Miliband goes on top rate tax attack

November 27, 2012 9:47 am

Today Miliband and Balls are in Stevenage holding a Q&A today ahead of next week’s Autumn Statement (which is being held in December, so should it not be a winter statement?). Both men will be stepping up their attacks on the 50p tax cut, with Miliband set to say of the government:

They don’t understand that you build economic success not from wealth trickling down but by rewarding and supporting working people. Earlier this year I highlighted the millionaires’ tax cut. I said David Cameron would be giving a £40,000 tax cut to every person earning over a million pounds a year.

But new figures we are publishing today show it is even more than that. The Government is about to give an average of £107,500 each to 8,000 people earning over a million a year. Not £40,000. But £107,500. To 8,000 millionaires. David Cameron and George Osborne are giving them this money. But it’s coming from you. You are paying the price of their failure and them standing up for the wrong people.

  • SR819

    Always the reference to “working people”. We saw the same with Yvette Cooper’s question time performance. She was opposed to the changes in the benefits system not primarily on ethical grounds, but because it would cost the “taxpayer” more.

    We need to stop this deification of “taxpayers” as if they’re the only group who matter. The people really struggling are the unemployed and those on benefits, and no political party is willing to represent them. Everyone’s representing the “strivers” and the “squeezed middle”, which is fair enough, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that the real victims are the long term unemployed, failed by an economic and social system that simply doesn’t value them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.crowder2 Jim Crowder

    Does he know what he’s talking about? People on benefits are given money by the government, not millionaires like Ed Milliband, Ed Balls and Margaret Hodge. Taxpayers pay money to the government.

    On the other hand, if your idea of government is one that takes all your money and gives back to the worker what it chooses not to keep, then he’s right. Is this the image we want?

  • Hugh

    “I said David Cameron would be giving a £40,000 tax cut to every person earning over a million pounds a year.”

    Well, no, strictly speaking you said he’d be “writing a cheque to each and every millionaire in Britain for £40,000″, which wasn’t true.

    • aracataca

      Slightly pedantic isn’t it Hugh? Those earning £1,000,000 per year such as Tory zealot Nick Buckles from G4S will pay £40,000 per year less in tax.

      • Hugh

        Number of millionaires in the UK: c.600,000
        Number of people earning £1m or over a year: 8,000

        Not really that pedantic is it?

        And, no, people like Nick Buckles are not likely to pay £40,000 less in tax; they’ll pay £40,000 less in income tax. Overall, the tax burden on the most wealthy was increased by the last budget.

        • aracataca

          But the government is going to reduce the income tax levels of those earning £1,000,000 a year by £40,000 a year – correct?

          • Hugh

            Yes, correct: and this is not faintly the same thing as cutting taxes by £40k for every millionaire in the country – or for that matter even cutting taxes by £40k for every person with an annual income over £1 million.

            Correct?

          • aracataca

            Look people will make their own judgements on whether the proposal to reduce the income tax of those who earn £1,000,000 per year by £40,000 per year is fair or not. The substantive point that EM is making remains clear and unequivocal.

          • Hugh

            Well, it’s a lot clearer since he stopped being deliberately misleading in his rather individual use of the term “millionaire”. But would most people still inadvertently conclude that the wealthy are net beneficiaries from the last budget? I think they would. Is that Ed’s intention and, if so, is it honest? People will make their own judgements.

          • aracataca

            Even if that were true was it not colossally incompetent for a Tory Chancellor to announce this measure given the obvious embarrassment it would cause and the opportunity it would offer to his political opponents?

          • Hugh

            Which part don’t you think is true?

            And, yes. In fact, I don’t support the cut being made while it’s still entirely unclear what the impact is on the tax take, and it was politically stupid. Unfortunately, the vacuous dishonesty offered up by Miliband is not an attractive alternative.

          • Winston_from_the_Ministry

            Not really.

            £40k x 600,000 = £24 million

            £40k x 8,000 = £320,000

            That’s quite a difference.

          • aracataca

            Of course most people understand that it’s people earning over £1 million a year who will benefit from this measure.

          • Winston_from_the_Ministry

            If you say so.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Out by three zeroes (£24 billion versus £320 million), but the point remains valid.

            If the average income tax saving for these lucky 8,000 individuals is£107,000, then the real question is has this measure changed any behaviours (whether domicile, not moving companies abroad, investment decisions or anything else the Government thought they may not do if the 50 pence rate remained in force) that end up benefitting the country by more than £856 million? That is the cost of the income tax saving. I really have no idea how that could be measured or proven, but if it could, it is the only test that matters.

            (The possible logic is that the tax rate cut may also attract additional very high earners to come to Britain. If France is imposing tax rates of 75%, then there is a significant differential, and the Eurostar train seems very rapid to Paris. No doubt some enormously intelligent set of Treasury people and a very expensive computer are modelling all of these sorts of variables)

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Out by three zeroes (£24 billion versus £320 million), but the point remains valid.

            If the average income tax saving for these lucky 8,000 individuals is£107,000, then the real question is has this measure changed any behaviours (whether domicile, not moving companies abroad, investment decisions or anything else the Government thought they may not do if the 50 pence rate remained in force) that end up benefitting the country by more than £856 million? That is the cost of the income tax saving. I really have no idea how that could be measured or proven, but if it could, it is the only test that matters.

            (The possible logic is that the tax rate cut may also attract additional very high earners to come to Britain. If France is imposing tax rates of 75%, then there is a significant differential, and the Eurostar train seems very rapid to Paris. No doubt some enormously intelligent set of Treasury people and a very expensive computer are modelling all of these sorts of variables)

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Out by three zeroes (£24 billion versus £320 million), but the point remains valid.

