Tax, tax and tax again

The richest one percent already pay 29% of the total income tax. Parties of the left want people to believe they can expand spending massively by getting the rich to pay more. Evidence abounds that higher rates of tax would raise less money, with more rich people leaving the country to avoid the impositions. The Labour government of the 1970s was famous for presiding over a brain drain, when UK as well as foreign born people left the UK to enjoy their earnings at a lower rate of tax.

The truth is Labour and the Lib Dems would need to increase  tax on the many to pay for their programmes. It is now fashionable to say they would only borrow to invest, so all the extra money they want to spend on the running costs of public services and benefits would need to be matched by tax revenue.

The Lib Dems have said they would put a 1p in the £1 levy on income tax, a rate rise of 5%. They would also increase Capital Gains tax. There would be a frequent flyers tax for travellers. Corporation Tax would also go up.  These measures are unlikely to raise enough to pay for their expensive programme. Labour decline to tell us how they would pay for the tens of billions extra they want to spend on investment, nationalisation and higher spending on public services.  It would clearly take a large  increase in Income Tax to pay for all they have in mind. Their proposals for higher Corporation Tax and higher wealth and higher Income taxes on the well off are unlikely to yield the extra they need.

The public is paying much more tax than ten years ago as the price of getting down the excessive deficit Labour ran up. Now the accounts are under better control it is time to relax a little. It would encourage more growth and more tax revenue to come if the government cut rates. I look forward to the Conservative Manifesto to see what tax cuts they will recommend for the first budget after the election. I will also continue to press for lower rates on income and savings . People should keep more of what they earn and have more to spend on their own priorities.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    We need to tempt investors to the UK when we leave the EU, to set up here.
    Your question should be posed as to which taxes to cut to achieve this.

    I’d suggest cutting NI ers, Business rates, Corporation Tax and CGT in that order, at least giving new companies a 3 or 5 year holiday. They will bring in more tax, enabling second year cuts in stamp duty and income tax, on the proviso that more business taxes do materialise.

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      Employers’ NI and Business Rates are costs that hinder the achievement of profit, and corporate survivability, so I too would concentrate on those. And I would focus more on encouraging home-grown entrepreneurship than shipping the stuff in. Or we could be even more radical, by reducing the corporation tax of companies employing more people on full-time contracts, for example.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:30 am | Permalink

      John is correct that the public are paying more tax than they once did, but he omits a key reason for this.

      It is because they are still meeting the knock-on cost of bailing out the banks – a trillion quid in rough figures – which collapsed as a result of the imprudent practices which they adopted in the wake of the swathes of deregulation brought under the Tories in the 1980s.

      Reply Not true. There has been no subsidy going into the banks since Conservatives came to office.

      • a-tracy
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:31 am | Permalink

        Bailing out the banks –
        What you actually mean here is bailing out a very large group of people that took out loans and mortgages through these banks because of Labours relaxations of the rules (following the Clinton lead) and they then didn’t pay their debts back so the rest of us had to pick them up or bring the whole tower of cards down.

        Northern Rock, RBS worst culprits

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:59 am | Permalink

        Thank you John.

        With respect, I didn’t say that there was ongoing subsidy to the banks.

        But you can’t take a huge sum out of the public finances at a given time for the banks without taking those resources away from other needs, and we are still dealing with the deficit and the debt caused by that urgency.

        That is what I meant by knock-on effects.

      • libertarian
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 12:36 pm | Permalink


        Why persist with your fake posts? You just make yourself look dim

        Tell us which deregulations of Big Bang caused the problems you claim.

        Whilst I totally agree that the Gordon Brown Labour government handling of the banking crisis by making it 10 times worse then bizarrely using tax payers money to bail them out , trying to blame the tories for that is beyond laughable

        The key reason we are paying more tax, whilst borrowing more money is because the state sector is out of control. Hosing money on pork barrel projects, unaccountable financial mismanagement, structurally decrepit systems and organisations, huge losses on IT and other infrastructure projects and the wasteful cost of politics and bureaucrats and the huge empire of quangocracy etc

      • Richard1
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

        This post is complete nonsense. The consolidation needed under the Conservatives was to get the deficit down from over 10% under Labour to close to 1% now. It was Brown who made the bank bailout which consisted of purchases of shares for c. £70bn, much of which has been sold at a loss (as predicted at the time by free market critics of the bank bailout), and soft loans.

        • Bob
          Posted November 24, 2019 at 10:53 am | Permalink

          ” It was Brown who made the bank bailout which consisted of purchases of shares for c. £70bn, much of which has been sold at a loss “

          When you buy something for more than its market value you could be said to be buying it at a loss.

      • JoolsB
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply: John, could you tell me please what steps the Government are taking if any to retrieve this money especially as RBS have started paying dividends on shares again. Are they taking the p===s out of us taxpayers or what?

        Reply The government gets a dividend on our shareholding

        • a-tracy
          Posted November 26, 2019 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

          John, how much dividend does the rbs return every year. Watching Corbyn saying nationalised industries generate profits just for the state shareholder I was wondering how much we now get per annum for the £46bn that it cost to effectively nationalise it?

      • acorn
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

        Martin, there is an NAO report It shows the schemes that are definitely not subsidies to the Banks since the Conservatives came to office (LOL).

        “The public is paying much more tax than ten years ago as the price of getting down the excessive deficit Labour ran up” is complete nonsense.

        The bailout process would have been exactly the same had a Conservative government been in office. The whole thing was run by Treasury techies, the amateur politicians involved then, as would be now, were clueless.

        There was only one question the politicians had to answer, nationalise the bad banks and keep them running for nothing; or, bail them out for a trillion Pounds plus in cash and guarantees; Mr Darling chose the wrong one.

        PS. See if you can spot where the magic money tree lives in Fig 15. The clue is the box where payments come out but nothing goes in. 😉

      • hefner
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

        Sir JR, do you do it on purpose? Obviously the Conservatives did not give subsidies to save the banks. Obviously they did not have to, Labour did it for them. And why was there a crash in 2007-2008, if not for all the deregulation that started in the ‘80s. What do you keep taking people for idiots. Labour has responsibility for sure, but pretending as you are trying to do that Cons are as white as snow. It would be almost funny if it were not so dishonest.

        Reply No it was not 1980 dereg that did the damage but bad reg and bad central banking in the mid 2000s when Labour were in power

        • hefner
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

          “The financial crisis of 2007 to 2008 occurred because we failed to constrain the financial system’s creation of private credit and money” Adair Turner, 02/11/2012.
          Indeed Labour were in power, but did bad regulations and bad central banking started in May 1997?

          • acorn
            Posted November 24, 2019 at 10:10 am | Permalink

            Deregulation of the Banks in the Thatcher era, allowed the introduction of the two weapons of financial destruction, Securitisations and Derivatives. Both finally blew-up in the 2008

            The first allowed lenders’ dodgy loans to be sold off in bulk (MBS) to mug punters greedy for higher interest. The second are just bets on an underlying financial asset, security, or index, they have no socio-economic value and are pure Casino banking.
            Reply The global development of these instruments had nothing to do with the Uk Thatcher government! Securitisations were ways for banks to reduce their risks by selling on loans to other risk takers and providers of capital. That did not undermine the banking system It was the loans the banks kept on their balance sheets that caused the problems.

          • libertarian
            Posted November 25, 2019 at 9:55 am | Permalink


            Total and utter drivel , you are totally ignorant

            The first fully mortgage backed security was issued in the US in 1968 and unstructured MBS had been around for most of the early 20th century

            In 1848, the first derivatives exchange was created in Chicago, Derivatives are said to have existed even in cultures as ancient as Mesopotamia. Derivative trading on securities spread from Amsterdam to England and France at the end of the seventeenth century.

            Big Bang and the Thatcher changes had nothing to do with this at all .

            The Big Bang was the result of an agreement in 1983 by the Thatcher government and the London Stock Exchange to settle a wide-ranging antitrust case that had been initiated during the previous government by the Office of Fair Trading against the London Stock Exchange under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956. These restrictive practices included the London Stock Exchange’s rules establishing fixed minimum commissions, the “single capacity” rule (which enforced a separation between brokers acting as agents for their clients on commission and jobbers who made the markets and theoretically provided liquidity by holding lines of stocks and shares on their books), the requirement that both brokers and jobbers should be independent and not part of any wider financial group, and the stock exchange’s exclusion of all foreigners from stock exchange membership.

    • a-tracy
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:28 am | Permalink

      I disagree Sir Joe with 3-5 year tax holidays, you may help a start up to close down an established small business that has been paying their employers ni, business rates, and all other costs religiously causing job losses and bankruptcy how is that fair or right?

