LibLink: Danny Alexander on the party’s tax policies

A while back, Left Foot Forward ran a piece attacking the party’s tax policies for not being progressive. That results in many responses around the place defending the party’s policy and today Left Foot Forward runs a piece from Danny Alexander defending the party’s policy:

As the person responsible for drafting the Liberal Democrat manifesto I wanted to respond to the report on our proposal to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000 – paid for by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit the best off, a new mansion tax, a crack down on tax avoidance and an increase in aviation duties. The report is an interesting contribution but I disagree completely with its conclusions…

The report says that it is entirely reasonable to assess this policy [of raising the income tax threshold to £10,000] in isolation: nonsense. The absurdness of the proposition is proven because the report assesses Labour’s reforms in their entirety not in isolation. Indeed they have on page 27 it compares a graph assessing this single Lib Dem policy against the whole of Labour tax and benefit reform since 1997. This policy is one important part of our overall package for a fairer Britain, and should be considered as such…

Crucially we are the only party finding more money at this election to tackle deprivation at its source: educational underachievement. We will find an extra £2.5billion to spend in schools, targeted specifically at children on free school meals. The authors of this report make out that £2.5billion is a paltry amount that will make little difference. You try telling that to the teachers struggling with overcrowded classrooms or the parents desperate to get their kids the extra one-to-one tuition they need.

An average primary school could cut classes from 28 to 20. An average secondary school could run catch-up classes for 160 pupils, making sure no child gets left behind. That is a progressive policy that will do more to tackle poverty in the long term than any number of bureaucratic handouts from Labour.

And there’s more, as you can read in the full piece.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in LibLink.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/18595 for Twitter and emails.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Do you agree to the T&Cs?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarStuart Mitchell 18th May - 7:07pm
    The NAO report you link to makes it clear that the EHRC's problems were largely the result of having too few staff. So Lynne Featherstone's...
  • User AvatarRichard Dean 18th May - 6:48pm
    @Jason. Actually I think you do both - you say you have a plan and you get one of your officials to say you haven't,...
  • User Avatarjason 18th May - 6:40pm
    Christian De Feo18th May '12 - 10:20am........................@Jason I disagree. Saying you don’t have a plan in place creates a panic of its own...................... Double bluff!...
  • User AvatarHelen Tedcastle 18th May - 6:13pm
    @AlexSabine: '... as Paul says in his article, all schools funding comes from the Treasury anyway.' Except that under the maintained system, there is local...
  • User AvatarAdam Smith Fan 18th May - 6:07pm
    Roland, those are reasonable points. The current situation with housing benefit, etc is indeed complex and would need to be taken account of so that...