So asks the new tax campaign website launched by the Liberal Democrats today:
We believe that everyone should pay their fair share of tax. That means the people who have the most paying more than those who have less. To help make that happen, we want to give a tax cut to every working family in the country by raising the amount you can earn before paying income tax, initially to £10,000 a year.
This would give every working person in the country a tax cut of over £500.
You can sign up to back the campaign or to find out more about what’s being called for at FairerTax.org.
It’s part of this autumn’s fair tax campaign, which is one of the party’s most serious efforts for a long time in having a consistent campaign theme across different parts of the party, and one that integrates party conference, national media efforts, local campaigning and the internet.
Aside from the issues’s inherent importance in creating a fair and liberal society, tax is also a handy issue to take up as it helps establish how the Liberal Democrats want to do things differently from the Conservatives.
Online, there are lots of new things being tried – such as running an email survey in advance asking people to choose between possible slogans for the campaign, and using the NationBuilder software for this dedicated campaign site along with lots of social media integration.
* Mark Pack is Party President and is the editor of Liberal Democrat Newswire.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
How many councillors has Reform UK lost since the May 2026 elections?
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
Mick Taylor
13 Comments
“we want to give a tax cut to every working family in the country by raising the amount you can earn before paying income tax, initially to £10,000 a year.
This would give every working person in the country a tax cut of over £500”
No it wouldn’t. That’s just not true. It would only be true if (a) every working person in the country earned over £10,000 a year and (b) the personal allowance for everybody was currently £7,500. Neither of those is true. (I mean not even remotely true. The basic personal allowance is already over £8,000 for a start – http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/income-tax-rates.htm.)
So I’m not sure I’ll waste my time listening to anything else this campaign has to say, if it can’t get its core facts and sums right.
“working family”? Individuals pay tax, not families.
Malcolm,
The £500 figure is based on the whole policy of raising the threshold to £10k. I accept the point about the use of the word “every”, perhaps “average” would be better?
Mark, what evedence is there that better off people don’t pay their fair share of tax? According to HMRC the top 1% earn 10.8% of the income and pay 24.2% of all income tax. The top 5% earn 23.6% of income but pay 44.3% of all tax.
What should the figures be to be fair?
@Simon McGrath,
Don’t expect an answer to your second question. It was when I realised that for many the answer is “When everyone has the same take-home” that I knew this wasn’t the party for me.
@Simon – do you just not understand progressive taxation at all? Of course the more wealthy pay a greater share of tax. As a “better off person” I can state quite clearly that I do not pay my fair share of tax. My income can be structured flexibly to make sure I only pay what I need to now, spreading my liability over the leaner years that might be ahead, and the council tax system means that I am paying the same as people in houses worth a lot less than ours. Would I welcome paying more tax – of course not, but I know that I probably should.
What is the meaning of “fair” in this context? Are there any principles or reules by which one can judge whether a tax or tax system is fair? It may be right, but why is it “fair” for high income earners to pay proportionately more?
“This would give every working person in the country a tax cut of over £500.”
Surely if the higher thresholds are also moved downwards, and tax credits are adjusted this is simply not true. I’m not against either measure but there will be many people on middle incomes who may feel this is wrong. Surely the wording needs to be changed to stop what is a good policy being picked to bits…
“We believe that everyone should pay their fair share of tax. That means the people who have the most paying more than those who have less.”
This is already the case, no?
“To help make that happen, we want to give a tax cut to every working family in the country by raising the amount you can earn before paying income tax, initially to £10,000 a year.”
All very laudable, you omit any mention of increasing tax on the wealthy in your quote which, oddly enough, can be found on the front page of the website.
Time for the Max King parable on progressive taxation:
Suppose that once a month, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all of them comes to £100 – it could just as easily be $100 but I will stick to sterling for now. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes and claim State benefits, it would go something like this;
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every month and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men; the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So the bar owner suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 . The seventh paid £5 instead of £7. The eighth paid £9 instead of £12. The ninth paid £14 instead of £18. And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59. Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!”
“Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The rich get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. Funnily enough, the next month the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.
But when it came to pay for their drinks, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half the bill.
————————————————-
Do try not to make the pips squeak, eh?
Very amusing, jedibeeftrix!
one does ones best to demonstrate that you don’t need to be solemn to make a serious point. 🙂
@nigel – I am familiar with what a progressive tax system means. Looking at the HMRC figures we seem to have one.
I hope the complete lack of content on this site is because our leaders will actually be listening at the consultation session (see the post two after this one).