  2. Peter Wood
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    Good Morning,

    Time to stop the charade, here’s the truth: Mr Corbyn does NOT want to be PM. He knows full well his loony party has gone bonkers communist and is happy to let it propose an unelectable set of ideas, more suited to the 1960’s innocence of first year students.
    Mr Corbyn is a complainer; that’s it, he loves to complain and demonstrate. He certainly doesn’t want the responsibility of actually putting his ideas into practice.
    There is nothing more pathetic than seeing a couple septuagenarian communists pretending they’re still teenagers at a college debate.
    The Labour Party used to have a place in our society to defend the working man, they are now a loony left, Islington old communists club.

    • Mick Anderson
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      Looking at the odds quoted for various results, the only two believable results are either a Conservative victory or another Hung Parliament.

      If Mr Johnson really wants the former, he needs to start appealing actively to the electorate. At the moment he seems to be in a bidding war with the parties that are even more left wing. There’s no point in this; eventually Mr Corbyn will just promise to spend twice as much as any other party and Mr Johnson will have effectively painted himself into a corner. He can’t buy the votes of those who want even more money spent anyway.

      Where I live there are only LibLabCon candidates, none of whom appeal. It’s a safe seat, so my vote is irrelevant. Looks as though I’m spoiling my ballot paper again….

      • Lester Beedell
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

        People gave their lives so you are able to vote
        The students in Hong Kong are losing their lives because of China’s attempts to stifle Democracy

      • NigelE
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

        “spoiling” – a word with poor connotations. What you are doing is voting None of The Above.
        Returning officers should give figures for those who make the effort to vote but have no confidence in the choice offered.

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:21 am | Permalink

      He should prepare for allotment.

    • Everhopeful
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:36 am | Permalink

      What a comforting theory. And most likely true.
      I do so hope you are right!
      That “manifesto” is just beyond one’s worst nightmare.

    • Alan Jutson
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:26 am | Permalink


      Corbyn, Indeed a student who has never grown up springs to mind, but rest assured he really does believe he has a chance of power, and that the majority think like him.

      Those of us who have lived through Labour Governments and seen the chaos, especially with the Winter of discontent when you could not even bury the dead, have more common-sense, that is why he is trying as best he can to win the younger vote as those people who are not yet fully established adults, really have no clue as to how these policies work in practice.

      The politics of envy is a very strong message when you have no skin in the game.

      • a-tracy
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:38 am | Permalink

        I agree Alan. Some people seem to be mistaken by his appearance.

      • Bob
        Posted November 24, 2019 at 11:13 am | Permalink


        There’s a reason that the Labour Party, SNP and Lib Dems want the voting age reduced, it’s because younger voters have no personal experience of the effects of socialism and their naivety makes them susceptible to offers of free sweeties. Socialism is the thin end of the communist wedge, and as history proves, communism is the thin end of tyrannical authoritarianism.

        It’s a shame that our schools don’t teach history any more. They should invite people who have lived under communism to give talks to students about their experiences to wise them up.

    • Anonymous
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:28 am | Permalink

      It smacks of controlled opposition.

      Making an opposition party so awful that we run into the embrace of Blonde May and total EU control.

      In 2016:

      Vote Remain = Hard Remain

      Vote Leave = Harder Remain

      Now these options definitely were NOT on the ballot slip but they were indeed the reality.

      • Everhopeful
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:00 am | Permalink

        Spot on.
        My deep suspicions too!

      • Peter Wood
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:50 am | Permalink

        And there you have it..

        Is it just all a pretence by those who really rule the world? We are given just a veneer of democratic power over our future, but in reality the decisions have already been made. Surely it came as a shock, to those that rule, that we had the temerity to vote to leave their new social management experiment, called the EU.

    • graham1946
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      The Tories problem is that Boris is not a good performer on telly which is where most people will see him. His much vaunted ‘magic’ seems to be an illusion. His last two tv appearances that I have watched have been poor and at best could only be scored 50/50 against a dire left wing opposition. They must do better. Labour are careful to keep their front bench off the telly. Imagine what fun it would be to see Abbot, Long-Bailey, Rayner et al making fools of themselves. We live in hope for some light relief from this dreary election.

    • BJC
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      I had to chuckle at the look of utter shock on Mr Burdon’s face (QT) when a gentleman in the audience informed him angrily that he would be affected by Labour’s taxation plans. It was as though he simply couldn’t believe how a man from Bolton could possibly earn £80+! Of course, his cost of living is also considerably lower and his disposable income greater and probably invested in property, so in Labour’s eyes he’s very rich and a prime candidate for redistribution of his wealth.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    Labour proposals for higher Corporation Tax and higher wealth and Income taxes on the well off will surely yield far less tax than it currently produces. A Labour government would clearly deter investment, encourage people and businesses to leave the country or reduce their UK activity. The idea that just “asking” people earning over £80K to pay a bit more would do it is a sick joke. Will a couple earning £75K each £150K total not therefore have to pay?

    Well will we get tax cuts at all? Nothing but tax increase to the highest level for 40 years from Osborne and Hammond. Why would anyone trust them on tax cuts anyway. They have still not delivered the £1 million each inheritance tax they promised yet. They have suspended the CT cuts promised. They have an expensive electricity policy, increase insurance taxes to 12% VAT at 20%, income tax at up to 45%, pension mugging, landlord and tenant mugging, a further 3% on stamp duty for some announced. The Conservatives are a tax borrow and piss down the drain party – just not quite as dire as Labour. The Conservative idiots clearly are not even going to cancel HS2 or the absurd renewables agenda. They need to stop all the vast waste in government. Much of what is spend does nothing of value and a lot does positive damage.

    • Mark B
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:12 am | Permalink

      But will you, assuming you can, vote for another party or, will you still vote conservative ?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:57 am | Permalink

        So probably would have to be Conservative certainly if they were sound) and not one of the appalling traitors. Brexit if I thought they had any chance of winning in that seat. I could never vote for Corbyn, Libdem or Green.

        The Tories should not have signed up to Corbyn’s alarmist climate ‘emergency’ CHARLES MOORE is surely quite right on this in the Telegraph today. I do not even think the Tories win any votes in this area by this foolish stance.

    • Shirley
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:39 am | Permalink

      Politicians of all colours appear not to care about anything but virtue signalling. Immigrants get priority over housing, foreign girl bands get money while our elderly die from the cold and our roads disintegrate, sex change operations are considered more important than life saving ops. I could go on, but what’s the point. The majority are sacrificed on the altar of minority appeasement and ‘climate change’. This country has gone to the dogs, and politicians (both UK and EU) are wholly responsible. Democracy is disappearing under a raft of lies and spin. Honesty and integrity is becoming an exceedingly rare quality in politicians.

      • The Prangwizard
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:39 am | Permalink

        I must give Shirley’s comments my vote of support. These are genuine feelings and valid criticisms shared by many. We must not be prevented nor vilified in saying these things.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:46 am | Permalink

        Indeed. So much waste everwhere you look.

        £5 million it seems for the girl band! I had assumed it was something trivial.

      • Chris
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

        I agree, Shirley.

        The only breath of fresh air is from Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party “contract” – far, far better than any other manifestos, or promises put forward by Boris. NF is the best PM we never had. How wonderful it would be to get some fresh blood into the H of C, and there are some excellent BP candidates. The Tories have dealt dirtily with Nigel Farage and people will not forget.

      • Timaction
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

        Indeed. Check out the Tory record to date. Highest taxes in 45 years. Interest rates so low punishing the prudent whilst imposing taxation on alternate investments e.g. landlords, shares dividends tax. Immigration at highest levels ever. Waiting times at GPs surgeries, A&E. Road congestion on crumbling roads. PC minority virtue signaling everywhere pushing minority issues whilst being anti English males. Not voting for any of the legacies. No trust left at all!

    • Dave Andrews
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:04 am | Permalink

      Plus they want to build 100,000 new council houses per year. Who is going to vote for that? If you already own a property, you don’t want any development in your area, if you rent you probably don’t care and if you’re homeless you will find voting difficult. What about the energy cost to burn the lime for mortar and bake the bricks? Do they have no consideration for the environment?
      As IDS says, they aren’t the Labour Party, they’re the Welfare Party.

      • graham1946
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:54 am | Permalink

        Whether you want it or not, house building is happening. My nearest market town of 20,000 people is getting 5000 spread around its perimeters, all on prime agricultural land. I see no brown field sites being developed. No extra infrastructure, water being tapped from our village to one of the new developments. No doubt the water company will just pocket the extra rates and tell us to use less. They are even building on a flood plain, promised in their planning application to make a flood alleviation scheme then reneged after building the first 100 saying they could not afford it.

