at least in the short term.
anonymous, er, yes he did. Marr said that his plans would mean an extra £40,000 or £50,000 for rich individuals and Ming said that this was an average and that for some it would be less, for some it would be more. The transcript of the programme will prove it.
ReplyDeleteI can see why the Lib Dems would want revenge on Michael Brown but this seems a rather complicated way to go about it.
ReplyDeleteWhy not just let the penny in the pound pay for everything, like under Ashdown?
Er, he didn't really Iain and you know that perfectly well. He said right up front that he didn't really have detailed figures and examples as this is a work in progress. When Marr kept repeating someone else's figures, predicated on someone else's definition of the number of people who might be affected by tax increases, Ming said that averages were difficult and that some would always pay more and some would always pay less than whatever average figure you want to pluck out of the air.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if we're talking about the top one per cent of households, say - which would be about 250,000 households - we are also talking about those people and households who own between them about half a trillion in residential property and about a quarter of all the financial assets in the country.
Remember, just the wealthiest 0.25%, a quarter of one per cent, of people globally own as much in financial wealth as the other 99.75% put together.
On their residential property values alone we're talking about perhaps the equivalent of a tax of 25% of the imputed annual economic rent to raise that £12bn.
So don't expect any of us to be crying into our cornflakes at their imminent poverty.
Jock, he did say it,as well you know. Marr put to this the £40-£50,000 figure. At first he prevaricated and then he said that was an average figure.
ReplyDeleteMark, I think not. If George Osborne had come out with such ill thought out proposals I would be horrified, as I am sure you secretly are yourself. Far from being Thatcherite, as some ill-informed people seem to be saying, they are in fact the most redistributive and left wing proposals to be put forward by a political party for years. If I were a LibDem I would be wondering what on earth was going on at the top of my Party.
I don;t use this blog to promulgate a constant stream of "aren't the Conservatives wonderful" articles, because if I did, no one would read it. And whenever I do write something praising Cameron I'm accused of arselicking to get on the A List! You just can't win sometimes, can you?!!!
Iaian - lets put this simply.
ReplyDeletePersonal allowance raised to ~£7k
Basic rate dropped from 22p to 20p
Higher rate threshold raised from ~£38k to ~£50k (NB - if you don't know anything about the way CGT works, this will also have a positive impact for those on lower incomes making modest capital gains in that it increases the amount of gain taxed at the lower rate)
That covers an awful lot of people and achieves the (I thought Conservative?) aim of putting money back in people's pockets for them to chose how to spend it. If they decide to do so on ways detrimental to the environment, that's up to them - its their choice - but society deems they should have to pay more for it.
This will be popular - and you know it - and you're desparately seeking ways to discredit it.
I am not a Lib Dem and I doubt these proposals work, but Iain you cannot quote Lincoln to say redistribution doesn't work and then attack the proposals for being redistributive. That's a Lib Dem tactic (contradicting youself in the space of an hour) and it won't work in the public scrutiny of the internet.
ReplyDeleteAs Iain alludes to. The rich are best placed to avoid paying the more complex taxes. So the rest of us end up making up the shortfall one way or another...
ReplyDeleteanonymous, you say " you cannot quote Lincoln to say redistribution doesn't work and then attack the proposals for being redistributive"
ReplyDeleteEr, am I missing something? It's entirely consistent!
Sorry, but you`re quite wrong: not only do the poor get less poor, but we are also less threatened by the unwarranted accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of those who cannot be trusted!
ReplyDeleteTop o` the morning to ya!
from Captain Swing
You know Mark, I have a mind of my own. I don't parrot-like repeat a Party briefing. If I did, you wouldn;t read this site. But I am a little bemused by what you say. I have highlighted a particular criticism of the back of the envelope proposals. It's hilarious you think any form of criticism demonstrates panic. Let me make it clear. I couldn't be happier that the LibDems have given us 3 years to show these propsals up for what they are. And I couldn;t be happier that you have a leader who has shown such economic illiteracy. Continue to think we're panicked, and lull yourself further into that false sense of security.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Iain, I respect your blog is not a panto script writer's sandbox so I won't continue with the "yes, he did, no he didn't" line.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we be worried about what's going on at the top of our party? Ming's line was bang on message as far as the party's previous manifesto tax philosophy is concerned - making it fairer.
You are quite right though, in the "heat" of a TV interview he did not hit the correct figure to discuss. Instead of worrying what the top 250,000 wealthiest would pay he should have focussed right in on who the top 250,000 are. How far removed their wealth is from that even of people who will nudge into the new higher rate income tax band.
Here, here Mr. Dale!
ReplyDeleteMarr said that the very rich who would be paying the extra would be about 250,000 & that this would average 40-50,000 apiece. Ming agreed.
ReplyDeleteIn fact Ming went rather further & got it wrong. Marr's figure were that the Lib Dems had undertaken to raise 20 billion, 8 from enviro taxes & 12 from the rich (actualy 12 billion divided by 240,000 averages 48,000 so Marr was being kind). Ming replied that the 40-50,000 would allow them to raise 20 billion from the rich.
He had clearly forgotten the difference between the £12 billion & £20 billion figures. Granted it was a Sunday morning & he wasn't called on it but it does suggest he is not entirely on his brief.
Tabman, "This will be popular - and you know it - and you're desparately seeking ways to discredit it"
ReplyDeleteHow are you going to pay for it?
I think Ming is getting ideas above his station. A good barracking at PMQ's on Wednesday should put him back in his place.
