David Cameron announced today that the regressive rise in VAT, which hits the poorest hardest will be kept, but the progressive 50% tax rate for high earners (something that was for many years a Lib Dem policy) will be scrapped as soon as possible.
What does it say about this government's priorities that taxes that hit the poorest worst will be kept but the rich will be given more money back ?
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
6/22/2010
Any other Lib Dems feeling the slightest bit hypocritical today ?
I was looking back at the poster launched by the Lib Dems at the start of the election campaign less than three months ago and, from my own moral compass, I feel something of a hypocrite having delivered leaflets with this message on only to find three months later that a Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury was presiding over the "VAT Bombshell" the Lib Dems were warning about.
Taking a more measured view, I do find it hard to argue against a large chunk of the budget today. Quite clearly Labour have been running this country on the basis of chucking everything on to a credit card, which in many ways was the reason this country got in to such a mess in the fist place with the proliferation of cheap credit and a lack of control on spending and lending.
However, the fact that the Lib Dems are now having to share power ought to make Lib Dem strategists think twice in future elections about the kind of messages they want to put out during an election and to what extent these campaigns (as in the VAT Bombshell posters) cheapens politics. I know all parties do it, but we need to be honest enough to say we won't in future.
For those who are unaware of my stance towards the coalition, I have been clear in my view (and expressed this to MPs, the printed press and in Radio interviews) that I am no supporter of the coalition deal with the Tories. I don't want to go over the old ground of this, but I thought I should make this clear.
Taking a more measured view, I do find it hard to argue against a large chunk of the budget today. Quite clearly Labour have been running this country on the basis of chucking everything on to a credit card, which in many ways was the reason this country got in to such a mess in the fist place with the proliferation of cheap credit and a lack of control on spending and lending.
However, the fact that the Lib Dems are now having to share power ought to make Lib Dem strategists think twice in future elections about the kind of messages they want to put out during an election and to what extent these campaigns (as in the VAT Bombshell posters) cheapens politics. I know all parties do it, but we need to be honest enough to say we won't in future.
For those who are unaware of my stance towards the coalition, I have been clear in my view (and expressed this to MPs, the printed press and in Radio interviews) that I am no supporter of the coalition deal with the Tories. I don't want to go over the old ground of this, but I thought I should make this clear.
4/11/2010
Contradictions of the Tory Marriage Tax proposal - Explained via a short film
Yes, I am sure I could have done better, but this has taken me hours to do. Enjoy, share, pass it on to others please. It certainly highlight the unfairness of the Tories plans and the Lib Dems simple alternative.
4/09/2010
How much could you save under the Lib Dems ?
Under Liberal Democrat proposals to raise the tax threshold, 10% of workers in Norfolk would become exempt from paying income tax.
Using South Norfolk as an example, the lowest paid 10% earn £7996 per year.
The Lib Dem proposals to raise the tax threshold (by asking the wealthiest to pay more) would ease the burden on 3,800 people in South Norfolk alone -tthe equivalent to a place the size of Long Stratton.
Across the whole of Norfolk, 27,800 people would be taken out of tax altogether – or 11.68% of the working population.
Under the Lib Dem tax plans, the average person would save £700 per year in their tax bill, no one will have to pay tax on the first £10,000 of their income.
This will save the average working age taxpayer £700 each. Homes with two workers could be up to £1400 a year better off.
These tax cuts will be paid for by measures including closing tax loopholes exploited by the rich, taxes on pollution and a new levy on houses worth more than £2 million.
Lib Dem candidate for South Norfolk Jacky Howe says, “Ordinary people are paying far more than their fair share while the rich pay less than they should. Our plan will put money back into the pockets of those who need it most, pensioners and working people on low incomes.”
Using South Norfolk as an example, the lowest paid 10% earn £7996 per year.
The Lib Dem proposals to raise the tax threshold (by asking the wealthiest to pay more) would ease the burden on 3,800 people in South Norfolk alone -tthe equivalent to a place the size of Long Stratton.
Across the whole of Norfolk, 27,800 people would be taken out of tax altogether – or 11.68% of the working population.
Under the Lib Dem tax plans, the average person would save £700 per year in their tax bill, no one will have to pay tax on the first £10,000 of their income.
This will save the average working age taxpayer £700 each. Homes with two workers could be up to £1400 a year better off.
These tax cuts will be paid for by measures including closing tax loopholes exploited by the rich, taxes on pollution and a new levy on houses worth more than £2 million.
