Saturday, June 03, 2017

How would Labour pay for their propoals?

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has clearly shown that Labour's sums do not add up and they would have great difficulty paying for their election promises with the fundraising measures they admit to.

The IFS says Labour would have to raise taxes to their highest ever peacetime level to fund their programme and that it is not just the rich who would be hit.

But Labour do admit to some plans to raise tax and Conservative Party Chairman Sir Patrick McLoughlin writes about one of the proposals buried deep in the small print of the Labour manifesto here ...

Conservatives

"When I knock on doors out on the campaign trail people often ask me how on earth Jeremy Corbyn is going to pay for all of his promises.

Well - now we know.

Buried on page 86 of Jeremy Corbyn’s manifesto is a secret Property and Garden Tax.

It’s backed by the Liberal Democrats and it will cost the average homeowner in England up to £3,837 in higher council tax bills – and everyone needs to know about it.

Share this graphic now on Facebook and Twitter to stop Jeremy Corbyn hitting working families.


 

   
          
The choice at this election is clear: a Government led by Theresa May that will keep taxes low for working families, or a coalition of chaos with Jeremy Corbyn that will lead to higher taxes, fewer jobs, more waste and more debt.
           
Don’t let Corbyn get away with it.

Share this graphic now on Facebook and Twitter and help get the message out.
          
Thank you for your support,




Patrick


Patrick McLoughlin 
Chairman of the Conservative Party"


Donate           


Promoted by Alan Mabbutt on behalf of the Conservative Party, both at 4 Matthew Parker Street, London, SW1H 9HQ

6 comments:

Jim said...

Could work, though it should be in leau of Income tax rather than council tax.

At first i had a gut instictive reaction to an LVT, but as I looked more into it I warmed to it, as i say as a replacement to income tax

Chris Whiteside said...

Yes, but they are proposing it in addition to income tax - to be precise, as a way of increasing another existing tax, e.g. Council tax.

Jim said...

Yeah, I dont disagree that the labour idea is terrible, It was just really to point out that an LVT in and of itself is not so much of a bad plan.

The Labour idea is terrible for the reasons you have given above, that was my only point really.

Jim said...

As a replacement to an income tax it would help in other areas too, firstly it would reesult in a fall in house prices. Thats not a bad thing really is it? - after all would end the need for Help to buy and those type schemes to aid first time buyers. It would not really harm people who own their home either, sure its worth less if you sell it, but so is the one you now need to buy. OK its a bit of a sod of if you have (like me) just bought a new house, have the debt but the home does not cover it. but then is it really?

to me i think of my house as the place I live, I think of my mortgage payments as "Paying my rent" so, the idea being that when i am old and wrinkly (which is not far off) then I will have paid off my mortgate and can live "rent free"

The mentality that a home should earn me money, and its price should constantly rise above inflation is unsustainable. And for me to profit imensly because facilitys like a new railway station on a high speed rail line have been built just down the road at taxpayer expense is not really a good thing.

Chris Whiteside said...

Having a broader tax base with the rates of tax at individually lower levels is, in principle, a very good thing as long as you are careful to ensure that the unintended consequences do not include redistributional effects harmful to those least able to afford it.

So I can see your point that an LVT which was offset by cuts in income tax (unlike the Labour proposal) might have some merit, as long as you were careful to do it in a way which didn't crucify anyone (it would be necessary to carefully examine the effects on pensioners, for instance.)

Jim said...

that again is a basic point, you have no idea (well actually you probably do) of the amount of time we erks spent talking about and discussing and looking for the down sides of Flexcit, but we done it. We really did think about it very very carefully.

So I just cant see why members of Her Magestys government have such problems doing that when it comes to taxation