The budget - not quite live

chucky

BillJones wrote: »

You are amused at people judging intent from actions, and discussing it on a discussion forum?

How bizarrre.

Bizarre that someone sitting on his armchair in his living room knew exactly what a political party's taxation policy was. It's genius that these people know so much and are so intelligent,

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

At least those were the words invented to discriminate against certain groups when equality doesn't quite work in favour of another group.

The usual deep and incisive analysis I expect from you Graham

The idea that supporting positive discrimination is contradictory to equality is as false as saying that opposing it is supporting discrimination.

The American military is an excellent example of how positive discrimination can trade never-ending covert discrimination for a short period of overt discrimination followed by equality. If 10 years of state sponsored positive discrimination can end decades of de facto discrimination by the state then it seems to be to be an option worth considering.

N1AK

BillJones wrote: »

They never would have increased it to 50% had they not been on their way out. You are also claiming that their promise that it was temporary was a lie. They knew it was a bad idea.

You seem determined to avoid the fact that this was clearly not an economic policy. If they believed that a 50% tax rate was a good idea they'd have brought it in years earlier, as they know their base supports it. It was a political trap; giving the conservatives a bad tax rate that they could not reverse without upsetting the masses who want the wealthier punished.

I also think it was largely political, however I think it's wrong that the fact they didn't do it earlier proves anything. Even though taxation should be set based on long term considerations, politics means that bringing in the 50% rate before the crash wouldn't have been nearly as popular. Once the crash happened the wider public became a lot more willing to see tax increases on the wealthy.

Fella

Except they didn't bring it in after the crash, which would have been 2008. They brought it in two years later just before the General election they were about to lose.

tomterm8

The 50% tax was never a revenue generating measure; the conservatives are right that due to tax avoidance the 50% tax rate actually reduced tax revenue.

It was mostly about scoring political points against the rich, while simultaneously forcing the Tories to 'reduce taxes on the richest' while the poor are suffering.

It was pure politics.

And I say this as someone who will probably vote labour next election.

Fella

tomterm8 wrote: »

The 50% tax was never a revenue generating measure; the conservatives are right that due to tax avoidance the 50% tax rate actually reduced tax revenue.

It was mostly about scoring political points against the rich, while simultaneously forcing the Tories to 'reduce taxes on the richest' while the poor are suffering.

It was pure politics.

Exactly. It was so that Milliband could spend the next 5 years saying the Tories gave a tax-break to millionaires.

Which technically isn't even accurate. Come to that, the Milliband who's saying it isn't the one they'd planned either.