Err, No Richard

And then there’s the fudge that the coalition may produce – a cut to 45p. This will signal three things. The first is that the case for the tax rate raising money has been conceded. The second is that the political significance of the rate in delivering tax justice will have been conceded. And third it will say despite such obvious evidence that these first two present that the Tories will serve their own come what may. In that case the compromise may be the worst possible outcome of all for the Tories: they will have conceded that what they are doing is irrational and purely self serving but will have done it none the less.

It might just be an admission that 45 p is the revenue maximising rate.

13 thoughts on “Err, No Richard”

  1. Or else it’s what the Tories think will reduce the screaming from the BBC and Guardian to enough of an extent.

  2. I doubt if that cut arises from anything as sensible as working out the revenue-maximising rate. It looks much more like the outcome of horsetrading with the Lib Dems. In other words, a very smelly pile of……fudge

  3. Horsetrading? Sounds like a coalition or even just a collection of government representatives with different ideas….

  4. Philip Scott Thomas

    @Richard Allen –

    Yes, Tim dealt with that over at his Forbes place. He got a lot of outraged, “how very dare you” type of comments, most of which seem to be from people who either didn’t bother to read the whole piece or missed the point utterly.

    BTW, it’s odd how the comment count jumps significantly whenever Tim writes about Apple. It’s almost enough to make one wonder if that’s the reason he does it… 🙂

  5. Nothing is ever done for political expediency. That’s the basis for the Courageous State. When Labour introduced the 50p rate it was of course after 13 years of careful study into its likely effects. Absolutely nothing at all to do with bashing the rich and making life hard for an incoming Tory government.

  6. The ONLY fair tax system is for everyone to be taxed exactly the same, regardless of what they have or what they own.

    Thus the why-bother barrier is cancelled – get more, and you can keep it, less the standard tax deduction.

    I reckon about 15 % is enough to run any country.

    Alan DOuglas

  7. As Stephen Fry’ elderly alter ego Donald Trefusis once said, “compromise is a stalling between two fools”. Not a bad approximation of HM’s present government.

  8. I hope Osborne shows some courage and takes the rate back down to 40 per cent for the full supply-side benefit. The other benefit will be that Murphy and the rest of the looter commentariat will have a fit of rage delightful to behold.

    Of course, if we had lower, simpler taxes overall, than much of the tax avoidance/evasion industry that Murphy claims to be so hostile to (except perhaps in his own affairs) would go out of business.

  9. JP, as I’m sure you’re aware and I think you allude to, Murphy’s outrage at tax avoidance has 2 sides.

    A bit like the attitude of a cop with crime. Hates crime, but realises his importance in society would drop if crime disappeared.

    In the field of tax, both poacher and gamekeeper prosper financially and in terms of influence by having a vague and complicated system – with enough loopholes to keep both sides gainfully employed.

    Remember, Murphy has made his dosh on both sides of this fence. And with plenty of tax avoidance around, he gets gigs in the Guardian, on the BBC and is paraded as a man of influence.

    As you rightly suggest, he has absolutely no desire to see it go away.

  10. Murphy’s latest wheeze is to predict the tax dropping to 45%, but then in another piece contemplates the possibility of Osbourne selling everyone a dummy and keeping it. All he needs to do now is prepare a piece predicting the rate to drop all the way to 40% and he can for all eternity look back and claim credit for his amazing predictions!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *