91热爆

The Redwood proposals have a surface appeal but weighing them from individual and contextual perspectives suggest a less certain picture. The core problem remains the same that led to the poll tax fiasco. Individual circumstances and lack of attention to the bigger picture kicked up problems. Mostly, this is a struggle between greed and poverty, and not taking into account the rest of the tax and benefits system. The law of unintended consequences will kick in, destabilising peoples financial situations, create even more red tape and, perhaps, recession and riots. Not a good idea.

The fundamentals haven't changed since writing began, so the brouhaha over tax and benefits looks like just another game of politicking. I'm pretty sure nearly the entire body of law could be burned and we'd all be better off. The problem is politicians, business, and individuals trying to game the system all the time. It ends up creating so many blocks and brambles along the path we're eternally paying more, getting confused, and rebuilding the whole thing piecemeal. The core problem is an issue of structure and desire. Instead of herding short-term cats a long-term consensus would help.

Redwood & Co may be able to crunch numbers but they need to understand what it's like to be on the receiving end and how their policies effect everything else. To his credit, David Cameron's approach suggests that he understands this. The problem is the policies he's been delivered and his own position are extremes that don't meet in the middle. As David Cameron has to develop flesh on the bones, so the right wing firebrands have to develop some humanity. And that policy and character gap is something that's going to take some time to hammer out.

The Stern Report suggests Gordon Brown is on top of this problem.

These Tory's will never learn.
The last time we heard this lot, most people (Including myself) believed that we could cut all these things and still have decent public services.
My excuse was I was young and naive, so I voted for Thatcher.
Then I watched people, not only loosing jobs hand over fist, they also lost their homes.
Manufacturing was totally and irretrievably destroyed. 4 Million People on the dole chance what the doctored figures said. Some people over 50 years old never worked again, resulting in a lot of local small businesses going bankrupt and thriving market towns becoming ghost towns.
Redwood had the brass neck this morning to complain that in a Country which has its own natural gas, oil and coal we did not have a proper energy policy. He forgot to mention that thanks to his government the coal fields under us were closed, never to turn coal again. Millions of pounds of equipment was also left underground, paid for by the tax-payer.
Public Services were a disgrace; we had waiting lists sky high in Hospitals, buildings crumbling, patients laying on trolleys in dirty, draughty hospital corridors waiting for beds.
Schools in most areas had leaking roofs in practically derelict buildings; outside toilets were the norm and children having to share text books.
Gideon (gnat bite) Osborne squeaked this morning that he would do nothing to endanger the economy. Every time these Conservatives open their mouths they do just that.
As for inheritance tax let鈥檚 get this into proportion, only 6% of the population pay it, so to give them tax breaks we will end up with a repetition of the above. We cannot have tax cuts and decent Public Services only one or the other, remember these services cover everybody from all walks of life.
If people are fooled once by these promises, shame on those making the promises, those fooled twice, shame on them for being so greedy and gullible.

Hi there Laura, Let us assume that the Tories are to be taken seriously, how can they justify the following while balancing the books.
The Tories, or rather Cameron, has confirmed over and over again that they will stick to Labour鈥檚 commitments where spending is concerned. So that means that they commit themselves to Labour鈥檚 planned increase (year on year) in spending for the next 7 years. That is spending in education, health, transport, pensions, flood defences, defence as in new submarines, environment, housing, etc. etc.
Now that Labour has reduced the basic rate of tax from 22% down to 20%, the Tories have no alternative but to come up with some kind of a new tax cut that might be welcomed by a sector in society. I agree, that yes, it might be good for vote fishing like myself as an ex Tory for example. If the tax is scrapped my children would save about 154k if I kick the bucket tomorrow. Now the big UNANSWERED questions start coming.
In 7 years time Capital and Recurrent expenditure will have to increase by about 1.7% every year. In 2014, the income from Inheritance Tax is estimated to be just over 10 billion a year if the chancellor leaves all the % and figures as they stand today.
Can Mr. Redwood and Co. tell us how he is going to make good for this massive shortfall after Inheritance Tax is finally scrapped, assuming of course that there will not be any hikes in other taxes like VAT.
Vat was under 8% in 1979 and the Tories shot it up to 17.5%. It is still 17.5% even after 10 years of Labour. Will the Tories be reducing VAT as well?
Inheritance tax was introduced by Thatcher on 1986, and her own words were, 鈥淲e are introducing this tax because it gives the Govt. a better tool to spread the wealth more farley鈥� 鈥淚t will also have an effect in reducing the gap between the rich and the poor鈥� These are Maggie鈥檚 words in parliament and now we get the same party saying that it is a very UNFAIR tax!
Laura, if the Tories had to have their way, if at all BELIEVED, that they will scrap all these proposed tax cuts, the Nation鈥檚 finances will be in such miserable state that we will have to ask the world Bank to lend us funds because our National Debt would be too high to sustain.
These wonderful tax cuts from the Tories are a recipe for boom and bust situations when we had to wait for 2 years for a heart by-pass, and our grandparents dying of hypothermia, not to mention over 3 million unemployed, and 16% interest rate, just to mention a few. Remember them days Laura? That is why I am not at all impressed. Have a nice weekend.