        • Fred H
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

          there is crazy housebuilding going on all over, bias to the South. Why? Well population is booming, more people want 1 bed homes, more older couples staying put in family houses. Why population booming? – last 10 years growth something like 250,000 per year. Mostly EU free movement, plus previous Commonwealth immigration. No governments have done what was needed – leave EU. This growth has strangled schooling, NHS, transport, benefits etc.
          A total failure to see what is happening to the country.
          Farage a lone voice in the wilderness.

      • Doug Powell
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:18 am | Permalink

        The Labour and the Illiberal Undems’ proposals to build hundreds of thousands of new council house, plus the increase in welfare payments might be better received if they were aimed at British residents, but doubtless the above parties proposals are designed to accommodate the unlimited immigration from the EU, which they also propose!

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        Who will get these (half rent?) council houses state sector “essential” workers perhaps. I do not immaging they will be allocated fairly. Will the next Frank Dobson get one perhaps?

        • Lifelogic
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

          Why should some people paying for their own houses subsidise others (through taxes) when the people with subsidised rents might well be earning more than they do?

  4. agricola
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    Labour claim that their tax increases will only affect the top 5% of earners.I would point out that it is estimated that in the tax year 2019/20 this same 5% will pay 50.1% of the total income tax take. This is before they are hit with VAT, IHT, and Stamp Duty should they spend any of their nett income or unfortunately die. I would further point out that increasing the tax paid by this 5% does not come anywhere near covering Labours programme of nationalisation.

    The only credible indication of what any party will do has come from the Brexit Party’s contract with the people. Boris’s WA2 is dishonest and not an exit from the EU. The Lib/Dems solution to the countries finances is to become a national drug dealer and profit the exchequer in the process. None of which was made apparent from last nights Panorama. Bruce is either a left wing guardianista or just out of her depth. She gave an easy ride to the left and then constantly heckled Boris. It became obvious that Bruce had previous knowledge of many questions and had prepared her own secondaries. Possibly the director was feeding her the secondaries. Andrew Neil should have presided, being the only professional remaining.

    • a-tracy
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:42 am | Permalink

      There only one place drugs taxes will go and that’s on more mental health provision, rehabilitation and healthcare as strokes will increase with more regular cannabis use.

  5. Mark B
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    The public is paying much more tax than ten years ago as the price of getting down the excessive deficit Labour ran up.

    Excuse me but, this government has also been increasing the deficit with its White Elephants, HS2 and Hinkley Point. It has raised taxes year on year rather than cut spending.

    We know what the LibDems and Labour will do, but what of the Conservative Party ? None of any of the three main parties initiatives have been costed. All more money for this and more money for that. Utter rubbish ! What we want is reform. We know that when you lot get in office that you will quickly bin you party manifesto pledges so what is the point of voting for you ?

    We want reform, not rhetoric !

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:15 am | Permalink

      Indeed they cannot cut taxes until they stop pissing money down the drain. It seems that the absurd HS2 is going ahead as is yet more green lunacy, huge waste and incompetence at the NHS endless waste all over the place. There is so much that could usefully be cut.

  6. Lifelogic
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    The BBC yesterday had the leaders special debate with SNP, Labour, Libdims & Conservatives. So why exactly does the party that the appalling dope Theresa took down to 9% support and fifth place at the last nationwide election get a position in it yet the Brexit party that got 30% and first place not get a look in? BBC fairness & “balance” one assumes.

    I have only watched the Corbyn bit so far. He comes across as though he quite genuinely believes his polices would work, he thinks he has a magic money forest and his Father Christmas policies would be good for the people. Surely no one can be quite that stupid can they? The policies would be a complete and utter Venezuelan disaster – for rich and poor alike. Putting the state sector union back in control and destroying the economy and confidence in no time at all. Plus we would have the SNP tail wagging the dog. A rigged remain or remain but pretend not to referendum and perhaps a Scottish independence disaster. For England especially it would be a disaster. This man needs to retire to his allotment. Hopefully he has done a great job in making labour totally unelectable.

    • Mark B
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:16 am | Permalink

      I take issue with the fact that the SNP were allowed. They are not standing in England or Wales and only represent a population of 5 million against a population of 9 million for London alone.

      • Stred
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:02 am | Permalink

        The SNP is elected on under 50% of 4.7 million scots and gets a totally disproportionate cover on 4% of the UK vote. The BBC is keen to have the wishes of the Commission observed and this is the Boris WA or Labour or Libdem solutions. Allowing Farage to outperform the duds would be a step to far. The other item completely of the agenda in all TV debates is whether the WA ties us to the European Court and future EU taxation, environmental and social laws, made without any input.
        Fiona Bruce may be Scottish and the BBC may be 99% Remain.

      • a-tracy
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:45 am | Permalink

        Farage was asked why he had created a contract for the people (a manifesto) when he’s not standing in all the seats, why isn’t the same question asked of the SNP, Plaid etc. Following this logic Why are the SNP not just shown on Scottish Tv debates they’re the only people that can vote for them.

        • Fred H
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

          once in a generation vote. I heard that the average age on death was falling in Scotland but I didn’t think it was that bad.

      • BJC
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:54 am | Permalink

        I still wonder how the SNP can include IndyRef2 in their manifesto when it’s a competency legally retained by the UK government. It’s like a UK government including negotiation of their own FTAs in their manifesto when it legally sits with the EU. It can’t be delivered and is simply a mechanism to whip up discontent.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

        Indeed and she dreadful. What do the usually sensible Scots see in here. Then again most of these sensible Scots I tend to meet are living in England I suppose.

    • Turboterrier
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:11 am | Permalink


      For England especially it would be a disaster.

      Would it really? There are a lot of people who think not. The money bunged to Scotland over and above the Barnet Formula just to try and keep them sweet is obscene. Is it appreciated? No

      • Stred
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:39 am | Permalink

        At present Scotland has an overproduction of wind generation and only one small gas station. The nuclear stations will soon be closing. This results in the excess costly wind electricity being exported to England and the landowners receiving English payments for producing and not producing the juice. In return, Scotland replies on cheaper English gas and older nuclear generation for backup when the wind doesn’t blow. Solar, of course, is a joke in the Scottish winter.
        When they are not arguing with each other it would be interesting to know whether the SNiPs have thought about whether the English government would allow this one sided situation to continue after independence.

        • Stred
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:41 am | Permalink

          relies not replies.
          My smart alters after the script disappears.

        • JoolsB
          Posted November 24, 2019 at 8:22 am | Permalink

          Stred – there is no such thing as an English Government. Unlike the rest of the dis-UK England is not allowed to make it’s own decisions hence the English Question and West Lothian Question.

      • Fred H
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

        A Scottish vote would probably mean stay in the Union, an English vote for them to leave would be a resounding YES(please!).

  7. Ian Wragg
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:29 am | Permalink

    It’s interesting that Corbyn pitche £80k as rich. Just above MPs salaries.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:02 am | Permalink

      £80K might leave you with about £45K after tax, NI commuting costs etc. In London your rent or mortgage might well be £20K, council tax £2K. Leaving you circa £60 a day for food, heat, light, insurance, holidays, repairs, a car, pension savings, school uniforms ….. so you are hardly very rich on this sum.

      If you have a wife and three or four children you are likely to be struggling.

      • graham1946
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:28 am | Permalink

        No you are not rich on 80 grand, but as the average is 25 grand, how do they manage? It’s largely a matter of choice – if you want a 5 bedroom house in a snooty area, an expensive 4×4 in the garage. I’d rather have 80 grand than 25.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

        Not forgetting the £150 or so tax for being allowed to have a TV!

    • Dame Rita Webb QC
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:16 am | Permalink

      No incentive there for doctors in the NHS either. Mr Hancuck still has not effectively resolved the problems of those medics earning over £100k and the pensions annual allowance. A Labour government would now face the problem of doctors in the £80k to £100k bracket reducing their hours too because its just not worth it anymore.

      • a-tracy
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:49 am | Permalink

        Dame Rita the same argument for doctors could be used for wealth creators, and other private sector workers? Either the policy is fair for all or it’s not. Public sector final salary pensions are protected from this policy because pots don’t exist and made up pot rates aren’t the figures a private pension purchaser would have to pay.

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

          Funds do exist for many public sector pensions, e.g. councils, the BBC etc.

          They are managed in the usual way, and subject to the same actuarial processes as private sector ones.

