Comments on: Our Most Important Policy

By: Charlotte Gore

Charlotte Gore — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:03:42 +0000

Oh, yes. Hmmm well I certainly agree that there’s a lot of benefits in this sort of policy. Makes a change actually, I don’t normally agree with Oranjepan.

By: Voter

Voter — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:57:01 +0000

Not referring to the Laffer curve intentionally.

Rather I was seeing if you and Oranjepan were in agreement

By: Charlotte Gore

Charlotte Gore — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:50:46 +0000

Are you talking about the Laffer curve? I think the evidence on that one is inconclusive. I’m not advocating a tax cut because i think it’ll generate more revenue.

By: Voter

Voter — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:46:57 +0000

Charlotte, do you think that raising the tax threshold will pay for itself? Is there evidence to support such a view?

By: Charlotte Gore

Charlotte Gore — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:36:37 +0000

Evidence based approach to policy??? WHAT??

Whatever next?! You’ll be saying that the person who agrees with the baying mob the most isn’t the best person to make policy or something!

Outrageous.

By: Voter

Voter — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:21:15 +0000

You say “it is possible to argue”. Lots of things seem possible to people. That is not a realistic approach.

I would want to see a Huhneian approach.

One of the things I noticed about the recent Lib Dem conference was that Chris Huhne seemed to be advocating an evidence-based approach for crime.

I hope Mr Huhne is able to persuade people to come round to this approach.

By: Jack Hughes

Jack Hughes — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:42:00 +0000

Just sack everyone with “outreach” in their job title. And their bosses.

By: Oranjepan

Oranjepan — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:08:14 +0000

I see the Conservatives here are following the media agenda being pushed by those with a Conservative bias, no surprise.

“The current big debate is about “cuts”.”

No, it isn’t. Or at least, not only.

It is also about tax levels and distributions and structural reforms. What is obvious is that four-letter words are more accessible to the wider public if it means you can say you are leading on the issues.

Raising the tax threshold can be all these things either separately or all at the same time, depending on how it is done.

It could be done by offsetting the cost against savings elsewhere, such as trident.

It could be done by reallocating, such as by reducing the tax credits system (which would also have the benefit of getting rid of a layer of complicated and wasteful bureaucracy).

It’s possible to argue that it would pay for itself by not placing an artificial barrier in the way of those eager to work – particularly while there is currently 2.5m registered unemployed.

In fact there are so many ways of doing it that it is a superfluous question to ask.

Secondly, if it is a successful policy it may well actually increase the overall proportion of GDP taken as tax by encouraging more people up the taper scale, which would thereby allow further cuts in other areas.

Therefore it is a policy which would create a momentum all of it’s own and lead directly to structural reforms by changing the balance in Treasury income.

It seems obvious to me that the only reason for resisting any of this is to protect vested political interests.

By: Voter

Voter — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:25:43 +0000

In other words, you do need money to pay for tax cuts.

It might be money you have already allocated which you can divert. But it is still money.

By: Voter

Voter — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:15:20 +0000

Not spending money is not a cut.

Cutting services might pay for taking certain people out of income tax