Stopping Labour's taxes on jobs
If any party is serious about trying to protect Britain's economic recovery, the last thing they should be contemplating is is a tax on jobs.
Yet that is what Labour are planning with swinging increases in National Insurance. Gordon Brown intends to increase Employer and Employee National Insurance contributions from April 2011. This tax on jobs will threaten the recovery, hurt working families and make unemployment worse.
The most absurd argument presented during the TV "Chancellors" debate was when George Osborne's proposals to cancel this increase were described as a "GIVEAWAY."
It is not a "giveaway" when you don't increase taxes. How can it be a "giveaway" to let people keep the same amount of their own money?
And this suicidal policy comes from the Labour party, which has the cheek to suggest that electing someone else might put the economy at risk!
There have been a great many Labour tax rises which I would like to reverse as and when the economy can afford it -
* Labour's "Bash the pensioners" tax
(when Gordon Brown took £5 billion a year from pension funds)
* Labour's "Bash the poor" tax
(when Gordon Brown doubled the tax rate for the poorest income earners)
* Labour's "Bash the motorist" taxes
(too many tax rises on motorists to list here)
* Labour's "Bash the tourist industry" tax
(scrapping the FHL rules, which has the potential to seriously harm tourism)
to name but four of well over a hundred tax increases from Gordon Brown.
The first priority of a Conservative government in reversing these taxes will be to remove job destroying taxes, and the second will be to reduce the tax burden on the poor.
So our first aim will be to avoid the NI increase, and we have also promised to "undo the damage" caused by the FHL rule change.
This approach has been backed by business leaders. Many of Britain's leading employers have backed Conservative plans to cut Labour's waste and stop their National Insurance tax rise on jobs.
The twenty three business leaders who wrote to the Daily Telegraph run some of the country's most successful companies - including Sainsbury's, Marks and Spencer's and Next - and employ over half a million people in the UK. They know what it takes to create jobs and grow a business. They argue that putting up national insurance will "endanger the recovery" and that our plans will "protect jobs and support the recovery".
Seven out of ten working people will be better off than under Labour's plans, and businesses will save £150 for almost every person they employ.
We will pay for this with plans to cut wasteful government spending that were backed by Sir Peter Gershon and Dr. Martin Read. As two of the Government's leading efficiency advisers over the last decade, they know better than anyone what savings can be made in Government spending, and they believe that our savings can be made without affecting the quality of front-line public services.
Yet that is what Labour are planning with swinging increases in National Insurance. Gordon Brown intends to increase Employer and Employee National Insurance contributions from April 2011. This tax on jobs will threaten the recovery, hurt working families and make unemployment worse.
The most absurd argument presented during the TV "Chancellors" debate was when George Osborne's proposals to cancel this increase were described as a "GIVEAWAY."
It is not a "giveaway" when you don't increase taxes. How can it be a "giveaway" to let people keep the same amount of their own money?
And this suicidal policy comes from the Labour party, which has the cheek to suggest that electing someone else might put the economy at risk!
There have been a great many Labour tax rises which I would like to reverse as and when the economy can afford it -
* Labour's "Bash the pensioners" tax
(when Gordon Brown took £5 billion a year from pension funds)
* Labour's "Bash the poor" tax
(when Gordon Brown doubled the tax rate for the poorest income earners)
* Labour's "Bash the motorist" taxes
(too many tax rises on motorists to list here)
* Labour's "Bash the tourist industry" tax
(scrapping the FHL rules, which has the potential to seriously harm tourism)
to name but four of well over a hundred tax increases from Gordon Brown.
The first priority of a Conservative government in reversing these taxes will be to remove job destroying taxes, and the second will be to reduce the tax burden on the poor.
So our first aim will be to avoid the NI increase, and we have also promised to "undo the damage" caused by the FHL rule change.
This approach has been backed by business leaders. Many of Britain's leading employers have backed Conservative plans to cut Labour's waste and stop their National Insurance tax rise on jobs.
The twenty three business leaders who wrote to the Daily Telegraph run some of the country's most successful companies - including Sainsbury's, Marks and Spencer's and Next - and employ over half a million people in the UK. They know what it takes to create jobs and grow a business. They argue that putting up national insurance will "endanger the recovery" and that our plans will "protect jobs and support the recovery".
Seven out of ten working people will be better off than under Labour's plans, and businesses will save £150 for almost every person they employ.
We will pay for this with plans to cut wasteful government spending that were backed by Sir Peter Gershon and Dr. Martin Read. As two of the Government's leading efficiency advisers over the last decade, they know better than anyone what savings can be made in Government spending, and they believe that our savings can be made without affecting the quality of front-line public services.
Comments