          • Edward2
            Posted November 24, 2019 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

            There is huge and growing disparity between pensions in the Stare sector and those in the private sector.
            Both in terms of retirement age and the benefits achieved.
            The rapidly rising costs of State sector pensions is something that will soon have to be addressed but currently no one has the nerve to do any reforms.

          • a-tracy
            Posted November 25, 2019 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

            Yes, a few years back our local council put a quarter million pounds of rate payers money in to top up their pensions after their poor management investments in Iceland.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:20 am | Permalink

      Yes but they get a very good pension indeed linked to the higher inflation rate, expenses that normal workers would be heavily taxed on (as they have special tax rules) and many still employ their wives or other relatives plus they can do other jobs and so called “consultancies”. A creche, subsidised restaurants and bars, second home allowances ….

      Though employing relatives might soon be banned it seems, but not for those already doing it!

      Reply MPs may not offer contracts any more to family members. MPs may not earn from consultancies selling their knowledge or expertise as MPs.

      • Ian Wragg
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:04 am | Permalink

        Have you told Hammond that.

        • Hope
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

          MPs pensions based on RPI, a higher rate, while they reduced all other public sector workers to CPI! Also exemptions for tax rules for them! also different rules for prosecution, different rules to allow public to know which MPs are investigated despite all,parties claiming transparency being a disinfectant! It continues to be a cess pit that needs radical reform. Why are the majority not shouting about it rather than trivial PC issues?

          Reply MPs are under the same tax rules as anyone else.

          • Hope
            Posted November 25, 2019 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

            No, you have exemptions. For example for benefit in kind. That came out during the expense scandal.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

      £80K as an individual too

      No consideration of household income. Surely if £80K is rich when one person earns it then it remains rich if two people earn it.

      Labour the party of fairness

  8. agricola
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    Why are the BBC allowed to give so much airtime to the SNP who in their own parliament represent a majority of a mere 5.4 million Scots in Scotland. They are a vociferous side show. At the same time the BBC are allowed to ignore the Brexit Party, the basis of whose thinking has been far more influential than any other political party. They are the largest UK party in the EU parliament, if not the largest overall. The BBC is patently corrupt in ignoring it’s charter, is it the payola they get from the EU.

    • Dame Rita Webb QC
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:08 am | Permalink

      Yup more people voted to leave the EU in Scotland in 2016 than vote SNP. Also this election would not be necessary if it had not been for the efforts of Mr Farage over the years. So why is he not there, instead of the two Scottish wimmin, one of whom is hopefully going to be out on her ears on 12/12?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:10 am | Permalink

      Indeed compare the huge coverage of Scottish issues with coverage given to the far greater number of people who live north of say Birmingham.

      Plus I find Nicola Sturgeon almost as repulsive as I do Theresa May or John Major so the less we see of her the better. What so many Scots see in her?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:25 am | Permalink

        Perhaps not quite as bad as Hammond, Gauke, Greg Clarke, Ken Clarke and Soubry though!

    • Fedupsoutherner
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:28 am | Permalink

      Agricola. Never a truer word spoken. Farage is dangerous and the establishment are afraid of him. He is always painted in a bad light but nothing much is heard about John macdonald chequered past

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:46 am | Permalink

      50 SNP MPs + 340 Labour MPs+ 20 Lib-Dem MPs = a very very strong Remain alliance perhaps?

    • Anonymous
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      What is most obvious is that the BBC has never reported EU Parliament debates like it has Westminster.

      It reveals the lack of influence the EU Parliament actually has in the EU.

      • Update
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

        There aren’t debates in Parliament. It is just series of repeated statements. MPs should just email one another and get the Holy Rood computer voting system. It would speed up things by four hundred years of communication progress. Eliminate expensive time-consuming Committee work.

        • hefner
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

          Are you sure, committee work is the only time future laws are looked at (maybe not that properly, but looked at). PMQ is just a circus, panem et circenses anyone.
          What about you reading Isabel Hardman’s “why do we get the wrong politicians”.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

        No, it reveals the Establishment – of which the BBC is a pillar – in its intention to keep the UK people ignorant as to what the European Union is and how it works.

        • Fred H
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:54 pm | Permalink


          • Martin in Cardiff
            Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

            Because if they knew, then they would probably rather like it.

          • Fred H
            Posted November 24, 2019 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

            keep trying Marty ….I doubt you’ve converted anybody on here.

          • libertarian
            Posted November 25, 2019 at 9:43 am | Permalink

            Martin ic

            If they knew, what you mean like “educating” people how good EU workers rights are ? Or maybe the socialist successes of Scandinavia ? Or maybe how fantastic French and German pensions are?

            If remainers really understood the damage a United States of Europe is doing there wouldn’t be anyone other than rent seekers advocating staying

    • Alan Joyce
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:59 am | Permalink

      Dear Mr. Redwood,


      I thought the BBC Question Time special yesterday evening was coming from Scotland and not Sheffield. There did seem to be rather a lot of Scots in the audience. A United Kingdom general election and Scottish independence was discussed for 25% of the available time!

      The show did not produce much by way of enlightenment except to confirm that Jeremy Corbyn wants to destroy our economy and then the country. Nicola Sturgeon would have a referendum on Scottish independence every year until the voters produce the right result. Jo Swinson should return to her constituency and prepare for resignation. And finally, Boris Johnson is not everyone’s cup of tea.

      Still, I have no doubt, whatsoever, that the eminent good sense of the British people will prevail come December 12th. Who knows, if they had not deprived Theresa May of her majority in 2017, she might still be Prime Minister and we might already have left the EU with her dreadful deal.

    • Andy
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:25 am | Permalink

      Farage had an entire Question Time leaders debate devoted just to him last week. Despite the fact that his party has no MPs, that it will almost certainly get no MPs and that he has stood for election 7 times and lost them all.

      His performance on his own QT was dire. Not quite Boris Johnson dire but so bad that all the Brexiters on Twitter were claiming a BBC stitch up.

      • Fred H
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

        If true what a shambles our electoral system is.

    • JoolsB
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      Exactly – a leaders debate should be exactly that, to decide the next PM of the UK something which obviously rules Sturgeon out as no-one outside of Scotland can vote for her. What’s more the SNP at Westminster could hold the balance of power propping up a Labour minority Government helping them to impose disastrous policies on the English NHS & English education and everything else which is becoming increasingly English only in the UK Parliament including some taxation and what d’ya bet if that happens, 550 plus UK MPs squatting in English seats will murmur not one word of protest at this affront to democracy just as they do now. Even if Brexit voting England votes Tory we could still end up having a Labour/SNP/Lib Dum alliance foist on us and still 550 self serving UK MP’s ‘representing’ (?) English seats will say nothing because their beloved union and their own positions will always come first and England a very poor last every time.

  9. Cheshire Girl
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    I would like to see VAT cut. With the exception of childrens clothes and most food, it seems to be on almost everything.

    A modest meal at somewhere like Burger King and Mcdonalds attracts it. A stay in a Budget hotel does too. Not to mention on insurance policies, fuel, and other essentials. The rate of it is way too high. I used to live in the USA and there used to be a ‘Sales Tax’ there which was much lower.

    Politicians are always going on about ‘ lower taxes’, but they don’t reduce VAT. The truth is it is such a nice little earner for them.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:06 am | Permalink

      Insurance has IPT tax (not VAT) at 12%. Increased hugely by the dire Philip Hammond. For businesses and their customers this is worse than VAT as you cannot claim it back and it has to be charged on to your customers in higher prices with the 20% VAT on top of it!

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:22 am | Permalink

      They do not reduce overall taxation at all – we now have the highest for 40+ years. If they reduce one tax they just increase other tax even more. This is also combined with appalling and generally declining public services. The government is hugely inefficient. They should be spending at most 25% of GDP not approaching 50%. For even £1 they tax in tax you are lucky to get 25p of it back in value, and that will not be what you really wanted either!

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:23 am | Permalink

        For every £1 they take in tax – I meant.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:24 am | Permalink

          It will probably be like an unwanted (or not very wanted) Christmas present that you cannot even take back or sell on.

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:26 am | Permalink

      Good points – but decisions about taxes can only really be decided after the size of the state and desired policy outcomes have been determined. I think that the state takes enough of the GDP, so favour keeping expenditures lagging behind economic growth. None of the main parties seem to agree with me right now. And, disappointingly, none of them seem to want to cut Foreign Aid.

      • bigneil(newercomp)
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:50 am | Permalink

        Foreign Aid? – We don’t need to send money abroad – they are just coming across the Channel in small boats to be first in the handouts/housing/NHS queues.

