Credit where credit is actually due, eh?

The Lib Dems are furious at Mr Osborne’s attempt to “take credit” for the policy, which has been driven by Mr Alexander and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.

A senior Lib Dem source said that the party will in the coming weeks send out more than 20 million leaflets to voters in 60 constituencies emphasising their role in raising the personal allowance.

“I committed several years ago to taking the personal allowance to £12,500 in the next Parliament. So I’m taking every opportunity to push with further progress with that.”

That’s actually a policy that originated with one T. Worstall. Andn yes, it is possible to track it from me through the Lib Dem policy making process.

So let’s have credit where credit is due, shall we?

11 thoughts on “Credit where credit is actually due, eh?”

  1. In typical Lib Dem fashion, they want the credit for this policy, but they want the ‘blame’ for the ‘cuts’ and ‘austerity’ that provided the money for it to reside with the Tories.

  2. Surreptitious Evil

    The policy came from you via UKIP. Having actually read “The Inferno”, I’m not going to say “more chance of Hell freezing over”, but you get the point.

  3. Not so much: came from me via the ASI into Lib Dems (via a bloke called MattGB and his girlfriend) and also from me via the ASI into UKIP. No detour through UKIP to get to the Lib Dems. But yes, Satan’s Winter Woolies and all that.

  4. Tim,

    Would it be possible to get a link to prove this? BTW I heard UKIP members call for this in 2005 although it wasn’t party policy then.
    I am quite happy about the Lib Dems copying UKIP policy, I wish they would do more of it.

  5. “Across the income distribution as a whole, the changes were regressive. On this comparison, the bottom half lost (with the poorest groups losing most as a proportion of their incomes) and the top half gained, with the exception of most of the top 5 per cent (but excluding the very top, gaining from the cut in the highest rate of income tax). “ P5.
    http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spcc/wp10.pdf

  6. @ james charles
    Look at who wrote and funded that piece. It doesn’t take long to find that there is a whole lot of fiddling with the basis for comparison (including temporary measures some of which were not actually in place under Labour, assuming partial take-up of benefits but no diverting of highly-taxed into lower-taxed capial gains, ignoring the increase in CGT, freezing Child Benefit hurts the poor but ignore the confiscation of Child Benefit from the rich ….). The most important one is to refuse to look at the ability of the poor to earn more as a consequence of the changes..
    There’s 49 pages – I can’t be bothered to read the rest

  7. Another “Look at who wrote and funded that piece. “?

    “The following chart is from the Impact on Households document published by the Chancellor today. It shows that, aside from the very richest quintile, the cumulative effect of the Coalition’s spending decisions on tax, benefits and services is highly regressive. It is an admission that the government is balancing the books on the backs of the poorest.” P16
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263548/impact_on_households_autumn_statement_2013.pdf
    http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/autumn-statement-creates-new-rationing-system-children-working-families-and-disabled-peopl-0

  8. @ james chambers
    Go back to Al Campbell. The government document, which is from 2013, states “The analysis in this document does not show what the consequences for households would have been had the government not taken action to reduce the structural deficit.” So, firstly, it is not relevant to the paper you previously reference. Secondly all its charts show that the top decile is the worst hit and the chart by deciles of expenditure shows that the bottom half gain at the expense of the top two deciles so the poor are better off despite the reduction in the deficit which *all* comes out of the pockets the higher paid. Thirdly any chart of expenditure based on the deciles by income as determined by New Labour’s choice of definitions is complete nonsense since the bottom decile spends more on VATable goods (ie excluding food, rent, public transport and children’s clothes) than its total income!! Because the bottom decile includes self-employed people making a loss and students living in flats and houses with no income that counts. So all the claims about the impact of tax etc on the poor are bullshit. You need to look at the second decile not the first.

  9. Agree with John77 about the income deciles being crap.

    I was told by an IFS bod that half of the bottom decile have zero or negative ‘income’. Income is based on tax and benefits figures, so as John says that’s the self employed in loss making years, students and cash in hand tax evaders who don’t draw attention to themselves by claiming benefits.

    Which has two effects:

    First, the real income of the real bottom decile (assuming we’d average the self employed) is much higher than the figures claim.

    Second, the bottom decile of the income decile data is utterly useless for analysing the effect of tax and benefit reforms, since it is mostly people who don’t pay taxes and can’t claim benefits (and won’t under any likely system).

  10. @ Richard
    Glad *someone* in IFS recognises and admits that the data is crap. ONS also pointed out that the benefits paid by he Treasury were 50% greater than those recognised in the Household Incomes Survey.
    i don’t think the cash in hand tax evaders are a big factor in the bottom decile – they would be too visible – most are in the second, thid and fourth deciles.

Leave a Reply

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