            If the average income tax saving for these lucky 8,000 individuals is£107,000, then the real question is has this measure changed any behaviours (whether domicile, not moving companies abroad, investment decisions or anything else the Government thought they may not do if the 50 pence rate remained in force) that end up benefitting the country by more than £856 million? That is the cost of the income tax saving. I really have no idea how that could be measured or proven, but if it could, it is the only test that matters.

            (The possible logic is that the tax rate cut may also attract additional very high earners to come to Britain. If France is imposing tax rates of 75%, then there is a significant differential, and the Eurostar train seems very rapid to Paris. No doubt some enormously intelligent set of Treasury people and a very expensive computer are modelling all of these sorts of variables)

  • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

    I like Ed, more and more, I just don’t like this approach. I could just about understand it if there wasn’t this pretence in the Labour movement that there is an ideological link to the 50p rate. We were in Government for 13 years and introduced the 50p rate the month before the 2010 election, and we did it solely as a political trap for the Tories so that we could hit them like this if they tried to scrap it. Labour’s view on the 50p rate has always been political strategy, not economic strategy, and it’s very much the ‘old’ kind of politics Ed has promised to scrap.

    • Hugh

      Would that be the old kind of politics that Brown promised to scrap when he took over? Or the old kind of politics that Blair was meant to be scrapping when he swept in in ’97? Or the old kind of politics the coalition signaled the end of in 2010?

      Promises to scrap the old kind of politics are the the new old kind of politics.

      • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

        No doubt you are right. But it doesn’t mean I have to like it.

        • Hugh

          No, quite right.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

      Perhaps Ed actually agrees with it?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    I am intrigued how we “know” they will say this? Is there going to be a planted question which allows them to say this? Perhaps they will simply use any question which remotely covers this topic to make this pre-determined speech, regardless of whether that covers the questioner’s area of interest?

    To be honest, neither option offers very positive connotations for the honesty of interplay between the parliamentarian and voter, and both options support the cynical view many “ordinary” people increasingly take of politicians and politics.

  • Timmo111

    Labour sent young men and women to war with no body armour and unsuitable equipment, why no tax rise then ?
    Labour borrowed like there was not tomorrow and was addicted to PFI, why no tax rise then?
    Labour gave a contract to ATOS to retest every single person receiving disability benefits, before the financial crash, why no tax rise then ?

  • David B

    Why is he not highlighting the tax avoidance of The Guardian Newspaper Group or the tax avoidance of the company in which Mrs Hodge is a shareholde!!

  • Andrew Ben McKay

    I’m warming more to both Ed’s every day.

  • sdrpalmer

    It is an autumn statement because winter begins at the solstice.

Latest

  • Comment East Coast: Why privatisation is not the end of the line for rail reform

    East Coast: Why privatisation is not the end of the line for rail reform

    I am writing this article on board what the Conservative Party hopes is one of the last publicly run trains in Britain. On Sunday, East Coast will be privatised. The nation’s stake – its share in the East Coast Main Line company – will be sold to Stagecoach and Virgin Trains for a meagre £11 million. The East Coast livery will be quietly replaced by a new brand, as if the last five and a half years never occurred. Why […]

    Read more →
  • News Dugher criticises Cameron for “ideological sell off” of East Coast ahead of privatisation tomorrow

    Dugher criticises Cameron for “ideological sell off” of East Coast ahead of privatisation tomorrow

    Tomorrow, East Coast Main Line will be taken over by private companies Virgin and Stagecoach.   Ahead of this, Michael Dugher, Shadow Transport Secretary, will give a speech in Leeds in which he’ll outline how Labour would allow public sector companies to “take on lines and challenge the private sector on a genuinely level playing field.” They’d do this, he says, within the first 100 days of government.  . Dugher is expected to say: “The end of East Coast Trains will […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why we should loudly support Rachel Reeves’ right to maternity leave

    Why we should loudly support Rachel Reeves’ right to maternity leave

    The reactionary howls that greeted Rachel Reeves’ maternity leave plans remind us that, in some quarters, although we have come a long way, there is still just as far to go on when it comes to recognising that (1) women have babies and (2) women can have babies and hold down jobs too. And while we might expect these attitudes in the Conservative party, we shouldn’t be complacent about rooting them out on our side of the political divide either. Of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment An Irish Labour Party activist is proposing a new way forward on Northern Ireland

    An Irish Labour Party activist is proposing a new way forward on Northern Ireland

    The Irish Labour Party will hold their Annual Conference this weekend. One motion in particular is of interest. Motion 94 proposes that the Irish Labour Party organises in Northern Ireland. The idea has been mooted before, but this motion proposes that the party form a joint entity with the UK Labour Party and that members in N. Ireland would be members of both the Irish and UK parties, similar to the National Union of Students/Union of Students in Ireland (NUS/USI) […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why Labour should welcome health devolution to Manchester

    Why Labour should welcome health devolution to Manchester

    This week’s surprise announcement from George Osborne that £6 billion of health and care spending would be devolved to Greater Manchester has caught Labour (and many in the NHS) off guard. All the details have yet to be agreed, but – based on the revelations in the Manchester Evening News, it is clear the proposals represent a big offer to the northern powerhouse. Whatever the outcome of last year’s Scottish referendum, the result was always going to lead to a political debate about […]

    Read more →
lablist-logo mark-ferguson maya conor coffee-cup
Everything Labour. Every Weekday Morning
×