Saturday 21 April 2007
Friday 23 March 2007
The Budget Protest...
I have yet to write a post on the budget, however, for now I shall leave you with this.Quite a few young people dislike the outcome of the budget and have set up a group on facebook against it.
If you have an account on facebook, then click here.
Thursday 22 March 2007
Guido - The Bogeyman
Blinding Tax Cuts!
Today's cartoon in the Times - nice to see that some of their employees have sense. Do Kalesky's comments signal that Murdoch and New International are sidling up to Brown and lookign to maintain their links with Labour?2007 vs 2008
Today KPMG released calculations of how much better off/worse off people will be based on yesterdays announcements.
I refered to this briefly in my earlier article now here is a graph of the table.
Day Two - Analysis - Anatole Kaletsky
Welcome to the first substantive post of Day Two, sorry it's a bit late.
Today I'm focusing on the Analysis provided by the Times.
On the front page of today's budget supplement which you can read here Kaletsky makes a number of points which I wish to comment on.
Kaletsky acknowledges Brown's hallmark for trickery or "conjuring" as Kaletsky puts it and yesterday was no difference what with some purported green taxes, a cut in income tax that will leave the poorest worse off and tinkering with VAT - all with the net result of nothing much happening to revenue levels.
Kaletsky claims there is nothing wrong with this spin. It is, he says "what tax simplification is all about". "Anyone who calls for a simpler tax code ... is calling for exactly what Mr Brown did yesterday. I couldn't disagree more. A simpler tax code! His own colleagues at the Times contradict him. During their live feed yesterday they said "There is a good deal of tinkering with VAT here, great news for tax lawyers but a nuisance for everyone else".
Brown claimed that the 10p tax band was being taken away in the name of simplicity. But unless one is dead set on simplifying the tax code - for example by flattening taxes surely one should focus on fairness (more on the impact of this to come soon).
Kaletsky says how Brown "delights" in describing all sorts of trivial changes - it is these trivial changes that have given us the second largest tax law in the world at some 20,000 pages length.
Later he offers his views on how if Mr Brown had explained that the low paid wouldn't be worse off because of his budget because of his increased Tax Credits system he would have had a much better image. Yet Kaletsky seems oblivious of the article on page 3 of the Budget supplement that destroys any hint of credibility in this argument. He refers to a small but significant redistribution from upper middle classes to those in most in need - so how come KPMG report in the Times that a person earning £7,000 will be approx £180 worse off and someone on £9,000 will be approx £190 worse off!
Kaletsky criticises Brown's style for failing to explain the "merits" of his tinkering. I disagree. Style and how you sell things to people is sadly all too important in politics. What Brown needs however isn't Style in his Budget but substance - each year his reference to government borrowing grows ever shorter and yesterday his was only minutes off of the shortest budget in History.
Kaletsky's article is highly biased and flawed I believe. Naturally I have only focused on a few points of his article however I believe these are critically important. What Brown needs isn't style to defeat his critics but substance to defeat them. He must show us that Lord Turnbull was wrong and that he will be less dictatorial than Blair and Thatcher.
Today I'm focusing on the Analysis provided by the Times.
On the front page of today's budget supplement which you can read here Kaletsky makes a number of points which I wish to comment on.
Kaletsky acknowledges Brown's hallmark for trickery or "conjuring" as Kaletsky puts it and yesterday was no difference what with some purported green taxes, a cut in income tax that will leave the poorest worse off and tinkering with VAT - all with the net result of nothing much happening to revenue levels.
Kaletsky claims there is nothing wrong with this spin. It is, he says "what tax simplification is all about". "Anyone who calls for a simpler tax code ... is calling for exactly what Mr Brown did yesterday. I couldn't disagree more. A simpler tax code! His own colleagues at the Times contradict him. During their live feed yesterday they said "There is a good deal of tinkering with VAT here, great news for tax lawyers but a nuisance for everyone else".
Brown claimed that the 10p tax band was being taken away in the name of simplicity. But unless one is dead set on simplifying the tax code - for example by flattening taxes surely one should focus on fairness (more on the impact of this to come soon).
Kaletsky says how Brown "delights" in describing all sorts of trivial changes - it is these trivial changes that have given us the second largest tax law in the world at some 20,000 pages length.
Later he offers his views on how if Mr Brown had explained that the low paid wouldn't be worse off because of his budget because of his increased Tax Credits system he would have had a much better image. Yet Kaletsky seems oblivious of the article on page 3 of the Budget supplement that destroys any hint of credibility in this argument. He refers to a small but significant redistribution from upper middle classes to those in most in need - so how come KPMG report in the Times that a person earning £7,000 will be approx £180 worse off and someone on £9,000 will be approx £190 worse off!
Kaletsky criticises Brown's style for failing to explain the "merits" of his tinkering. I disagree. Style and how you sell things to people is sadly all too important in politics. What Brown needs however isn't Style in his Budget but substance - each year his reference to government borrowing grows ever shorter and yesterday his was only minutes off of the shortest budget in History.
Kaletsky's article is highly biased and flawed I believe. Naturally I have only focused on a few points of his article however I believe these are critically important. What Brown needs isn't style to defeat his critics but substance to defeat them. He must show us that Lord Turnbull was wrong and that he will be less dictatorial than Blair and Thatcher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
