Skip to content

Do you recall the Tuber that 2 decades back?

The issue is serious, but only indicative of the problem many millions more face as tax bills escalate due to Sunak’s policy. Frozen tax allowances impact everyone, but will hit those on lowest income hardest. The IFS think they will result in £50 billion of extra tax paid. That is half the sum I have identified in the Taxing Wealth Report, so far. The difference is that most of this will be paid by those in lower pay.

What this means is that whilst tax should be increasing on the wealthy what we are actually getting is tax increases on those already hardest hit by the cost of living crisis. And the Tories do not care.

Back that two decades when I – in my only successful campaign so far – was arguing that we should increases the allowances. That insistence of mine that the personal allowance should be the same as the full year full time minimum wage? You know, that one that did actually happen?

D’ye recall the Great Tuber – and all such associated lefty tossers – insisting that no, no, we couldn’t do that because the biggest beneficiaries of higher tax allowances would be the rich? You do?

Ah, good, means you’ve got a better memory than the Mashed Spud himself does.

5 thoughts on “Do you recall the Tuber that 2 decades back?”

  1. “Frozen tax allowances impact everyone”: no they don’t. Anyone whose income remains below the Personal Allowance will be unaffected.

    If there were any justice in this world that category would include Murph.

    (P.S. I dislike “impact” not only as a verb, but as a noun except when applied to, ye know, an actual impact. I might almost say that “impact” is used by people who wouldn’t know what an impact is unless it hit them in the face.)

  2. Likewise anyone on more than 126,400 a year won’t be affected as they’re not entitled to the Personal Allowance.
    Proposal – let everyone have a tax free Personal Allowance, make it transferable too between couples.
    Then everyone feels the pain of it being frozen.
    Got to make the rich feel the pain, thank you Spud, you can have that idea.

  3. Oh I fucking remember alright. Had a massive blow up with him until he eventually banned me for life (the old, sad, Murphy would probably try to tease us back on his site to make him seem relevant). He went further than the economic argument about the rick benefiting; he insisted, INSISTED that raising allowances and taking some out of tax would disenfranchise them. Quite angry over it he was.

  4. But why has changed in two decades is the withdrawal of the personal allowance from the highest paid.

  5. David

    No, he doesn’t get away with that.
    His argument was removing them low paid disenfranchised them; nothing to do with the higher paid.
    His argument also was , VERY clearly, that tax did not pay for spending. Why then does he now insist that government spending requirements demand a wealth tax?

Leave a Reply

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