In the newspapers
The Guardian, presumably somewhat mischeviously, has been talking up Liam Fox's candidature, here, and here (and elsewhere).I think there's an element of let's have another IDS about this, though personally I think Fox would be a worse leader than IDS, a worse leader than Michael Howard, and even a worse leader than William Hague. My own choice, for what its worth, would have to be David Davis.
In the Telegraph Boris Johnson waxes lyrical about David Cameron, and as usual talks a lot of piffle.
But the Tories must never forget that millions of people are looking to them to save them from the depredations of the taxman - and those millions are by no means the richest in society, but the very poorest who pay grotesque proportions of their income in tax.
This is clearly rubbish. It is true that the poorest pay more in tax that I would like, but they do not by and large pay "grotesque" proportions of their income in tax, particularly not the taxes Johnson means, which are income taxes. Johnson believes they pay large amounts in income tax because either a) he was fooled by a roadsweeper into believing said roadsweeper paid about four times more tax than he actually did, b) he met a roadsweeper who was paying four times more tax than he should or c) he decided, before the general election, to invent the figures. He himself says it is b), which makes you wonder why he didn't offer to help the poor man pay the correct figure.
It is also true that the very poorest often face high marginal rates of taxation. This is an inevitable feature of a minimum income guarantee that doesn't cost tens of billiohns. However high marginal rates of taxation are a very different thing than paying 'grotesque proportions of their income in tax'.
And indeed a flat tax, at least in the form proposed by most right-wing groups, would reduce the income tax paid by the very poorest. It's a tiny amount however, probably about £350 per household if it removed income tax altogether from the poorest quintile. It would more importantly reduce the income tax paid by the very richest by an enormous amount, say about £5,500 per household if it halved their income tax bill (this is consistent with the 'cost' of the reform), and obviously this an average, much of the gain would go to the top 5%. If, as is likely, the tax-take was maintained, it would of course be the middle-class who would pay for it all.
posted by Matthew @ 10/06/2005 09:09:00 AM
Comments: 0