Lib Dem candidate for South Norfolk Jacky Howe says, “Ordinary people are paying far more than their fair share while the rich pay less than they should. Our plan will put money back into the pockets of those who need it most, pensioners and working people on low incomes.”
4/08/2010
More evidence of a Tory VAT increase
Even top people in the pro Tory Tax Payers Alliance (TPA) are of the opinion that a VAT rise under the Tories is inevitable.
Read more about it HERE on the ever exellent Liberal Burblings Blog.
Looks like the Tories will trample the recovery under foot with their VAT Tax Bombshell.
Read more about it HERE on the ever exellent Liberal Burblings Blog.
Looks like the Tories will trample the recovery under foot with their VAT Tax Bombshell.
3/01/2010
Tories and Labour squabbling like children in the playground - "But he's doing it too !"
When I am dealing with a disagreement between children, when it is clear they are both in the wrong and both behaving in a way that is not acceptable, I let them know that the argument "I'm doing it because he is doing it" or "But he's doing it too", are simply not good enough reasons for doing something.
If it is wrong then it is wrong, whoever is doing it. So whilst I agree with Iain Dale that the Labour Party are showing stunning hypocrisy in criticising Lord Ashcroft's tax status, it is actually no defence for the Tory Party to say that they are doing it because Labour are doing it.
That was the argument many MPs made in making false expenses claims. It didn't wash then and it doesn't wash now.
There is, however, another subtly difference between labour and Tory tax dodgers making donations. The Labour people do not have a hand in the political strategy of the party. They make donations, but do not seek influence within Labour. Compare this to Lord Ashcroft who plays a major role in the Tories target seat strategy. This is a point the Tories choose to ignore when making comparisons.
If it is wrong then it is wrong, whoever is doing it. So whilst I agree with Iain Dale that the Labour Party are showing stunning hypocrisy in criticising Lord Ashcroft's tax status, it is actually no defence for the Tory Party to say that they are doing it because Labour are doing it.
That was the argument many MPs made in making false expenses claims. It didn't wash then and it doesn't wash now.
There is, however, another subtly difference between labour and Tory tax dodgers making donations. The Labour people do not have a hand in the political strategy of the party. They make donations, but do not seek influence within Labour. Compare this to Lord Ashcroft who plays a major role in the Tories target seat strategy. This is a point the Tories choose to ignore when making comparisons.
11/29/2009
Millionaire wannabe Tory MP Zac Goldsmith is a non dom !
A few years ago nobody had heard of "non doms", but now most people have a good idea that those who are "non domiciled" in the UK and avoid paying UK income tax, now pay a fairly nominal flat rate of £25,000 a year and that is it. Now for anyone earning over £70,000 a year, being able to pay a one off £25k might seem like a bargain in order to avoid paying more in income tax. The problem is you have to have teams of accountants, generally have a home overseas, and be very wealthy in order to have the pieces in place for tax avoidance on this scale.
So it must be galling for the people of Richmond Park constituency to read that their Tory candidate,the multi millionaire Zac Goldsmith, is a non dom, and avoids UK income tax on his vast £200 million wealth.
No wonder the Tory Party were so keen to try to overturn a recent Lib Dem and Labour amendment to a law which would have made it illegal for non doms to fund in any way UK political parties as it would have cut off the vast sums Zac Goldsmith has poured in to Richmond Park constituency.
David Cameron and George Osborne have been talking tough on tax avoidance recently. Let's see how they act against one of their own "A listers".
I wonder if the Tory front organisation the Tax Payers Alliance will comment about this ? After all, surely those setting our taxes should also be paying the taxes ? However, it's hardly likely since it was reported recently that one of the senior people in the TPA is also a French resident who does not pay UK tax.
10/06/2009
In some ways I agree about Safety Cameras, but oh the hypocrisy
Having recently travelled down to London and seen the obsession some parts of the country have with installing speed cameras almost every couple of miles along some roads, I have to agree with the Tory idea that most speed cameras could be culled.
Whilst speeding is a crime, it is not a premeditated crime intended to be at the expense of someone else. I happen to think flashing signs, better road markings and the occasional risk that a police officer might be standing there with a speed gun does provide the necessary inducement to slow down.
The problem though, for the Tories is that whilst they might like to slag speed cameras off, at a local level the Tories are actually very keen to put them up and make money from them.