From the point of view of a young political reporter the Conservative Party and their people offer more interest than the tedious, ongoing incumbents, despite Gordon Brown's cabinet butchery.

Most national journalists would expect to be better off under a Tory tax regime, at least until the caviare hit the fan. Worth bearing in mind when reading anything by any of them imho.

Taxing the dead makes sense. Unfortunately its anticipation arouses emotions like those in dragons guarding their hordes of gold.

That Vulcan Supremo Redwood couples this with business taxation is ludicrous imho.

I hear now, on the radio, the late Bill Deedes saying, apropo some war or other, "We tried to take death seriously."

If only that were true among those who see it principally in terms of financial gain and loss.

At last some sensible discussion about tax. Small business is crippled by the amount of red tape that the labour goverment has introduced and finally someone is adressing this. Whilst inheritance tax only affects 6% of the population now it will affect more and more as time passes on. There need to be changes - whether this means removing it or increasing the thresholds.
I do not think that this would be such as issue if it was not becoming apparant that the rises in tax over the last 10 years have shown so few results. Sure there have been some improvements but we are not getting value for money. It is time someone sorted all of this out and tried to help the people in this country who want to create wealth and better themselves rather than putting more obstacles in their place

Laura,

I'm really pleased that the media seem to be discussing the issue of tax more sensibly! The general mood in the air with my friends (in the mid 20's to 30's) is that the UK become a VERY burdensome place to live from a tax and cost of living point of view over the last ten years!

People tend to forget just how much Gordon Brown has raised stealth taxes (i.e. not raising thresholds for income tax, stamp duty and etc to match inflation) as well as pretty much anything else he can get his greedy hands on... no doubt he'll be at it again. We need a government that can wipe away his legacy of greedy big government!

The Eton schoolboys have come up with a really great idea. Banish Inheritance Tax. When they tout ideas like this, why do they not simultaneously let us know which hospitals, schools, or whatever, they intend to close down because of withdrawal of the corresponding amounts of funds?
Next for the billboards will presumably be "Banish Income Tax". or "Back to the baronial hall: up with the drawbridge: to hell with the peasants".

Clinton had possibly the most effective tax cutting policy on a political level in modern times. He led the Democrats back from obscurity by cutting tax cuts for the average citizen, while reducing the deficit and increasing revenuire by making things more efficient and by taxing the super-rich/comfortably wealthy more without looking like he was punishing them for being rich. This clever system was successful economically without increasing the deficit. If the tories took this kind of approach, it could be very successful, but I can't see them being capable enough of achieving this with such a weak backbone, so I doubt they will get anywhere with their tax slashing proposals that are aimed in the wrong places.

Such talk of deregulating British business, cutting red tape and abolishing inheritance tax seem not meet with the full agreement of the old Etonian Shadow Cabinet.

George Osborne, yesterday (17/08/07) dampened down the prospects of a Tory tax give-away at the next general election; Mr Osborne speaking at the economic competitiveness review made it clear there would be no overall reduction in taxation under a Conservative Government.

Mr Osborne said the Conservatives could not fight the next general election on the promise of an "up-front tax cut", "Any reductions in specific taxes will have to be balanced by tax increases elsewhere, most notably green taxes."

What is actually happening in the Conservative party, is John Redwood merely brainstorming these basics of the economy or is he trying to send messages to the dyed in the wool Conservatives that Conservatism as they know it is merely a leadership contest away?

