Saturday, August 26, 2006

Now is the Time to Make Case for Lower Taxes

Regular readers of this blog will know my views on whether the Conservative Party should commit itself to lower taxes. A poll in tomorrow's Sunday Times makes very happy reading for those of us who believe the Conservative Party is nothing if it does not believe in lowering the level of taxation on ordinary working people. I won't go into the details because you can already read them HERE in exhaustive detail on ConservativeHome. Making the case for lower taxes is a long term project. We mustn't let Labour steal the march on us. I think people are now beinning to realise that they've paid over huge amounts of money to the government but not seen the return on their investment. Some years ago (I think it was under William Hague) the Party ran a poster campaign with the slogan YOU'VE PAID THE TAXES, WHERE ARE...? It might be time to repeat it, as it was a few years too early to catch the public mood.


Benedict White said...

I think the "YOU'VE PAID THE TAXES, " line is a good one, because public services seem in some ways to be in free fall. They certainly are in my local NHS.

Shame really. I would not have minded the taxes so much had they been about building sustainability. For example, improving transport to where people live but don't have jobs, so that they can get jobs with out moving.

So, lots of money spent, no results. Not an argument for lower taxes per se, but certainly an argument against higher taxes = more services. That is clearly bonkers.

Anonymous said...

You've paid the taxes,
where are the border controls?

SPL said...

Yes - but I would argue that low-tax economics is actually a classical-liberal construction. Historically, the Conservative Party was an advocate of protectionism.

(Is Adam Rickitt really an "opinion former"?)

Praguetory said...

I prefer a rather more aggressive tone. It would include sharp facts re government waste followed by the tag line


Johnny Norfolk said...

Surley the main difference between Labour and Tory is about the size of the state, and how much or little it should do. If the state is going to interfear in our lives less it will cost less and we can have some of our money back. simple

Anonymous said...

Dear Senor Iain


1 Fido is a dog

2 All dogs are black

3 Fido is a black dog


1 Roman Emprie needs massively expensive Army

2 Roman Army needs taxes beyond the capacity of the Economy to support

3 Collapse of Roman Empire

British Parallels !!!!

G Eagle

Anonymous said...

I am sure you will not be as pompous and self important about it as ConHome and its owner are. Beginning to sound like Beaverbrook at his worst.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad Iain that you say " lowering the level of taxation on ordinary working people" because that is not really what past Tory govts have done - when you look at the Thatcher tax "adjustments", they mostly take the form of reduced taxes on unearned income such as dividends. Thatcher / Major actually increased the overall tax burden on the middle classes. I am sceptical that in reality a Cameron govt would be any different.

Changing the subject, just listening to the really absurd Ruth Kelly on BBC1 this morning, who claims she "celebrates" when she sees Muslim women in the Hijab! Anybody want to join the party?

Anonymous said...

The Sunday Times article sounds like it was written by Rupert himself.

Iain - are you going to post on Cameron's comments on South Africa?

Anonymous said...

anonymous at 10:14
It's also on the bbc website

Anonymous said...

"Making the case for lower taxes is a long-term project."

Couldn't disagree more; the case for lower taxes has been made time and time again, ever since Keynesian economics started looking ropey - 40 years at least. Just how long is it going to take before the message gets across to those who make a living by spending *our* money? Another 40 years?

Now implementing lower taxes, that is a long term project, but it's never too soon to start. So where to begin? Where will the first blossomings of CP fiscal reform thrust their fragile shoots in defiance of the steamroller of tax n'spend?

According to my Sunday Torygraph it's Stamp Duty, though not as many a home-owner would hope, ST on house purchase - it's ST on share transfers/sales. Wow! That will really get them dancing in the aisles of the local supermarket; a real headliner, get lots of votes, that will. After all it will help personal pensions, in 40 years(!) you'll see the benefit (if they don't change the rules again when all the Treasury chickens come home to roost) - and if you can actually afford to save for a pension after the other taxes have done hoovering your pay-packet.

Of course there are some who will gain short term - the pension/insurance/banking orgs and those wealthy enough to have their own share portfolio. Given that, guess how the cynic-in-the-street will view this putative policy - fat cats to get fatter, looking after their pals, cosying up to the most profitable sector in the Stock Exchange - for why? Couldn't be in the hope of party donations, could it?

I despair, I really do. Where is the radical thinking? Where is there a sign that the Cons are not just a bunch of mealy-mouthed Labour-lite statists?
Offer something before the next election that would directly affect the pockets of the many. Don't tinker about at the edges. Grasp the nettle, for God's sake.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you are floundering in Vince Cable's wake here...

Iain Dale said...

Anonymous, Vince Cable is not proposing cuts in the overall tax burden, so I don't think that comment really stands up. His tax redistribution plans are ill thought out and do not add up. If they did I might welcome them.

Scipio said...

We need:

1 A Royal Commission established to look at the whole tax AND benefits system (you cannot seperate one from the other really). The idea should be to establish ways of reducing the overal tax take, and how best to fairly distribute the tax burden.

2. Take those on benefits out of the income tax system completely. What is the point of taking income tax of them, only to give it back in benefits. You should tax the things you wish to discourage. You should not discourage people from seeking employment. Get people off benefits and into work.

Anonymous said...

John Prescotts expenses...

illustrate it by hovering over a CGI generated London suburb, with thousands of chavs entering each house and coming out with a tenner each.

repeat for each John Prescott expense.

End with the punch line.


Anonymous said...

"Changing the subject, just listening to the really absurd Ruth Kelly on BBC1 this morning, who claims she "celebrates" when she sees Muslim women in the Hijab! Anybody want to join the party?"

well she is opus dei, so maybe the hijab reminds her of the veil of the virgin mary.

(we really do have some serious fruitcakes in power nowadays - where are the rationalists???)

Anonymous said...

Osborne is still wet behind the ears and is no match for for the bullying conman Brown. Too timid too unsure of which line of attack to adopt. Dead scared of media headlines' "Tory tax cuts for the rich will close all hospitals schools etc". The credible line of attack is
- Govt incompetence corruption and waste
- Brown's incompetence and deceipt

Propose solutions after setting out and repeating ad nauseum the facts and figures to support attack. Very few in this country believe we have an honest and competent Govt. UK has one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe when you adjust the figures to account for those who have become 'disabled' since 1997. Up 100% during a time when NHS spending is up by 80% in cash terms.

There are 100's of killer facts that can demolish Brown's claim to be a prudent Chancellor. Time young George had the nous and balls to step up to the plate.

The bad news is this. When Osborne is Chancellor after next election, he will not be able to reduce taxes. The Govt finances have built in toxic waste that will take five or more years to neutralise. A poisoned chalice.

Anonymous said...

annie mouse said:
"the really absurd Ruth Kelly on BBC1 this morning, who claims she "celebrates" when she sees Muslim women in the Hijab!"

So it's goodbye,Commission on Integration and Cohesion. So very last week.

Anonymous said...

"Ruth Kelly "celebrates" when she sees a hijab.

And so she should. There are millions of women who would look better in a hijab. The rest should be obliged to wear bikinis.

Anonymous said...

what a surprise Osbourne proposes tax cuts one day after Iain does a post on his blog. can you see the string?