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

          You are not entitled to benefits if you do not qualify for residence.

          These people generally wish to remain clandestine, and so melt into the crowd, where they will work for cash amongst those who will welcome them and give succour.

          Accurate figures for their number cannot exist, therefore.

          • Edward2
            Posted November 24, 2019 at 10:49 am | Permalink

            Not quite correct Martin.
            Any who claim asylum makes them entitled to benefits.
            There is also special state support for refugees.

          • Martin in Cardiff
            Posted November 24, 2019 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

            To claim asylum you have to make yourself known.

            Most of these people try to hide.

          • Edward2
            Posted November 24, 2019 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

            If you claim asylum you don’t need to hide.
            That’s the whole point.
            Perhaps a bit if research might benefit you Martin.

    • Old Albion
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:14 am | Permalink

      The politicians to whom you refer are not allowed to reduce VAT. That decision lies with the EU.
      You forget our Parliament is a puppet Parliament, the strings are pulled in Brussels.

    • BJC
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:23 am | Permalink

      I believe we’re required to divert a chunk of our VAT revenues to the EU’s coffers. As you say, a nice little earner for them.

    • Anonymous
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:31 am | Permalink

      I’d like to see a cut on VAT for getting to work.

      It’s a kick in the nuts to have it whopped on top of a car repair bill when the only reason you have a car is to earn tax to pay for subsidised restaurants and pensions in Westminster.

      • steve
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:28 am | Permalink


        “It’s a kick in the nuts to have it whopped on top of a car repair bill”

        Learn to fix your car yourself mate, it saves thousands.

        Invest in a good OBD scanner to start with. That way you won’t find yourself getting fleeced since you’ll know in advance what is wrong with your car and be able to spot lies.

        A scanner was the best tool I ever bought.

        • Anonymous
          Posted November 24, 2019 at 12:19 am | Permalink

          I’ve spent decades getting under my cars. I am sick of it.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps you’d like a cut in the poll tax on it too.

        That is, the user of rail for that purpose has to pay the operator’s franchise to the Government for them.

        But hey, that’s privatisation for you.

        • Anonymous
          Posted November 24, 2019 at 12:27 am | Permalink

          The problem with rail is that it was created entirely for freight.

          Without the freight market it is unsustainable or else needs large subsidy and high fares.

          What I’m talking about is VAT on getting to work. It is a kick in the nuts. Especially on a car that I have no ‘love affair’ with but find to be a liability, the greatest source of economic shocks and about the only thing that brings me into conflict with the police.

          I did better than ‘get on your bike’ as Mr Tebbit said. I bought a car to find work and do my bit and the Govt has done nothing but shaft me sideways on it since and has a whole new array of creative methods on which to stripe me up in the pipeline.

  10. Iain Gill
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    yes the public is paying too much

    but the public also gets poor value for money for what it does pay

    for instance the Financial Ombudsman Service is dire, the reviews on trustpilot are really worth a read

    completely unaccountable, senior staff who have resigned their professional bodies so that they cannot be complained about, no sampling of the quality of results by outside professionals, biased, free to base their case on things easily proven to be lies, far too close to the finance businesses and not at all impartial, railroading cases through to final decisions which cannot be challenged, etc

    • a-tracy
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:56 am | Permalink

      I agree Iain.

      One area that should be looked at is roadside recovery services, if this is an example of how an emergency service would be privatised then it’s no wonder people are terrified of a private NHS.

      Left for several hours at the roadside, sorry can’t repair these new vehicles are very technical now and engines just cut out. You need a tow – 5 hours wait for that, your garage is shut we only recover to one location so if you’re taken home, private tow the following day £90 thank you.

      Oh and if you claim too often they won’t cover you.

  11. Sharon Jagger
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    “Politicians are always going on about ‘ lower taxes’, but they don’t reduce VAT. The truth is it is such a nice little earner for them.”

    I believe VAT is an EU directive which has to be a minimum of 20%, so in the grand scheme of things, here, it is at the lowest which can be charged. However, I agree with you – we are taxed for virtually everything, and sometimes twice over.

    • hefner
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

      No, the VAT rate required by the EU is 15%. Plus there are two rates (that cannot be lower than 5%) that individual EU countries can/could have applied to a list of products (see EU site on the topics) and you know what, domestic fuel is on the list.
      I am looking forward to all the decreased tax rates that we will get after the elections from the CUP.

      • hefner
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

        Oops, I forgot: sarcasm.

  12. Kevin
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    Having said all of this, if the Brexit Party were to win enough seats to enter into a confidence and supply agreement with a Conservative minority government, would the Conservative Party leader reject such an agreement in principle, and attempt, as his predecessor did, to agree a plan with Jeremy Corbyn on the the future relationship with the EU? (Anything rather than deliver the clean-break Brexit we voted for?)

    • tim
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

      Kevin- (Anything rather than deliver the clean-break Brexit we voted for?) Exactly! WE WILL NEVER ESCAPE THE EUs COMPLETE CONTROL. Farage is also in on this. I would not vote for any of these Traitors, Quislings ….. Stay in EU and try to reform the UK via the EU, more chance of doing that.

    • steve
      Posted November 24, 2019 at 8:09 am | Permalink


      “Having said all of this, if the Brexit Party were to win enough seats to enter into a confidence and supply agreement”

      The only seat I can see them winning is Anne Widdecombe’s. Other than that they’ll win Jack S.

  13. Iain Gill
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    why are some people paying significantly less tax than others simply because they came here on a work visa? allowing people to work here free of employers and employees national insurance is a scandal, and social manipulation of the worst kind as it biases the market significantly towards hiring such workers

  14. Nig l
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    Agree however it is the wrong discussion because tax is a symptom not a cause. It is a symptom of the never ending drive to a bigger state rather than a smaller one and the complete failure of successive governments to raise productivity to generate the wealth to pay for it.

    Smaller State, improving efficiency, eliminating waste, a regular thread on this blog but so far no mention from any party and I bet the one party that should be doing it, the Tories, do not mention it either. It will be more spend, giveaway, something for nothing etc.

    As an example. Through a complete lack of political will, courage and understanding BT Openreach has been allowed to provide a shoddy service still reflecting its ex public sector ethos at the same time, up to recently, abusing its monopoly position to thwart competition.

    The result is that we as the 5th/6th largest economy in the world are 35th in the roll out of fibre broadband.

    35th! That is truly shocking. That is one of the reasons that when politicians, with a few exceptions, our host being one, appear on the TV I turn it off. They might just as well talk to a mirror. The person they see is probably the only person believing them.

  15. Alan Jutson
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    JR agreed, tax is too high, too far widespread, and far too complicated, unfortunately not many recent Chancellors think like you, and I do not think the next Conservative one (if elected) will mirror your thoughts.

    Likewise your kind of simple form of a clean Brexit with a managed WTO deal, the Conservatives, at least Boris, now seem to have abandoned completely.
    Thus it looks like we are heading for another political and trade deal stitch up, with the EU still remaning in control.

    • Alan Jutson
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:37 am | Permalink

      Whatever happened to “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.

      • steve
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:53 pm | Permalink


        Let me help you with that; you were only supposed to believe it while it was being peddled. Afterwards you’re supposed to forget it was ever said.

  16. Fred H
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Farage has sensible honest policies, what of the others? Idiotic, dishonest, eco-mad, fairytale handouts. All equal except us!

    • Simeon
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:26 am | Permalink

      Farage’s policy of not standing against the Tories was far from sensible. And the truth is, that’s his only policy that has any meaningful effect, that effect being to destroy the Brexit party, and with it any organised opposition to the Remain establishment. He meant well at least…

      • Fred H
        Posted November 24, 2019 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        Simeon ….
        Tax – –
        The party will abolish inheritance tax, cut VAT on fuel bills and will waive corporation tax on the first £10,000 of profits. It also plans to reduce import tariffs to zero on certain foods, footwear and clothing.
        Health – – –
        Will introduce 24-hour GP surgeries, re-opening nursing and midwifery professions to non-graduates. Says it will invest in the NHS without putting a figure on it, adding it will “remain publicly owned”.
        Education – – –
        The party promises to abolish both student loan interest and the target to push 50 per cent of young people into higher education. Says it will also “expand parental choice” when it comes to schools, adding that academies and free schools have improved results.
        Immigration – –
        Has committed to “cracking down on illegal immigration” and to “reduce annual immigration”, with Mr Farage saying he would want to cap permanent immigration at 50,000 a year.
        Environment – – –
        Will invest £2.5bn in fishing and coastal communities, adding that a clean-break Brexit would allow the UK to recover control of a 200 mile exclusive economic zone. Has promised to lead a global initiative at the UN to plant hundreds of millions of trees to capture CO2.
        Welfare – –
        Has promised to “revisit” the Universal Credit system and undertake a 12-month review of it before bringing in reforms within two years. Will also “review the position” of women affected by recent rises in the state pension age.
        Housing – – –
        Will simplify planning consents for brownfield sites and will change the funding model to make it easier for councils to borrow from central government to build council houses.
        Electoral reform – – –
        Will reform the voting system, abolish the unelected House of Lords, and make MPs who switch parties subject to recall petitions and overhaul the postal voting system to combat fraud and abuse. It also plans to introduce a “Citizens’ Initiative” to trigger a referendum if more than five million people sign a valid register calling for a public vote on a particular issue.
        Crime – – –
        The party says it will increase police numbers, ensure more visible policing, and focus on combating violent crime, robbery and burglary rather than enforcing restrictions on free speech.