ReplyDelete20 seats if they're lucky at next years general election.
jock coats says: "Remember, just the wealthiest 0.25%, a quarter of one per cent, of people globally own as much in financial wealth as the other 99.75% put together."
ReplyDeleteOh, boo hoo! Cry me a river. It's none of your business how much money very rich people have and it's not the business of the bloody government to relieve them of it. What if these very rich people, like many lower income taxpayers, don't want to pay for a minister of sport and culture, say? I mean, what is the point of this vast department? What if they don't want to subside "the arts" - meaning arts no one of sound mind would pay to see? What if they don't want to pay, as so many middle class people with middle incomes don't want to pay, for real nappy coordinators and street football coordinators and Bangladeshi interpreters and hundreds of thousands of other toy jobs advertised daily in The Guardian? These are all paid for, and the attached pensions paid for, with other people's money - meaning taxes.
Read 'Eat The Rich' by PJ O'Rourke and read how countries prosper. Hint: it is not by destroying capitalism or stealing other people's money.
- Anonymousette
Two words: Laffer Curve
ReplyDeleteCroydonian,
ReplyDeleteDon't go quoting the Laffer Curve at the lefties. They don't understand it, don't want to understand it and if they do it quite frankly scares the crap out of them because it hints that the proles may actually resent paying too much tax to their leaders.
RM
Mark Senior,
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing that here we are in 2005 and so many LibDems still believe the middle classes should be fleeced and new traxes should introduced at every available opportunity. When they eventually get round to formulating an economic policy it will be interesting to see how they reconcile their supposed commitment to economic growth by introducing taxes which hit the very people who create it.
Iain - Quite. Why should the rich pay for a Culture and Sport department and a Culture and Sport minister any more than the poor should be forced to pay for such nonsense? The state needs to be slashed ruthlessly and everyone's taxes could be lower. As long as you have expanding governments, as Gordon Brown has created, there will be an ever-hungry maw gaping open.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, people earning £18,000 a year and under should not be taxed at all. Everyone else should be taxed at a flat 10%. That is the most equitable.
The state should be slashed to defending Britain's borders (that would make a nice change), keeping order on the streets of Britain and paying for our armed forces and our emergency services. Everything else should be removed from its cold, grasping hands.
- Anonymousette
Its revenue neutral and delivers tax cuts for the middle clasess. most tories I know are panting over it.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't surprise me if cameroon doesn't pinch the whole thing lock, stock and....
Mark, keep deluding yourself mate. The pills obviously aren't working!
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteI assure you most Tories are glad we haven't pulled such a stupid policy out of a hat! We have had to stand by a some stupid ones before - but never ever anything this ludicrous!!!
Ming is the best thing that has ever hit the Lib Dems - can't wait for the next GE!! Lib Dem annihilation methinks!
The Lib-Dems are whackos and I too look forward to their annihilation at the next election.
ReplyDeleteFurther to my previous post, there should be no such thing as legal aid. Instead, contingency fees should be allowed. This way, no solicitor or barrister will take a case he knows has absolutely no merit in law. With legal aid, they know they're going to get paid anyway.
Other people's legal problems are none of the taxpayer's business.
Slashing taxes and the state are what Cameron and Co should be focussing on.
- Anonymousette
Eh .... Iain ....your comment at 5.38PM.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find we're in 2006 !!
Mark, I look forward to Tory tax proposals too.
ReplyDeleteI epxect you might be too - the Lib Dems might actually get some real air time about them. Unfortunately, however,it will also highlight how bad Mings' and his "Shadow Chancellor's" will be for Britain.
Blame it on Mark Senior above. he started it!
ReplyDeleteI'm a tory and sorry Mark but like the 50p top rate, Local Income Tax and other LD economic fantasies the latest soak the rich policy didn't have me salivating for the LDs in government.
ReplyDeleteThe presentation of the policy as a tax cutting agenda was clever for a day - except there are three years to go and it's such economic illiteracy it'll be abandoned by your next leader well before 2009.
This is pot on. As usual the Lib Dem plans do nto add up as they do not have to. They are for show not for implementation.
ReplyDeleteI think you might find that the quote, "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer", is Churchill
The Lib Dems' tax plans are, frankly, completely bloody incomphrehensible both economically and politically. They have abandoned the most distinctive policy on which they fought the last two elections for something pretty well diametrically opposed to it in a transparently cynical attempt to outflank the Tories. Apart from the fact that the sums don't add up, this sort of volte-face will simply cause most voters to think they haven't a clue what the party actually stands for.
ReplyDeleteYou can poke fun at Cameron for all the "cross-dressing" over the public sector and so on, but this goes deeper than mere positionig in my view. It's the equivalent of the Tories, having fought the last two elections on saving the pound, suddenly deciding they were in favour of the euro.
Paul Linford - you say we're outflanking the Tories on the right; Iain says its the most left-wing policy since Labour's manifesto.
ReplyDeleteI think I hear Lance-Corporal Jones ...
Kevin Davis - perhaps Winston Churchill did say it, but the great P J O'Rourke said, "Life isn't a pizza. My having more money doesn't mean you will have less."
ReplyDeleteHmmm, that logo looks familiar...
ReplyDeletehttp://kerroncross.blogspot.com/2006/06/local-election-successes-labour-party.html
But considering I nicked the original idea from the now deceased Lib Dem watch, I can't really complain! ;-)
Anyway, so long as we are using it to attack and exploit the Lib Dems, I'm happy! :-)