Ed Balls: Fool or Charlatan?

Ed Balls is trying to get his rebuttal in first.  Believing that George Osborne, in his Wednesday budget, will reduce the 50% income tax rate (either a principled move back to 40%, or perhaps a pusillanimous compromise at 45%), Balls has gone into attack mode.  But his attack is not original.  Indeed he is deliberately trying to trigger the heffalump trap that his mentor, Gordon Brown, left for an incoming Conservative government.

Brown knew that a Conservative government would want to remove the 50% rate, both because the Conservatives (or some of them) are instinctively against high taxes, and because the economic case against this 50% rate is unassailable.  As the forthcoming Treasury study will show, the 50% band collects much less tax than anticipated.  Much less than a simple “static model” calculation would predict.  And the economy being dynamic, not static, the amount collected will diminish over time, simply viewed as a tax band.

But because it will also be a disincentive to work, and to effort, and to overtime, and investment, and business start-ups and capital accumulation, and wealth creation, it will have a still more malign effect.  It will depress overall economic growth, and thus reduce tax revenue not only from the high-paid, but across the range.  Income tax, VAT, corporation tax.  Leave it in place for a few years, and we shall all be poorer.  Unemployment will be higher.  Public services less well-funded.  Pension funds less viable.  Britain less significant in the world.

The truth that we should shout from the house-tops is this: rational people want rid of the 50% rate not to stroke the rich, but to make us all more prosperous.  Balls asks how Osborne can consider a special tax cut for the rich when the “squeezed middle” is suffering.  The answer is, we want to scrap higher taxes because the squeezed middle is suffering.  We want to promote growth and prosperity and employment for all in our economy, and the 50% rate militates powerfully against that objective.

Let’s be clear.  The 50% rate was a booby-trap left by Brown and Balls to damage an in-coming Tory administration, and some Conservative politicians (and commentators who ought to know better) are fearful, for purely presentational reasons, of scrapping it.  They are bound hand and foot by the Brown/Balls tactic.

Balls presumably knows this — if he does not, he’s more of a fool than I take him for.  So he must be arguing the anti-growth case knowing that it will do significant economic damage.  He is putting cheap political tactics and party advantage ahead of the interests of the country and the people.  Ahead of the interests of the very working people that Labour claims to champion.  Fool or charlatan?  I go for charlatan.

And my advice to Osborne (though I doubt he’s listening)?  It’s always better to do what is right, and explain afterwards to the doubters why it was right, rather than do what is wrong for fear of criticism.  Time for courage, George.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Ed Balls: Fool or Charlatan?

  1. Maureen Gannon says:

    Thats an easy question , answer Charlatan, does he think we are so stupid as to forget he was in the govenment that reduced this country in an overpopulated bankrupt nation, and its no good bleating it was a world problem if hes so smart now why didnt he see it then.
    My question would be if he has all the answers now why was he braindead for those 13 years?

  2. And while all this political hoohah is going on the debt has crept up over a trillion pounds – more (allowing for inflation) than at the end of the first world war. More than at the end of the second world war.
    Meanwhile, the pound is being driven downwards to pay for the debt by QE. And the deficit is growing.

    And nobody seems to care.

  3. Bob says:

    John Redwood has been on the BBC several times saying that he wants the rich to pay more, and explaining to “obtuse” interviewers how a lower rate raises more revenue.

    Any financially astute person understands this but the champagne socialists at the BBC pretend they can’t, while on the quiet they squirrel away their earnings into private companies, Ken Livingstone style. Funny how Ken’s tax avoidance has slipped under the BBC’s radar! If it had been Boris, they would have been reporting it on the hour every hour, a Panorama special, and planted questions on QT with a specially selected audience to hiss and jeer at the token conservative on the panel every time he opened his mouth.

    Anyway, the answer is “charlatan”, because Ed Balls knows that the 50p rate will reduce the revenue and he also knows that the average voter doesn’t understand the Laffer Curve.

    If they want to punish success, they should just keep the rate at forty percent and take Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, a few footballers, pop stars and bankers over to Tower Hill and hold a public flogging once a week. That’ll teach ’em!

  4. Andrew Shakespeare says:

    Fool or charlatan? A charlatan, of course. There’s no question of this. There never has been.

  5. Phil H. says:

    Charlatan obviously. Him & Brown should be in prison for bankrupting the country purely for electoral reasons.
    How can they open up the immigration flood-gates to as they said “rub the Tories nose in diversity” knowing full well they were changing the face of Britain forever just to slant future elections their way?
    ******* treasonous scumbag is a more accurate decription!

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