Monday, 12 April 2010

Tax Pledge, fairer tax campaign

I agree that the rich should pay more tax and the poor should pay less tax, at the moment the rich are not paying their fair share.

While I agree in the long term to increase the allowance to £10,000 (as suggested by the fairer tax campaign) is a worthy goal, I dont think it can be done this year. Once the financial crisis is settled, and the loopholes are cut, then we would look at this.

The Green Party sees this as a way to reduce inequalities in society and to fund investment in jobs which are needed to create a sustainable society and tackle the economic and environmental crises. Our manifesto will be published shortly and it will have a costed economic policy that is sustainable.


Ed said...

It's quite a leap to say that the rich "don't pay their fair share".

How do you define rich? £50k/year? £100k/year? £1,000,000/year?

Our progressive tax system means that someone who earns £9,999/yr pays approx 5% of their income in tax and someone who earns over £100k over 30%.

That's £500 compared to £30,000. 60 times more.

I don't disagree that taxes should be lowered and that those at the bottom end should benefit first from this but I don't agree that the way to fund this is to put taxes up at the top end as eventually this becomes a disincentive to work.


Adrian Windisch said...

You are only looking at income tax, under Labour stealth taxes have gone up, hitting proportionally the poor more.

Richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest.


Ed said...

Thanks for the link. Have browsed that.

You are correct that I was referring to the pledge to take people earning under £10k out of the income tax system as that is what caught my eye in your post.

Indirect taxes do definitely affect people with less money more although, that said, many of the staples of life (food, children clothes etc) are VAT exempt. According to the data I have the lowest quintile spend 31% of their disposable income on indirect taxation although according to the ONS that is because the expenditure in the households is directed disproportionately at fuel and tobacco which is very highly taxed by governments.

Presumbly you would not advocate reducing tax rates on either of these products?