The Voice’s Mark Pack has been guesting over on the Huffington Post again, this time writing about what he thinks is missing from the Birmingham conference agenda:
There are many weighty issues on the agenda for the Liberal Democrat autumn conference in Birmingham, as well as some potentially significant debates overthe party’s medium term strategy and policy outlook. There is also, however, a curious omission: tax.
The word tax is not completely absent from the agenda, but aside from a reference in one motion calling for the party to look at its tax policy as part of a big policy review, there is nothing about what the country’s overall tax system should look like.
Yet even a cursory following of political news will notice how often the question of changes to the UK’s tax system come up. The big risk for the Liberal Democrats is that a relatively modest pace of policy development following that one brief reference on the agenda leaves the party caught flat-footed as events overtake it.
You can read the full piece here.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1315
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Is Trump set to get his revenge on Labour?
Meeting the new locality coordinator
The Government needs its growth *explanation*
The surprising similarity between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage
expats
Simon R
Craig Levene
Anthony Acton
7 Comments
I agree with MP. This is a curious and most regrettable ommission. Tax is becoming increasingly central to the debate about low growth.
We do need a thorough look at tax. I hope someone is taking a comprehensive look at it. There are lots of bright ideas floating around separately.
Although I would like it to start this month, there is a case for leaving it until there is more stability and it is possible to judge the effect of recent changes.
Raising the tax threshold remains a key priority, but it is policy. A bigger rise next time could give extra money to the people most likely to spend it. But that is tactics and down to Ministerd.
David Laws is putting together ‘Tax 2020’ proposals and the party is consulting on tax reforms for local government. We are actively investigating tax reform, even if there isn’t a specific motion on it this time.
If there was to be some more debate on this, maybe it would be good to give Vince some back up on his lobbying to bring in the mansion tax if the 50p rate is to be scrapped. Are there any amendments/emergency motions being submitted along these lines?
ALTER submitted a motion calling for a further commitment to shift tax off income and onto unearned wealth (via raised income tax thresholds and an extension of existing policy on SVR to residential sites – i.e. a national LVT), but FCC rejected it, I believe because th Party has another tax commission imminent. Fair enough I guess.
The tax change I would like to see back at the forefront of our policy is the removal of higher rate relief on pensions contributions. This disappeared on entering coalition without any real debate that I saw internally, and yet this was projected in our manifesto to raise significant revenue – enough as I recall to negate the need for tuition fees or (substitute here whichever you think is the higher priority for spending!)
The first question about taxes who can afford to pay them. This implies a more sophisticated view of wealth and resources than simply capital and income. Availability and cost of credit for borrowing is now an important part of many peoples assets. A lot of people also benefit from having some of their living expenses paid tax-free; is this always right? What about people and companies who manage their tax affairs across frontiers?
Also we should be aware that change has a destabilising effect. Some changes have bad effects not foreseen. Pension plans, which experts said were grossly overfunded in the early 1990s, were destabilised by G. Brown changing the tax arrangements on their investment income, which then got lots of employers thinking about their overall costs and risks, to the detriment of many ordinary workers. The university fees cap was supposed to help the treasury with university costs, but as universities rush to raise their fees towards the cap, the saving in the early years looks less likely.
We should raise much more Council Tax by introducing many more bands for property. The highest band is set ludicrously low at the moment so the hugely well-off pay the same as the moderately rich.