        Thats no policies?

  17. Mike Stallard
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Could not agree more!
    Cut the taxes and cut back the bureaucracy and cut back the ambition of the ballooning government!
    Because the world is now a village and people trade in the places where they can do best. Asia, you may notice, is booming and skyscrapers rise. Indians are all over the place looking for jobs as computer experts – California? Canada? Chinese are at the cutting edge of computer technology in Canton.
    If you kick “the rich” then they simply move to another part of the village and work there.
    Richard Branson does not live in London.

  18. Brian Cowling
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    I have been saving to replace my elderly motorhome with a new one but am put off by the new rates for vehicle excise duty – a Conservative government’s 700% increase (as of 1st September) to £2,125.00 for the first year and then £425.00 pa for the next 4 years.

    In recent years motorhome usage has been growing and has boosted local tourism and has had a positive impact on the UK economy. Inevitably this new tax will seriously affect the industry resulting in fewer sales of new motorhomes. Jobs will be at risk at UK motorhome manufacturing plants and dealers.

    I believe that rather than having a favourable impact on the environment, it will in fact mean that more older polluting motorhomes will remain on the road.

    • agricola
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

      A suggestion, consider buying your next RV in Spain. I cannot quote figures for RV’s but my Qashqai costs €86 pa to tax. You get a LHD vehicle, driving conditions are like the 60s in the UK, it is a beautiful country, fuel and restaurant prices are lower, and it costs peanuts to fly there. It is well worth investigating.

      • Brian Cowling
        Posted November 24, 2019 at 3:39 am | Permalink

        You paint a pretty picture – thank you. I will investigate and sadly may have to take my business elsewhere.

        But thank you again.

  19. Andy
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    The great thing about tax rises on the 1% is that it affects very few people – and those people are our biggest earners.

    This is entirely correct. Those with the broadest shoulders must do the most. And all of this is a choice. If you do not want your streets crammed with homeless veterans, if you do not want poor children to go to school hungry and if you do not want elderly patients to die on trolleys in hospital corridors then you need to pay tax to stop it. And if all these things are still happening – and they are, in droves – then you are not paying enough to fix the problem.

    I suspect unlike most of the outraged contributors to your blog my family will actually be affected by tax rises on the 1%. We are certainly not Mogg, Drac or Goldsmith style rich – our money is earned not inherited- but we are exceptionally fortunate. Our society is broken if we have to pay more to fix it, we will.

    The real question for all of you is this. Why are you siding with tax avoiding Tory billionaire donors rather than homeless veterans? If Lord Snooty is required to pay more he may only be able to replace his yacht once every five years, rather than every three. But that also might mean 100 people who have served our country do not have to spend freezing nights in urine soaked doorways. Stop siding with the wrong people.

    • Edward2
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

      If you think an increase on the taxes on just 1% of people in the UK will pay for and cure all the problems you describe you are living in fantasy land.
      Governments have enough money to cure these problems.
      It is their failure to deal with these issues that they try to hide behind with a repeated call for ever more money.

    • agricola
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

      I too desire to eliminate these running sores from our society. It could be done by not having virtue projects like HS2, by halving Overseas Aid,by not paying the EU a nett £13 billion PA , or a severence fee of £39 billion. We could then go on to importing cheaper food than we get from the protectionist EU. A pragmatic look at what the UK pays for power would boost our home manufacturing. The Green Priests should be challenged. Government should be looking at ways to boost our industrial output and therefore national income. Reducing the tax burden is one way to achieve it. In my productive days I too was in the same tax bracket but it failed nationally then and fails today. Time for a radical look at the whole tax regime and to intellectually challenge it’s effect.

      • Andy
        Posted November 24, 2019 at 12:18 am | Permalink

        Alas – your figures just do not stack up.

        Overseas and EU membership between them account for less than 2% of UK government spending. Axing them entirely will make no difference.

        If you really want to make a difference to tax – and all of you on here claim you do, but none of you come up with any sensible plans – then you need to tackle the big items of government expenditure – pensions, the NHS (much of which goes on the elderly), social care (particularly for the elderly) and defence.

        I’d be quite happy to all but scrap the military, to totally axe all state pensions, to charge pensioners a significant – and increasing – levy for the NHS, to abolish all pensioner perks and to require all old people to full exhaust all of their own resources before the state helps with social care. Yes, you need to sell your house.

        The huge savings from all of these things would enable us to eliminate the deficit, we’d be able to pay off swathes of the national debt (debt repayments currently being almost as much as the defence budget).

        My plan would enable us to almost halve taxes. And – as an added bonus – it would massively ease the housing crisis. Without their state handouts many pensioners would be forced to sell their homes. The influx of additional properties on the market would depress prices – helping young people to get on the housing ladder.

        Pensioners are the reason our taxes are so high. Virtually half of everything the state spends goes on them. Outrageous and unsustainable. Vote Andy for a full on assault on the Baby Boomers.

        • Edward2
          Posted November 24, 2019 at 10:57 am | Permalink

          Just change the words elderly or pensioners in your disgraceful rant for any other group or race or religion in our society and you could be reported for a hate crime.

    • steve
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:49 pm | Permalink


      “And if all these things are still happening – and they are, in droves – then you are not paying enough to fix the problem.”

      It isn’t the money, Andy, it’s the fact that the country is morally bankrupt.

      “Why are you siding with tax avoiding Tory billionaire donors rather than homeless veterans?”

      Well our host sides more with Nichola Sturgeon….a ‘nationalist’ who has a very offensive attitude towards our country.

      “Stop siding with the wrong people.”

      Agreed. Our host certainly shouldn’t do, it will cost him and his party the election.

      “But that also might mean 100 people who have served our country do not have to spend freezing nights in urine soaked doorways.”

      I wholeheartedly agree with you on that, it’s an appalling situation.

    • Richard1
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

      Mogg has made his own money, albeit with the head start of a good education. Unlike you he understands that what makes a prosperous society with the means to support good social services is free trade and free enterprise.

    • Anonymous
      Posted November 24, 2019 at 12:15 am | Permalink


      What a hero.

      I know differently. A lot of the problems you list could be solved with the rejection that caused them:

      – disrespect for veterans

      – allowing children to run amok in classrooms

      – causing drunks and druggies to block up A&E

      That moral high grand you stand on is no such thing. It is a dung heap.

      • Anonymous
        Posted November 24, 2019 at 12:18 am | Permalink

        *…solved with the rejection of leftism that caused them*

    • libertarian
      Posted November 25, 2019 at 9:38 am | Permalink


      Its not how much money the state has thats the problem its they like you are totally incompetent at running anything

  20. Everhopeful
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    I saw an American article discussing why the Democrats believe they can fund a socialist Utopia by squeezing the rich.
    The article likened the idea to European taxation with VAT …a “ kind of purchase tax” and higher income tax.
    (Americans seem to keep more of their take home pay than we do).
    So are we further down Mr Corbyn’s primrose path than we imagined?

    • Fred H
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

      Americans dont pay for State NHS, Schools, excessive benefits……the hungry, ill poor STAY ill and hungry.

      • No Really.
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

        You should visit America. It’s not quite as bad as you think.

    • Oh boy
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

      They still pay a lot of tax for people’s food stamps, schooling, social housing, and the hidden free health care no-one in the UK wishes to speak about.

  21. Alec
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Everything I have seen of the shower running for office in this election is profoundly depressing. The ignorance of basic economics, the blatant power grabs, the desire for increased tax by every party, the obvious lying and the lack of any chance that their promises will be kept.
    What we need if democracy is not to descend into even more of an abyss than it is already crawling through is one simple addition to every ballot paper. One box marked “None of the Above”. I suspect that if we had that the politicial class would have to change their ways drastically as voters could actually register their disgust and disdain at the candidates offered to them.

