Why Clegg is wrong to raid the rich

“Trust Nick Clegg” -- to get it wrong!

Nick Clegg wants the rich to pay more tax, to finance tax cuts for the lower-paid.  As he says in his plausible and unctuous way, “The broadest backs should bare the biggest burdens”.  (I love the alliteration).  What could be more reasonable?  But only, of course, if you leave aside the fact that increasing taxes on the better-off is unlikely to raise any new revenue — we’re already well on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

Clegg seems to have missed the recent report showing that the top 1% of taxpayers pay 27% of the total tax, while the top 10% pay nearly 70% between them.  Our tax system is already hugely “progressive”, though here the word is shorn of any positive connotations.  It’s only “progressive” in the sense that it gets progressively worse as you earn more.  It’s better described as grotesque discrimination against the better-off.  It’s also a massive disincentive to overtime, effort, prosperity, growth, aspiration, investment, wealth creation and capital accumulation.  It will make us all poorer.  And despite all that, dear old Nick wants to pile on the agony.

I’m perfectly happy for people who earn twice as much to pay twice as much (that’s called a flat tax, and it’s UKIP policy, by the way).  But I’m not happy for the man who earns twice as much to pay ten times as much.

Of course there are very well-paid folk who pay almost no tax, or buy huge houses without paying stamp duty — and those are simply using loopholes that need to be closed.  They don’t justify new imposts on the aspiring middle classes.

Nick has several bright ideas.  He wants to keep the current 50% tax rate, even though he knows it raises no new revenue in the short term and depresses economic growth in the medium term.

But if he can’t have that, he’ll settle for a “Mansion Tax”.  Even though recent studies show that it will cost more to collect than it raises.

And if all else fails, he’ll settle for reducing tax relief on pensions for higher-rate tax payers.  But Nick — that’s double taxation!  A large proportion of people who pay 40% while they’re working will still be higher-rate tax-payers in retirement.  So they’ll be taxed at 20% on their premiums, and then taxed again at 40% on their pensions.

At the moment, pensions are comparable to ISAs.  With ISAs, you pay in out of taxed income, but take money out tax-free, while with pensions, you pay in tax-free, but your pension, when you take it, is taxable.  So in each case you pay tax only once, before or after.  Now Nick wants pensions taxed twice — at the every time when everyone agrees that we don’t save enough.  Gordon Brown raided our pensions and did huge damage.  Now Nick wants to make matters worse.

None of these measures is likely to deliver significant new revenue, so the supposed (and excellent) purpose of financing tax cuts for the lower-paid will fail.  I have to give Nick credit for some sense (I suppose), and I have to assume that he understands this, and that he makes his proposals for purely presentational reasons — to differentiate himself from the Tories, to exploit public resentment against high-earners, and to claim the banner of friend of the poor.  But to damage the economy, and make a lot of people poorer, simply for purposes of political posturing, is deeply irresponsible.

But I suppose that’s what we expect of the Lib-Dems.

Disclaimer:  I am not arguing a personal interest here.  I am not a 50% tax-payer.  My home is well below the proposed Mansion Tax threshold.  And I make only modest tax-deductible pension contributions.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Why Clegg is wrong to raid the rich

  1. Mike Spilligan says:

    As you say; political posturing, and with no practical residual benefit.
    I used to think that ignoring the LibDems is the best approach, but now I’m beginning to dislike them intensely – forever grabbing headlines with nonsense and only too willing to sneer, publicly at the Tories when (all too easily) they “put one over” them.
    What is Clegg, when one analyses it? The proverbial fifth wheel on the car, who will try to show Labour that they, too, will need a fifth wheel after the next GE.

  2. leg says:

    How is it entirely possible to be on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve?

  3. Peter Hulme Cross says:

    Nick Clegg’s entry in Wikipedia says…..”A study has shown that the Liberal Democrats got 75% of their manifesto commitments into the ‘Programme for Government’, whilst convincing the Conservatives to drop 40% of their manifesto”.

    Perhaps, therefore, people should be talking about the “Lib-Dem led Coalition…….??

    It goes on to say “He was….an award winning journalist for the Financial Times.”

    So you would think he would know about Tax and the Laffer Curve, or maybe he just chooses to ignore it.

    He’s clearly quite bright, so your evaluation is likely to be accurate…..slippery, irresponsible, opportunistic, good at presenting himself as very sincere but concealing a hidden agenda (his own).

    Rather like Cameron, really. No wonder they get on so well….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s