Take, for example, in Norfolk, where Tory run Norfolk County Council are themselves major partners in Norfolk Safety Camera Partnership. This same partnership is responsible for the recent placing of a camera on my route to work in an area which I have, in four years of travelling that route, never seen an accident or been held up at that point. Of course, with a good flow of traffic I think most people know why the camera was placed at that exact point, and I am sure it will be a money spinner for them.
The problem though that the Tories will face by abolishing camera is that they do provide a source of income for the police, the same police that will apparently have to make its share of cuts. So the prize that motorists will get as a result of having less speed cameras will be less police officers and less crime solved.
The Tories will have to learn that for every policy there is a knock on associated.
Whilst speeding is a crime, it is not a premeditated crime intended to be at the expense of someone else. I happen to think flashing signs, better road markings and the occasional risk that a police officer might be standing there with a speed gun does provide the necessary inducement to slow down.
The problem though, for the Tories is that whilst they might like to slag speed cameras off, at a local level the Tories are actually very keen to put them up and make money from them.
Take, for example, in Norfolk, where Tory run Norfolk County Council are themselves major partners in Norfolk Safety Camera Partnership. This same partnership is responsible for the recent placing of a camera on my route to work in an area which I have, in four years of travelling that route, never seen an accident or been held up at that point. Of course, with a good flow of traffic I think most people know why the camera was placed at that exact point, and I am sure it will be a money spinner for them.
The problem though that the Tories will face by abolishing camera is that they do provide a source of income for the police, the same police that will apparently have to make its share of cuts. So the prize that motorists will get as a result of having less speed cameras will be less police officers and less crime solved.
The Tories will have to learn that for every policy there is a knock on associated.
10/04/2009
Will I miss Tracey Emin ?
Apparently the artist (and I use that term loosely) Tracy Emin is considering moving abroad because she does not want to pay 50% tax. She states that "the French appreciate art".
Indeed the French do appreciate art, which makes me wonder what ms Emin will do there ? After all, great art will always have an audience. Whereas her career appears to me to be based around a pompous London based market obsessed with spending large sums of money city bonus money on "installations" which are neither thought provoking or artistic.
Great art needs to make people gasp at the ability of the artist. When I look at the work of Ms Emin I am shocked at just how little artistic ability is required to produce it. To give it some relevance, when I go to watch football I want to see someone produce something on the pitch that I could never do on a Sunday morning playing for the local pub team on the village green. In the same way we want to hear musicians who can play guitar, can hit the notes with their voices, and whose lyrics inspire. We don't want someone tunelessly singing twinkle twinkle little star. And that is what Ms Emin's artwork is, to me. Decidedly average and something that I could produce, had I "the name" and the patronage of lots of rich people with friends to impress and no taste.
I'd love to say I'd miss Ms Emin, but I won't. A selfish millionaire with little discernible talent who is not willing to pay tax is hardly a role model for the youth of today.
Indeed the French do appreciate art, which makes me wonder what ms Emin will do there ? After all, great art will always have an audience. Whereas her career appears to me to be based around a pompous London based market obsessed with spending large sums of money city bonus money on "installations" which are neither thought provoking or artistic.
Great art needs to make people gasp at the ability of the artist. When I look at the work of Ms Emin I am shocked at just how little artistic ability is required to produce it. To give it some relevance, when I go to watch football I want to see someone produce something on the pitch that I could never do on a Sunday morning playing for the local pub team on the village green. In the same way we want to hear musicians who can play guitar, can hit the notes with their voices, and whose lyrics inspire. We don't want someone tunelessly singing twinkle twinkle little star. And that is what Ms Emin's artwork is, to me. Decidedly average and something that I could produce, had I "the name" and the patronage of lots of rich people with friends to impress and no taste.
I'd love to say I'd miss Ms Emin, but I won't. A selfish millionaire with little discernible talent who is not willing to pay tax is hardly a role model for the youth of today.
11/26/2008
Another budget cock up the government hadn't worked out
The rise in the level of fuel duty to supposedly counter balance the cut in VAT might make sense to someone who has no understanding of economics or the tax system, but to any expert, the are obvious problems.
A good example is for some specialist hauliers and other business people who are able to reclaim the VAT on their fuel. Now those of you who have a brain will already be ahead of me here and have twigged that the 2.5% VAT cut means that they cannot reclaim this money,, but they will still pay it because 2.5% has been added to fuel duty.