    • acorn
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:02 am | Permalink

      That phrase is not allowed on any UK ballot paper.

      • steve
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:38 pm | Permalink


        Apparently it is. If you write none of the above then it still gets counted, though I don’t know who the hell gets the vote.

        Bizarre, but true.

        • acorn
          Posted November 24, 2019 at 6:54 am | Permalink

          It is recorded as a spoilt paper and doesn’t count for any candidate.

    • Dave Andrews
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

      Yes, so depressing. All falling over each other to promise more spending.
      How about telling the electorate they can have more attention paid to the elderly and mental health if the people stopped stuffing the hospitals with the obese? Might also reduce the workforce as well, getting rid of the less effective staff who cost their employer more than they’re worth in malingering.

  22. Qubus
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Off-topic, but nevertheless important:
    these TV debates are a complete waste of time with questions being put either by the audience or by the “compere”. It would be far better if the two opponents got the opportunity to put questions to one another.

    • steve
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:35 pm | Permalink


      “It would be far better if the two opponents got the opportunity to put questions to one another.”

      Better if they were just given a pair of boxing gloves and told to get on with it.

  23. oldtimer
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    The current generation of politicians like to give the impression that borrowing for capital projects is a good and OK as if somehow separate from taxation. This is a lie. Debt incurred is simply tax deferred into the future when the said politicians are no longer around to disfigure public life. It probably accounts for the breathtaking absence of hard-nosed scrutiny of government capital spending that is so evident in the eye catching commitments they promote, especially at election time.

  24. A.Sedgwick
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Corbyn confirmed in last night’s “debate” that Labour would end partial transfer of married couple income tax allowance. This equates to £250 p.a. maximum and unquestionably affects low income households most. The IFS is correct in saying their spending plans will hit every taxpayer – the first example. No surprise that Ms Bruce did not highlight.

    Can QT descend any lower?

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      Mr Corbyn also talked about spending £100 bn on Scottish infrastructure prior to a new independence referendum. I suspect most of this will be borrowed.

      If Scotland subsequently votes for independence who will be responsible for the debt?

      Every spending decision for the devolved administration now needs to be scrutinised for future repayments.

      All the nationalists and other opposition parties were very keen that we met our EU commitments. I expect they will take a similar view of any country seeking independence from the UK won’t they?

      • steve
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

        Nope, not allowed to say anything negative about Scotland, even if it is the truth.

      • Mark B
        Posted November 24, 2019 at 5:46 am | Permalink

        I suspect most of this will be borrowed.

        And rest pilfered from the English.

      • Fred H
        Posted November 24, 2019 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

        Corbyn desperate to win some Scottish seats, the Tories won’t. Still amazes me SNP win seats, are the people really that stupid to believe the nonsense spouted by (SNP ed)

      • steve
        Posted November 24, 2019 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

        Narrow Shoulders

        “Mr Corbyn also talked about spending £100 bn on Scottish infrastructure”

        Should be spent on England instead.

  25. glen cullen
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    The reason tax tax and tax again is because we are in a culture of borrowing and spending…..and all this borrowing needs to be paid for

  26. a-tracy
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    The consultants and highest paid doctors in this Country have shown what happens when the tax and tax on pensions hit the tipping point, they down tools and refuse to do more, well what makes any government think wealth creators don’t do the same?

    • Fred H
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

      but the 250,000 doctors can retire on already tophat pensions most can only dream about.

    • Mark B
      Posted November 24, 2019 at 5:43 am | Permalink

      Exactly ! Or find evermore ways not to pay tax.

  27. Original Richard
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Labour has said it will take aim at “obscene” billionaires, pledging a radical redistribution of wealth.

    Even if they intend to simply confiscate £1bn from a billionaire and distribute it to 50m of the population it would still only amount to just £20 per person and consequently it couldn’t amount to a “radical distribution of wealth”.

    Labour would have to take aim at a much wider group of people.

  28. Dominic
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    ”Business conditions will only get worse under his father’s and Tory plans, corporation taxes are going to be jacked up. The Tory manifesto tomorrow will, according to reports, also hike up capital gains taxes on entrepreneurs when they sell their business.”

    Guido on the ball today even though Staines blog’s become a platform for bashing the BP and Farage.

    Well, John, your party’s move to the left and its embrace of the socialist agenda is now in full swing. You keep playing Labour’s game and their politics of envy and hate against the wealth creators

    It’s not clever politics trying to mirror socialist bigots, it’s gutless, unprincipled politics

    • steve
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 7:30 pm | Permalink


      “Well, John, your party’s move to the left and its embrace of the socialist agenda is now in full swing.”

      Actually Dominic they haven’t gone left, they’ve gone north right over Hadrian’s wall.

  29. Stred
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    My bird has taken a consultancy on the continent where she works a 16 hour day once or sometimes twice a week and supervises work done in London. She has paid full NI as an employee for 37 years. It was a surprise to be told that she also had to pay NI as a self employed person and pay income tax in advance before the fee arrives while losing her personal allowance. As a result, she loses 60% of her earnings. It is coming to an end soon and the loss of income will not be missed considering the wear and tear of the work. Tories kill enterprise.

  30. ADAMS
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    Nobody from Wastemonster talks about cutting Government SPENDING including the Party you are a member of John . Just the same old same old under the FPTP voting scam that disenfranchises voters every time without fail at the local and the General elections .

  31. Dominic
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Apologies for my excessive posting. When I see the party that I still attach great importance to heading in the wrong direction and acting in a manner that betrays its core beliefs I become emotional

    Exposing and stopping Marxist Labour in its plan to undermine our nation has become an existential issue. Only the Tory party have the resources and platform to do this

    • Simeon
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

      Dear Dominic,

      With respect, I think you have a rose-tinted view of the Tory party’s history. I think you also overestimate the danger of Marxist Labour, because despite how appalling, despicable and downright indecent the present Tory party are, Marxist Labour have no chance of governing. The best they can hope for is a coalition, or to govern as a minority, but this will inevitably moderate their worst tendencies. It is also a very good bet that, after Corbyn, a much more centrist leader will emerge, and a cosy consensus will once again prevail with the connivance of the Tories.

      Your criticisms of the Tory party are, very broadly, correct. I think you would feel better if you recognised that the Tory party you hope for will never be. And on the same note, I daresay this nation might have a fighting chance of good governance were mostly sensible people to recognise this too.

  32. BJC
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    Mr Johnson, et al, have picked up the potential for 2 x Refs in 2020, but I feel he may have missed a trick. Surely, if Mr Corbyn wants his Ref2 to include the Remain option again, it has to be about FULL commitment to every aspect of the EU? Can he guarantee that in the unlikely event we overturned our decision, the EU wouldn’t insist we abandon our partial commitment to their project, including our opt-outs, vetoes, the pound, etc? Just as Brexiteers want to be fully out of the EU, Remainers should understand that they could be committing to being fully in.

    • Simeon
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

      The UK can, at any time, revoke A50 and so preserve its present arrangements with the EU. That is not to say that, going forwards, there would not be immense pressure to become further entangled in the project…

  33. Ian @Barkham
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    To get real for a moment. Tax has been corrupted by the constant tinkering by a World Wide Political Class, all with their favorite projects to try to make a mark on history. No common purpose just personal ego. As such the idea of tax has become a corrupt. It no longer provides for the benefit of all.

    Tax should be for the benefit of all people and have a succinct purpose. Just as we should all pay tax equally and fairly.

    The current structures are unfair on some, some of the time, but never fair on everyone all of the time.

    Likewise what passes as Government has become corrupt, our democracy – isn’t, so it has lost credibility. Nothing is rational or reasonable. Again it is for the benefit of those that get to rule.

    In essence most people want the freedom to excel, create purpose for themselves, their families, their community. Our systems curtails this as Parliament is now a cult of half wit personalities, that have not realized it is not about them. They just don’t on any level represent the people – just themselves.

    Tax should be there to create the framework that everyone gets to achieve their full potential – Nothing else. It is not there for a Political Class, Elite Class or Ruling Class to stroke egos. No one thing can be made to fit all purposes all at the same time. But, it is possible to treat everyone equally all of the time

    Where on earth did these numpties that want to get elected as representatives of the People get the idea if they steal from one group to give it to another it creates a fair society. Where on earth did they get the idea that treating one section disproportionately to another would improve the lot of the whole.

    They appear to be saying don’t pay, don’t contribute and we will give it to you for free as long as you vote for me. We will worry about long term futures and costs another day. The cult of greed and envy at it’s best.