Either way it would appear that John Redwood cannot be following the brief of David Cameron or George Osborne or has a more sinister testing of Conservatives at Large been approved by Mr. Cameron, the Young Pretender?

The Conservative spokesman was at least allowed to deliver his lines without the interviewer interrupting, as is the Norm'at the 91热爆 these days..doing Labours work for them...He(JP) put down the Labour Spokesman several times & brought him to order, Andy Burnham was completely out of of his depth..hadn't read the Tory Policies Book at all ...just trying to score cheap points/jibes,not interested in the policies, what a sad reflection on this Government...bring back Patricia Hewitt?... oh God no , no .!! Any-day now they'll bring on Brown's bossiest Babe ,Yvette 'yer know' Cooper, to rant & rave.!!They should have got around to discussing(her) HIPS roll-out to three bedroom houses ..another OLD/new Labour NEW stealth Tax ... they certainly know how to push the self destruct button...a mini Poll -Tax Labour style.
Lets have more sensible policies from the Tories & get our Country back before it's too late!

...and poor Howard Flight got the sack as a Tory MP for tapping his nose and nodding a wink that a future Conservative government would find scope for tax cuts for the wealthy, although it wasn't in the 2005 Tory manifesto.

Michael Howard had the authority to deal very firmly with those who were threatening to break ranks - and proved it by removing Flight from the 2005 official list of Tory candidates. Until he steps firmly to the mark David Cameron is just showing the level of weakness towards Redwood that destroyed John Major - history is running full circle again for the Tories.

Fortunately for the country this nonsense is happening to a party in opposition, not the party in government.

I'm not a Conservative, so maybe that is the reason I really don't understand David Cameron's reluctance to offer tax reduction as an element of the Tory platform for the next election. While I am not a Tory, I am one of those relatively-well-off-but-not-spectacularly-rich middle class people he needs to win from Labour and the Lib Dems in English constituencies if he is to enter No 10 as PM. So here's my prescription for Mr Cameron.

This may be one of the few issues on which he can separate a centre ground Tory party from a centre right Labour party and a centre left Lib Dem party. After all, Brown needs to at least recover tax revenue to cover his mammoth spending while Chancellor and ensure that unemployment doesn't rise by growing public sector jobs and spending on long-term benefit claimants - for that, he'll HAVE to avoid talk of tax cuts.

Cameron needs to find a language to talk about a mix of tax cuts and prioritised spending WITHOUT resorting to the silly promises the Tories made last time on 'cutting red tape' to cushion the blow of those tax cuts on tax receipts and thus public spending. What he ought to do is to talk about 'priority services' and making specific promises on delivery with the minimum of policy 'innovation'.

At the moment those middle class English voters want competence from their government, delivery on promises, and lower taxation wherever possible. They'll not vote Tory just on tax: but they will see it as a plus if the Tories are convincing on competence, planning and execution and avoid playing the expensive game of New Labour - zany new policies, expensively put together with terrible delivery, ditched when the going gets tough until some equally rabid policy wonk idea, dreamed up by a party policy worker with all the experience of his or her 22 years, replaces it and the cycle continues.

When Tony Blair - of both bitter and fond memory - said that his (last) government would have a "relentless focus on delivery" he said it because he needed to say it in order to quieten dissent and win the patience of the reluctant middle classes who's voted for him in 2005. Ironically, Cameron now needs to convince everyone that he has that same focus very much at the forefront of his mind - and tax cuts will help to make the package more acceptable. They alone, however, won't pull it off for him.

At least we are finally talking about policies that are near the top of voters concerns, and the media are giving it air time !

People do feel over taxed and of course Labour will trot ot the usual 'it will mean cuts in front line services'.

Its not just the amount you spend, its how it is spent and Labour do not spend the tax payers money wisely !

Quote " So a Why do I get the feeling that you really welcome the proposal on inheritance tax? You wouldn't be likely to benefit by any chance?" Unquote

What an odd assumption. A reporter pieces is slanted in one particular way because he or she may benefit?

Loftier things may be at work Mr Williams - like unbiased reporting?

Laura,
I really like your blogs - much informative and detailed than Nick's. Can we have you all the time?

I was wondering if you could explain why the 91热爆 felt it necessary to use footage of Redwood making an idiot of himself that is over a decade old alongside the story ?

