If you can accept that Nick Clegg's so called 'wealth tax' is a contribution to the debate, then you will note that tax is starting to feature more and more in the current political and media discussions.
Clegg and, earlier Cable, have prattled on about a 'mansion tax' or a 'wealth tax' If I understand the latter this will be some kind of tax on assets. If it is, then as Anthony Hinton pointed out, in the London Evening Standard, this then acts as a bringing forward of Inheritance Tax and, for those elderly people, who are asset rich but cash poor, would present a very difficult situation. The 'mansion tax' would seem to present the same issues. So trying to spend tomorrow's money, today. You might even call it, borrowing from the future!
I have tried to find out 'who pays, what' as regards Income Tax. That is, what percentage of the working population pay what percentage of the total taxes? We hear that something like the top 10% of earners currently contribute more than 50% of the total tax take. Is contribute the right word when it is compulsory?
I digress.
Do these Lib Dem 'rocket scientists' and their socialist colleagues in the Labour Party, have an absolute number in mind for the top tax rate - for their so called 'fair tax'? That is, have they modeled their tax and tax 'plans', to see just how much revenue would actually be raised?
I sense (and stand ready to be proved wrong) that the only way that further tax will be effective, is if the higher rate is spread wider - so more and more of the masses in the 'middle classes' are brought deeper into the fold - I just don't think that the 'rich' can be taxed sufficient to feed the beast that is government spending.
I come at the tax question from a different angle. I believe that the most effective way to stimulate the economy would be to cut taxes. If there are any ITEM members out there, maybe they could model this?
Raise the tax threshold to £15,000, abolish the 45% rate, reduce the 20% rate to 15% and the 40% rate to 35% and reduce fuel tax by 5% and eliminate the green levies being applied on fuel provision. Give an NI holiday to employers who take on new employees and hold it for three years.
Of course this will cost money - that is the great maw that is government will initially receive lower direct income - and so to overcome the gap, the choice is either real cuts in government expenditure or more QE. The proper and courageous solution is for cuts to be made but given the Lib Dems baleful influence on government policy we can expect 'bleeding hearts and stumps' to be used to persuade politicians to avoid the work for which we employ them and the decisions that we expect them to make.
If there are leftists out there who can prove that tax cuts will not stimulate the economy and/or that further government spending will, then do so, otherwise, join the campaign to get tax cuts implemented as a priority.
If there are any Conservative MPs that understand the founding principles of their party, then perhaps they can push their party to act like Conservatives!
Clegg and, earlier Cable, have prattled on about a 'mansion tax' or a 'wealth tax' If I understand the latter this will be some kind of tax on assets. If it is, then as Anthony Hinton pointed out, in the London Evening Standard, this then acts as a bringing forward of Inheritance Tax and, for those elderly people, who are asset rich but cash poor, would present a very difficult situation. The 'mansion tax' would seem to present the same issues. So trying to spend tomorrow's money, today. You might even call it, borrowing from the future!
I have tried to find out 'who pays, what' as regards Income Tax. That is, what percentage of the working population pay what percentage of the total taxes? We hear that something like the top 10% of earners currently contribute more than 50% of the total tax take. Is contribute the right word when it is compulsory?
I digress.
Do these Lib Dem 'rocket scientists' and their socialist colleagues in the Labour Party, have an absolute number in mind for the top tax rate - for their so called 'fair tax'? That is, have they modeled their tax and tax 'plans', to see just how much revenue would actually be raised?
I sense (and stand ready to be proved wrong) that the only way that further tax will be effective, is if the higher rate is spread wider - so more and more of the masses in the 'middle classes' are brought deeper into the fold - I just don't think that the 'rich' can be taxed sufficient to feed the beast that is government spending.
I come at the tax question from a different angle. I believe that the most effective way to stimulate the economy would be to cut taxes. If there are any ITEM members out there, maybe they could model this?
Raise the tax threshold to £15,000, abolish the 45% rate, reduce the 20% rate to 15% and the 40% rate to 35% and reduce fuel tax by 5% and eliminate the green levies being applied on fuel provision. Give an NI holiday to employers who take on new employees and hold it for three years.
Of course this will cost money - that is the great maw that is government will initially receive lower direct income - and so to overcome the gap, the choice is either real cuts in government expenditure or more QE. The proper and courageous solution is for cuts to be made but given the Lib Dems baleful influence on government policy we can expect 'bleeding hearts and stumps' to be used to persuade politicians to avoid the work for which we employ them and the decisions that we expect them to make.
If there are leftists out there who can prove that tax cuts will not stimulate the economy and/or that further government spending will, then do so, otherwise, join the campaign to get tax cuts implemented as a priority.
If there are any Conservative MPs that understand the founding principles of their party, then perhaps they can push their party to act like Conservatives!
No comments:
Post a Comment