It is not very often that I can find myself agreeing with David Cameron. Too many people I know who have met him or know him speak so poorly about him as a person that I find it hard to ignore my instant allergic reaction to him. However, I do find some of what he has said to the press about possible spending cuts make sense.
On the BBC website it says of Cameron
"He highlighted what he said was the half a billion pounds spent on government advertising and the fact that people earning over £50,000 a year could still qualify for tax credits. "
It is hard to disagree with these as areas for cutting.
It is incredible sometimes to listen to local radio and find of the four adverts played in a advert break, one will be for tax credits, one is for direct.gov and one will be advertising some educational grant system that 99% of people cannot claim. It seems to me sometimes that government advertising seems to be there just to keep local radio stations in business.
As for tax credits I have found it absolutely crazy that myself and my wife qualify for tax credits. We both earn above average wages so why should we received tax credits ? When i mentioned to people at work that we receive them it was astonishing to see the reaction of people in similar circumstances to me who did not claim them because they presumed that tax credits were for the poor, not people earning a decent income. However, this is where a contradiction comes in to Tory policy.
The Tories also want to raise inheritance tax levels which only benefits the super rich, not those middle income earners. By removing tax credits and raising inheritance tax levels it might appear to many that middle income earners are subsidising the super rich. Quite how this would play at the ballot box would be very interesting.
And in essence, this is the problems with the Tories under Cameron, some sensible ideas, but full of contradictions.
7 comments:
Careful now, Dave's not a bad person. I've met him a couple of times - he is my MP - and he is perfectly pleasant and very good locally.
The issue with him is that he is not up to the job of Prime Minister and that's what we should focus on.
The other point about the government adverts on radio is that I found them so disgusting (if I remember correctly the anti-smoking and anti drink-driving ones especially) that I generally switched the radio off. I hardly listen to commercial radio stations now.
Every year I get a huge wad of paper encouraging me to apply for tax credits. However, the tax authorities know my income is too high because they have my tax return. Why does anyone need to apply at all when the HMRC knows what everyone earns anyway?
While the Tories may well be full of contradictions, it was Labour who set up this barmy, wasteful scheme in the first place.
I've heard many stories about his rudeness to minions, arrogance and the way he blanks people.
I do disagree that the inheritance tax policy benefits only the super rich.
The current threshold I believe is too low (with Norfolk house prices at 2004 levels). The super rich will be paying on passing 40% over the £1 million threshold.
Anonymous is right: the IHT proposals will benefit the moderately wealthy the most.
The super-rich would pay much the same as now (probably very little, though tax loopholes, though that's a different issue). It's those passing on estates valued above the current threshold but below £1m who'll be the main beneficiaries.
By contrast, the reduction in IHT on a £10m estate would be pretty small proportionately.
There was an interesting report released by the Taxpayer's Alliance recently condemning the 5o% tax rate as it will discourage entrepreneurship.
It also said inheritance tax discourages entrepreneurship.
Imagine you are worth £250,000. To take the risk of setting up a firm you need a good return and that return might include passing on your assets to your children when you die. Raising the IT threshold to £1 million could help encouraging this good type of risk taking which creates jobs.
Alternatively with IT as it is one might not bother as the risk is too great and they might as well pass on £250,000 tax free when they die instead.
Post a Comment