So in effect this is a tax rise.
What a shame that Labour cannot see what is obvious to everyone else.
A good example is for some specialist hauliers and other business people who are able to reclaim the VAT on their fuel. Now those of you who have a brain will already be ahead of me here and have twigged that the 2.5% VAT cut means that they cannot reclaim this money,, but they will still pay it because 2.5% has been added to fuel duty.
So in effect this is a tax rise.
What a shame that Labour cannot see what is obvious to everyone else.
11/23/2008
Hands up if you think that retailers will cut prices by 2.5% if VAT is reduced
It is now looking nailed on that VAT will be reduced by 2.5% in order to stimulate spending.
The problem is that with the fall in the value of the pound, most imported items, for example, a Playstation 3, have technically gone up in price for Sony, but have had their prices pegged so as to protect consumers. So will prices now come down 2.5% when the cost to Sony has gone up by 15% in the last few weeks ?
The chances of seeing a £300 PS3 coming down to £292.50 is very small indeed, meaning that a cut in VAT will make no real difference whatsoever.
So in effect we will have a big give away by the government which manufacturers and retailers will benefit from , but not consumers. So how will this increase spending by consumers ?
Update : As has been pointed out by comments, VAT is not levied on food, so the poorest who have the highest % of their income spent on food will benefit the least from these proposals.
The problem is that with the fall in the value of the pound, most imported items, for example, a Playstation 3, have technically gone up in price for Sony, but have had their prices pegged so as to protect consumers. So will prices now come down 2.5% when the cost to Sony has gone up by 15% in the last few weeks ?
The chances of seeing a £300 PS3 coming down to £292.50 is very small indeed, meaning that a cut in VAT will make no real difference whatsoever.
So in effect we will have a big give away by the government which manufacturers and retailers will benefit from , but not consumers. So how will this increase spending by consumers ?
Update : As has been pointed out by comments, VAT is not levied on food, so the poorest who have the highest % of their income spent on food will benefit the least from these proposals.
5/13/2008
From failure to humiliation and on to gross stupidity - Labour's 10% solution is a massive failure by every measure
The humiliation of Labour under Gordon Brown today was complete when Alistair Darling announced a £120 tax give away for this tax year (and this tax year only) to anyone on 40% tax.
Whilst Frank Field and other Labour rebels might be delighted, the whole principle of what Labour have done "sucks" in so many ways.
The main point for me is that this re-hash of the budget had to be done because Labour had failed to protect those who deserved protection most. Low wage earners would , as a matter of principle, be the last to be made to suffer in difficult times, and Labour, in a pre-meditated way planned to rob them and cared little until the polls showed that they had seriously cocked up.
The other reason why today's plan is so daft is because people like me, who benefited from the Labour budget and the cut of 2% in income tax, will gain twice. Oddly when the poor were being fleeced by Labour, I was made slightly better off, and now the poor are being re-imbursed, I too get a further boost to my income. This really is a daft form of logic.
The truth of the matter is though that Labour have lost the plot. You've just got to hope that the electorate will not be so dumb as to fall for it.
Whilst Frank Field and other Labour rebels might be delighted, the whole principle of what Labour have done "sucks" in so many ways.
The main point for me is that this re-hash of the budget had to be done because Labour had failed to protect those who deserved protection most. Low wage earners would , as a matter of principle, be the last to be made to suffer in difficult times, and Labour, in a pre-meditated way planned to rob them and cared little until the polls showed that they had seriously cocked up.
The other reason why today's plan is so daft is because people like me, who benefited from the Labour budget and the cut of 2% in income tax, will gain twice. Oddly when the poor were being fleeced by Labour, I was made slightly better off, and now the poor are being re-imbursed, I too get a further boost to my income. This really is a daft form of logic.
The truth of the matter is though that Labour have lost the plot. You've just got to hope that the electorate will not be so dumb as to fall for it.
3/07/2008
George Osborne eaten alive on Radio Five live
I've always thought of George Osborne as n over promoted rich boy who lacks any real credibility and gravitas, and this was shown in very great detail today on Radio Five this morning when he was talking about Tory plans to tax alcopops and premium beers at a higher rate.
George Osborne starting explaining how his plans were proven because of their success in other countries, with him naming Norway as one such example. Then he, he walked in to a trap of his own making. The BBC interviewer, obviously aware of Mr Osborne's tendency to mention Norway as had obviously done a bit of research in to Norway, in then listed to Mr Osborne exactly what they do in Norway to support efforts to reduce drinking on top of simply taxing premium beers at a higher rate. The things that Norway also does includes setting an age limit of 20 for people wanting to buy spirits and banning the sale wine, beers and spirits in convenience stores, garages and supermarkets. The interviewer want on listing all the other things Norway does, and in response George Osborne had no proper answer or response other than to again repeat the same points he had made at the beginning of the interview.
Very shallow and hopelessly out of his depth were the first thoughts that came in to my head.
George Osborne starting explaining how his plans were proven because of their success in other countries, with him naming Norway as one such example. Then he, he walked in to a trap of his own making. The BBC interviewer, obviously aware of Mr Osborne's tendency to mention Norway as had obviously done a bit of research in to Norway, in then listed to Mr Osborne exactly what they do in Norway to support efforts to reduce drinking on top of simply taxing premium beers at a higher rate. The things that Norway also does includes setting an age limit of 20 for people wanting to buy spirits and banning the sale wine, beers and spirits in convenience stores, garages and supermarkets. The interviewer want on listing all the other things Norway does, and in response George Osborne had no proper answer or response other than to again repeat the same points he had made at the beginning of the interview.
Very shallow and hopelessly out of his depth were the first thoughts that came in to my head.
11/20/2007
HM Revenue and Customs - More of your information given away to fraudsters ?
The government are to make a statement at 3.30 pm about Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, with press speculation hinting it might be that HMRC have given away lots of personal information about you to persons unknown.
The head of HMRC, Paul Gray, has also quit in advance of the statement.
BBC Watchdog did a piece about this last night and not one government spokesman could be bothered to turn up to the programme to explain how this happens on such a regular basis.
The point was made last night that we have no choice about who collects our tax, despite them calling us customers. If a company acted like them we'd put our business with someone else.
Update: It appears the records of 25 million people have been lost when a courier lost CD's with this information on them. Shocking.
The head of HMRC, Paul Gray, has also quit in advance of the statement.
BBC Watchdog did a piece about this last night and not one government spokesman could be bothered to turn up to the programme to explain how this happens on such a regular basis.
The point was made last night that we have no choice about who collects our tax, despite them calling us customers. If a company acted like them we'd put our business with someone else.
Update: It appears the records of 25 million people have been lost when a courier lost CD's with this information on them. Shocking.
10/29/2007
Is it paying less tax rather than press intrusion that is causing Lewis Hamilton to quit the UK ?
Formula One racing driver Lewis Hamilton has announced that he is quitting the UK because of press intrusion in to his life.
He will instead reside in Switzerland, which by strange co-incidence is also a tax haven for the super rich.
I'm not sure the press are barred from entering Switzerland and I know that the European paparazzi are meant to be even worse than the British press, so I am putting two and two together and guessing that his move is more about tax than the press.
Nice to see out so called "sporting heroes" turning their backs on the country at the first opportunity.
He will instead reside in Switzerland, which by strange co-incidence is also a tax haven for the super rich.
I'm not sure the press are barred from entering Switzerland and I know that the European paparazzi are meant to be even worse than the British press, so I am putting two and two together and guessing that his move is more about tax than the press.
Nice to see out so called "sporting heroes" turning their backs on the country at the first opportunity.
10/09/2007
Stolen clothes - Another reason for fixed term parliaments
In some ways the near miss of the general election might allow Labour to do some things it never considered in the light of the Tories suddenly revealing last week that they actually have some policies.
Alistair Darling today announced that Labour had looked at and rather liked what the Tories had to say on Inheritance Tax and on taxing non-domiciled workers, and announced that labour would raise further the the inheritance tax levels for married couples and also would tax the "non-doms", like the Tories said they would do.
This then poses something of a question for the Tories. Which other policies will Labour steal before now and the next election ?
Of course, it's not just the Tories who have to ask this question. Alistair Darling stole from the Lib Dems too when he changed the way that charges are levied on flights.
Parties can usually put together a manifesto knowing that the election is imminent and that the other parties have not got time to copy them or if they are in government, enact the policy. In this case, the Tories have been caught out a little. Not that any of this is the Tories fault, but the nature of not having fixed term parliaments has again given the government an advantage.
In many ways it is like Labour telling a load of swimmers to get ready for a race, only for the other racers to get down to the start line and find Labour on the beach stealing their clothes.