    Rant over….

    • Simeon
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

      Agree with virtually everything you say, with one exception. Sadly, and perhaps pathetically, I think most people are happy to relinquish responsibility for themselves, and indeed are perfectly happy to be ‘nannyed’. I should stress that I believe that those that enjoy Nanny should be free to be nannyed if they can arrange it. But to have such inflicted on one is to be tyrannised.

  34. Jack Falstaff
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    There is a strong parallel with the whole question of Brexit here: this is all about taking back control.
    We can take one of two paths:
    1. Pay more taxes and hand over responsibility for our lives to a nanny state/the EU/the Main Stream Media propaganda machine, or
    2. Enter adulthood, develop our own critical thinking and reap the rewards of making our own way in life with a broader and more mature global outlook “sans customs union”, where both our future and right to opine or decide freely is in our own hands.

  35. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    It’s not exactly true that the richest 1% pay that tax. It is based on income not wealth. There are probably wealthy people not included in your 1%.

    I would wager that the richest 1% are probably receiving more than 29% of all the income. Plus c’est change.

    But having said that I’d rather government spent less than taxed more.

    • hefner
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

      The latest report I found was from Credit Suisse in 2016 in their Global Wealth Report. It estimates that the top 1% of the UK owned about 24% of the UK wealth. I think we should start a movement to bring the 29% presently paid down to these 24%. A question of fairness, no?

      • Edward2
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

        Is wealth the same as income?
        You can own a business valued at a high sum or own a property that is valued at a high sum but you may have little cash.
        Is asking people to pay many thousands a year extra cash on the basis they are “wealthy” fair?

        • hefner
          Posted November 24, 2019 at 10:02 am | Permalink

          Edward2 & Outsider, interesting that you both seem to consider wealth as something created by one individual over their present life. What do you say about wealth produced over a couple of or more generations? Where would you consider this to appear in the often quoted mantra ‘equality of opportunities’?

          • Edward2
            Posted November 24, 2019 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

            I make no distinction.
            Inherited wealth is taxed at 40% over £325,000.
            I think that is already far too high.
            It depends if you think individuals should be able to pass their accumulated wealth to their chosen inheritorswhen they die or have it all confiscated by the State.

          • outsider
            Posted November 25, 2019 at 2:47 am | Permalink

            Dear Hefner, it is no skin off my nose if someone is 1,000 times richer than myself because an ancestor slept with Charles II. What matters is building up the wealth of ordinary families so that we/they can enjoy greater freedom, security and independence.
            To me, practical equality of opportunity means only that there should be no artificial barriers to the unprivileged developing our talents and potential to the full, both for our own and the nation’s benefit. True equality of life chances could only be achieved, quite literally, if all jobs, incomes and positions of influence were decided by random computerised lottery.

          • libertarian
            Posted November 25, 2019 at 9:33 am | Permalink


            Wealth produced, assets passed on over generations is what we normally call a long established family business . Unless of course you wish a company to be sold and proceeds to the state on the death of the founding entrepreneur

            Why are socialists always so obsessed with what other people have? Its almost as if they are envious of the ability of others to create wealth that they cant…hmm

          • Fred H
            Posted November 25, 2019 at 11:48 am | Permalink

            Eddy…..I think you need to read up on Trusts. Significant inheritance (tax) is avoided. Smart lawyers are always a step ahead of the taxman.

          • Edward2
            Posted November 25, 2019 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

            I know all about trusts thanks Fred.
            I’m very glad there is a chance to quite legally pass on hard earned accumulated wealth to ones chosen beneficiaries.

      • outsider
        Posted November 23, 2019 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

        Not really Hefner. If wealth taken from the rich added to the wealth of ordinary families, there might be a “fairness” case for it , but it would probably not add a penny. On Labour and LibDem plans, it would be used purely to finance extra public consumption spending, so that the total wealth of UK citizens would simply fall by the amount of the levy.
        The only exception I can think of would be if the levy was used for a one-off write-off of student debt, effectively a transfer from today’s wealthy to tomorrow’s.

      • libertarian
        Posted November 24, 2019 at 10:16 am | Permalink


        1) Theres NO SUCH THING as UK wealth , we have a ZERO SUM economy

        2) A small amount of people own a large amount of valuable assets

        3) Every person in the UK is in the worlds top 10% wealthiest

        I own businesses that are valued in multimillions, in order to pay tax on those assets I would have to sell the businesses ,that would be to an overseas buyer, having paid the tax once, HMRC would then lose all the taxes the businesses paid normally as well as all the taxes from the staff let go as the businesses move overseas

        If you divide all the money/assets owned by the top 1% in UK and distributed them each person would get approx £2300

        • libertarian
          Posted November 25, 2019 at 9:29 am | Permalink

          ps * do not have a zero sum economy *

    • Fred H
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

      and based on the actual income vs tax paid (not that avoided).

  36. Arnie from Newington
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    The first tax cut should be section 24 tax. It is not right that landlords are being pushed into a higher tax bracket because of the way that the tax is calculated.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

      Indeed and it is totally unsustainable to tax profits that are not actually being made. I is just asset theft. It also restricts bank lending hugely which them prevent extensions and new builds and forces landlords to evict tenants and sell. Hammond was appalling just undo everything he and Osborne did it was all hugely damaging almost without exception.

  37. Edwardm
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    For Labour, read confiscation for taxation.
    They want to bribe the gullible with “freebies” and want to steal from others in order to do it – never mind that they will reduce incentive to work and they will break the economic cycle – making us all poorer and reducing freedom of choice – by removing the financial ability to make the choice.
    They say they want to give opportunity – but as soon as you achieve your aspirations through working and saving it then wants to knock you back down again.
    These people who’ve taken over the Labour party know what they are doing – they support everything anti-British – why they hate the ordinary British person so much I do not know – evil they are. I fear them.

  38. formula57
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Although ” Labour decline to tell us how they would pay for the tens of billions extra they want to spend…” will it not be via People’s Q.E.?

    The Treasury asset and the newly nationalized industry liability will net off in the national accounts so all the tens of billions will essentially be free. Corbynism in action for the many!

  39. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted November 23, 2019 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    ‘Borrowing to invest’ is usually justified on economic grounds, with nationalisation costing nothing because the State will own the assets, and general well being forming part of economic benefits.

    However, let’s look at a vulgar straightforward financial analysis. Labour’s capital spending programme will average £55 billion per annum over 10 years, to be financed wholly by borrowing. There are only three ways of borrowing:
    – Borrow from abroad
    – Borrow at home
    – Print the money

    I trust that Mr Corbyn is aware of the dangers of borrowing from abroad, with the danger of a fall of sterling. Printing the money is, I hope, disreputable, with inflation virtually guaranteed to forment trade union unrest and civil strife. The UK public would be reluctant to lend to a Government perceived to be spendthrift and would need to be offered an interest rate a couple of percentage points more than inflation.

    Let’s not forget that borrowing in order to provide more services free at the point of use doesn’t yield any financial return at all.

    Above all, total State debt would rocket to totally unacceptable levels. Labour is content for interest on State to rise from 6% to 10% of total public expenditure. Most of us are not.

    Labour’s proposed taxation increases would be used wholly to fund their proposed increases in current expenditure, not capital expenditure. Their expectations of additional revenue would be bitterly disappointed and that would definitely lead to more inflation.

  40. Sue L
    Posted November 25, 2019 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Labour’s Grey Book seemingly does not take account of their subsequent and more detailed commitment to WASPI. The funding for this item (increased tax / borrowings) has not been articulated.

    The orginal costings from DWP put this cost at 77B (not 58B) but the DWP basis for compensation Vs Labour’s may not be tha same.

    My reserach on the history of this change unearthed much that was very positive for general pension management in the 1995 act but also confirmed the history for the equalisation as thus “1995 – women’s state pension age to be equalised –
    Following pressure from the ECHR, the Conservative Government was forced to announce plans to equalise state pension age for men and women. The timetable was the most relaxed possible and would raise pension age for women to 65 slowly from April 2010 to April 2020.”

    Given the cause for the change, the evident age / sex discrimation that any compensation under a WASPI linked scheme, the prospect for the 58B or 77B to escalate are huge – especially as Labour rightly increased retirement agaes again under their tenure – as did the coalition after them.

    Despite being a potential beneficary of Labour’s largesse, I can not envisage it being fair on tax payers as a whole to do as Labour are proposing – aside from giving hardship funding where really necessary.

  41. Jaimie
    Posted December 1, 2019 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    This is really interesting! It will be interesting to see the impact any future government has on tax. Thanks for sharing!

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page