Yes, yes, this is a good policy, isn\’t it?

Ukip\’s proposal to raise the starting point of income tax above the minimum wage looks like a vote-winner this week, whatever you think of politics and politicians.

And it started with this little neoliberal pig running dog capitalist. Yes, with your host.

And voices tell me (no, not the ones in my head) that it will also feature in the Lib Dem manifesto at the next GE.

Who knows, we might even get this obviously sensible idea into law at some point.

25 thoughts on “Yes, yes, this is a good policy, isn\’t it?”

  1. Yes, it is a good policy.

    Now let’s stop transfers: Housing benefit, child benefits etc.

    Let people keep their money and decide whether to spend it on housing, children, cars, holidays, booze …..

  2. Obvious extremist nonsense, until Labour adopt it, whereupon it will become vital, noble and worthy.

  3. I saw this article and was anticipating this post.

    Well done!

    Can you get them to give up on their insane anti-immigration and gay marriage bashing policies?

  4. Can you get them to give up on their insane anti-immigration and gay marriage bashing policies?
    …………………………………………….
    As their policies in those areas seem to be striking a chord with large numbers of their supporters wouldn’t that be a rather….insane thing to do?

  5. Ah, but BiS, that is the problem.

    We can’t vote for a party with fiscal rectitude without also getting a party that is hopelessly illiberal.

  6. Yes, a very good policy. However, this shows that Tin Worstall knows what he’s talking about; not UKIP. It remains a disparate group of malcontents, an extended episode of Grumpy Old Men.

  7. Well then vote for a party that’s hopelessly liberal but with no financial rectitude. You’ve a wide choice.

  8. Good effort, but your claim to have been the first to have suggested this has a bit of Ritchielogic flavour to it.

    Tim adds: Not really. Years back UKIP came to me and asked for a tax policy. I provided one. And over the years since I’ve been arguing very strongly that the tax allowance should be pegged to full year full time minimum wage. Which is what the policy is.

  9. I imagine Tim’s referring to his input as UKIP’s former press officer so convincing the party of its wisdom, not the wider public.

    Richielogic is originating nothing & convincing no-one but Arnald.

  10. Try again.

    Arent those of you who support merging NICs and Income Tax/increased personal allowance/reduced NICs etc, simply doing so as a means to an end though? ie. a flat rate tax.

    In other words, increase lower rate personal allowance whilst reducing higher rate threshold so that the two meet somewhere in the middle and we end up with, say, a 30% rate for all

  11. bloke in spain

    OK, So Grumpy Old Men made me feel good but achieved nothing. However, ‘disparate’ sticks here. Maybe because it’s new, but UKIP does not provide fiscal rectitude if there are tax cuts and spending commitments promised but uncosted.

    P.S. Yes the Ritchie comparison occured to me, but I didn’t want to be unnecessarily rude. This isn’t a criticism of you though.

  12. @Tim fair dues, I thought you were saying the first ever rather than the first within UKIP. If I joined UKIP I could probably be the first to wear matching black socks.

  13. Surreptitious Evil

    Arent those of you who support merging NICs and Income Tax/increased personal allowance/reduced NICs etc, simply doing so as a means to an end though? ie. a flat rate tax.

    No – the former is a clear social good – it makes the tax system less opaque. The latter? You can argue about it. Personally, I’m reasonably in favour of a progressive income tax.

    Albeit it even a high personal allowance and then flat tax system is relatively progressive.

  14. “Who knows, we might even get this obviously sensible idea into law at some point.”

    Probably will – and that’s why UKIP will never actually become a mainstream party. If they come up with any genuinely vote-winning ideas, they main parties will nick them straight away; that’s how a two-party system really works.

  15. Screaming Lord Such got most of his policies implemented, apparently. Do UKIPers mind if their ground-breaking original nobody-had-ever-espoused-them-ever-before ideas get implemented, or do they care about getting their own mitts on the levers of power? There’s a question.

    Tim adds: Good question indeed. I care about the policies. Leave the EU, much higher tax allowance, less idiotic regulation: I’ll be happier if not happy at that.

  16. And who here would argue with that? It’s why we read this blog. There is, however, more to politics than being dissatisfied with things. Elections are for winning; there is no such thing as a moral victory. Labour and the Liberal Democrats mean socialism. UKIP can’t win and can’t change things as a minority party. So I’m sorry; vote Conservative or get Labour.

  17. So Much for Subtlety

    Dave – “Probably will – and that’s why UKIP will never actually become a mainstream party. If they come up with any genuinely vote-winning ideas, they main parties will nick them straight away; that-s how a two-party system really works.”

    Indeed. But is this a bad thing? The US Communist Party did not get elected, once, anywhere of note, but their famous manifesto was enacted down to the semi-colons. Which is great for them, less good for the rest of us. As I am not a UKIP MP, does it bother me that they cannot get elected? Not if they get the right policies in place.

    18 Ironman- “Elections are for winning; there is no such thing as a moral victory.”

    I disagree. The Labour Party managed to get the Tories to support their welfare state from the 1950s to 1979. That worked out nicely for their clients whether they got elected or not. It would be better to lose with Dries than to win with Wets. And if UKIP pushes the national political conversation to the Right, as they have been doing, that is all for the better. Even the Labour Party says it will do something about immigration now.

  18. SMFS>

    I didn’t mean to imply it was a bad thing. It’s just how things are. Works pretty well, in my book. There’s a common criticism of our system based on the fact that it’s nigh-on-impossible in practice for any party outside the big two to win an election, but that ignores the way the big parties maintain that situation by adopting policies from any popular challengers which appear.

  19. So Much for Subtlety

    Dave – “There-s a common criticism of our system based on the fact that it-s nigh-on-impossible in practice for any party outside the big two to win an election, but that ignores the way the big parties maintain that situation by adopting policies from any popular challengers which appear.”

    I am not sure it is nigh on impossible. Remember that awful woman in Canada and the fact that her party was reduced to sharing a taxi. I would not be surprised if there were so few Lib-Dems after the next election you could fit them all into a phone booth.

    But they do have to be suicidal. The Tories under Cameron seem keen to have a go themselves. So I would not write UKIP off.

  20. SMFS>

    I think the suicide-PLP of the late eighties demonstrates just how hard it is. Depends how large your ‘nigh’ is, really.

  21. Politics is a long game for all players. The Labour party took ages to get the momentum going for itself. The SDP had the advantage of being formed by a parliamentary splinter from an existing party.

    ‘It would be better to lose with Dries than to win with Wets.’

    Agreed, if you actually believe there’s a right way and a wrong way to look at things, it’s surely better to stick to your guns. If you are just after market share then it’s a different matter. But again it’s a long game. The angry right-wingers who hate Cameron probably still prefer his watered-down welfare and education reforms to the alternative. There’s a very large tanker to turn.

  22. I wonder why it’s considered an “obviously sensible idea” that even more people should be able to vote for policies that only affect other people.

  23. KJ @11

    No, I support merging IT and NI to make my life easier. Mucking about with fiddly differences between the two gives me headaches, and trying to explain to clients why I’m not giving them a straight and simple answer gives me a sore throat too.

    My dream NI rules: employment income gets primary NI of an extra 12% tax on the basic rate band and 2% on the higher and additional rates; employers pay secondary NI of 13.8% on salaries; self-employed people pay primary NI on their income but there’s no secondary NI on the cost of employing themselves. NI stops when you reach retirement age. All other rules (except the ones I’ve forgotten to include) are as for PAYE. Job done.

    Next up, CIS 😉

Leave a Reply

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