Lord knows, he, Cameron, Osbourne and the rest need no help in looking incompetent.

So was it just simple anti Tory bias designed to keep Gordon in power ?

John Redwood is getting in the way of constructive discussion. Can anyone deny that he presents such a very peculiar personality when on TV that he damages the Conservative image?
It does not say much for him or the Conservative PR that they use him in fronting programs for an election.

Peter Hitchens who writes/rants in the MoS, coined the phrase 'useless Tories'.

I'm thinking he might have a point following the recent Tory proposals for 'tax cuts', which immediately leads on to their opponents claiming that 'schools 'n hospitals' would suffer as a result.

As I see if, the problem is not tax cuts per se, but the language that the Tories use.

If instead of saying 'tax cuts' they said 'more freedom to choose' (how you spend your own money) then they might get somewhere.

Isn't that or was'nt that a basic Tory tenet once?

The Tories seem to have completely lost their political bearings.

Not that I care much anyway, behind the scenes I believe that they are still a bunch of stuck-up toffs.

New Labour are well drilled in these 'presentational arts' and would rarely make this sort of error.

For example, a key Labour tenet is 'redistribution', that is, taking money from working people and 'redistributing' it to favoured client groups.

Yet how many times have you heard a senior Labour politician mention the word 'redistribution'?

For example, Tony Blair mentioned 'redistribution' just once publicly in ten years in office and Gorgon Brown not at all, despite providing a key redistribution mechanism through 'tax credits'.

Rather than use a word such as 'redistribution', which is likely to be controversial amongst working people, Labour are more likely to employ more anodyne phrases such as 'creating a fairer society', which is superficially much harder to argue against.

I believe that Government should be as large or small as it can be shown to competently perform.

So, for example, in Denmark, the Government takes huge amounts of cash off the people but in return gives total peace of mind through excellent education and health facilities (the Danes are consequently the happiest people in Europe).

In England, the Government are taking significant amounts of money off taxpayers but are not generally being perceived as providing very good value for money in education and health services.

Therefore, in England, the Government tax take should shrink accordingly and the money left with the people and the market to mostly provide those services.

Laura,

You have fallen into the age old trap of referring to a percentage in a less than transparent fashion. It is not true to say that only 6% of 'us' are affected by IHT. In any given year, 6% may be directly affected, however, over 5 years, this could mean that 30% of 'us' have been affected. Perhaps simplistic, but this is closer to the truth than suggesting the same 6% are affected every year.

It is also worth remembering that alongside the 6% of estates affected annually by the tax, are all those beneficiaries, mainly children but also other family members. When these are included, 6% is a misleading statistic.

Aside from this, you would have been better to establish the fact that as Gordon Brown has failed to uprate the IHT threshold, so many more individuals and families are entrapped by the tax.

As to the comments by several contributors, where to begin? To be a Conservative seems to put the politician (Redwood, or whoever) on the backfoot before their reports have even been read, far less, digested. To suppose that Labour is 'good' and Conservative 'bad' is not nearly good enough. How can it be seen to be bad to suggest that IHT should be abolished when clearly it now affects many more ordinary workers and families than ever it could have been intended? How can Gordon Brown be seen to be good, when it was he that allowed this to happen?

Personally, I see no contradiction in the right being viewed as potentially a friend to those on low incomes. A flat rate tax would be one possible step towards lifting people / families out of the tax / benefits trap. Running alongside this could be the removal of a right to claim allowances or to use a loophole to reduce or exclude your tax liability.

Yes, the law of unintended consequences would still apply, but I would rather deal with those that arose under such a system, than try to simply tinker with reform of the existing flawed and corrupt practices.

In my experience there are families who show no desire or ambition to lift themselves out of welfare dependency. Alongside this, we find an ever burgeoning state seeking to take over and control our lives. All that this will lead to is an ever larger share of the economic wealth being sucked into the centre. Hopefully no one sees this as either desirable nor sustainable, and yet almost by default, we are forcing the main parties to follow this process without so much as a nod of concern towards all those societal statistics that show we need to be worried.

Let us instead have smaller government and lower taxes. Let us all become much more responsible for our own actions and our responsibilities to society. Do not simply pass the buck to a state that cannot begin to understand, far less resolve our problems. Please do not allow Labour to carry on as it has been doing without at least some real and thoughtful opposition from the public and the media.