Alistair Darling today announced that Labour had looked at and rather liked what the Tories had to say on Inheritance Tax and on taxing non-domiciled workers, and announced that labour would raise further the the inheritance tax levels for married couples and also would tax the "non-doms", like the Tories said they would do.
This then poses something of a question for the Tories. Which other policies will Labour steal before now and the next election ?
Of course, it's not just the Tories who have to ask this question. Alistair Darling stole from the Lib Dems too when he changed the way that charges are levied on flights.
Parties can usually put together a manifesto knowing that the election is imminent and that the other parties have not got time to copy them or if they are in government, enact the policy. In this case, the Tories have been caught out a little. Not that any of this is the Tories fault, but the nature of not having fixed term parliaments has again given the government an advantage.
In many ways it is like Labour telling a load of swimmers to get ready for a race, only for the other racers to get down to the start line and find Labour on the beach stealing their clothes.
10/07/2007
Labour to steal Tory ideas - AGAIN !
To anyone who remember the Tories prior to 1997, New labour can hardly be seen as a massive break from what we had to put up with for 17 years. Lots of broken promises, sleaze, politicians out of touch with real people and a continuing of the lack of trust in politicians that became so common from the Mid 1990's onwards.
So it really can be no surprise to anyone to see that Gordon Brown is considering copying the Tories ideas on inheritance tax, can it ?
This seems to be the problem with the Tories and Labout at the moment, both aping each other to be the most baldn, boring and conservative (with a small "c"). Both offer only differences in presentation. No wonder people find politics boring.
So it really can be no surprise to anyone to see that Gordon Brown is considering copying the Tories ideas on inheritance tax, can it ?
This seems to be the problem with the Tories and Labout at the moment, both aping each other to be the most baldn, boring and conservative (with a small "c"). Both offer only differences in presentation. No wonder people find politics boring.
10/01/2007
Making promises that do not have to be kept
The BBC Political correspondent said on Radio Five this morning that a rich Tory donor spoke to him at a party in Blackpool last night and said the Tories plans for a £25k tax on non domiciled residents would not work because it would simply drive them overseas.
It seems to me that the plans is neither costed nor workable, but works for the Tories in so much as it allows them to make promises that they know they will not have to keep.
It's is in sharp contrast to the Lib Dems fully costed proposals.
They always used to say the Liberals could promise what they liked because they had no chance of power. It's odd now that the Lib Dems are the opposition party whose figures add up whilst the Tories make promises that don't add up. People can draw their own conclusions as to why shortly before an election everyone knows they cannot win the Tories are doing this.
It seems to me that the plans is neither costed nor workable, but works for the Tories in so much as it allows them to make promises that they know they will not have to keep.
It's is in sharp contrast to the Lib Dems fully costed proposals.
They always used to say the Liberals could promise what they liked because they had no chance of power. It's odd now that the Lib Dems are the opposition party whose figures add up whilst the Tories make promises that don't add up. People can draw their own conclusions as to why shortly before an election everyone knows they cannot win the Tories are doing this.
8/16/2007
"Axe Inheritance Tax" say the Tories. How will you pay for it ? " Um ..."
The Tories are sounding more and more like an opposition party with no hope of power by the week. The argument that the Tories cheaply levy at the Lib Dems door as that the Lib Dems can make pledges, but they will never have to honour them. This is why the Lib Dems have since 1992 always had their manifesto audited to check that the pledges can be paid for. So in that light, how do the Tories plan to cover the costs of axing inheritance tax ?
Although it sounds like a good idea, particularly if you are rich, middle class and live in an expensive home in the South East of England (not trying to hit key demographics there then are you Mr Redwood), there will be a price to pay for the Tories proposals. So where will the axe fall ? On schools, the NHS, Defence ? Of course, the Tories don't say.
Other proposals the Tories have announced include cutting corporation tax (a good thing in my opinion). But again, with no idea give of how they intend to pay for these cuts too. Lets assume the cuts will come from the police and the environment.
These ideas proposed are not bad in themselves, but surely the Tories have to explain at some point how they would pay for them. Anyone can propose tax cuts, indeed the Tories have proposed them again and again, even though the last Tory government actually raised taxes. Without a costed programme the Tories seem more and more like a party desperately throwing ideas around in the vain hope that they will pick up support, but knowing that they have no way of paying for their proposals and, if they were being honest, knowing that they don' t have to cost them because they will not get in to power to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)