Cameron promises new law to ensure three major forms of taxation can't be increased

padington

For five years. So the chancellors hands will be tied and unable to increase Income tax, VAT and NI.

Talk about desperate. It all feels so slap dash.

Pointless too because another law can be passed to veto that law, other taxes can be raised to increase overall taxation level and the moment they get round the coalition table, which they know they will, it aint happening anyway.

What nonesense.

Jason74

Yep. Every time a politician opens their mouth at the moment (and I mean all of them, so this is not a party political point) I find myself having more reasons not to vote for them!

buglawton

If it was Cameron's idea then he's just revealed himself as economically illiterate. Also any self respecting chancellor would resign. Should the Tories have the power to set taxes over the next 5 years they'll have to responsible to electorate about taxes anyway. To put a law in place that removes any degree of freedom to rebalance where needed is a gimmick. It also sounds like a law that says 'this law cannot be changed for 5 years no matter what'. That might be unconstitutional.

I don't want tax rises, in fact I'd like cuts. But I KNOW that if this law gets passed, I'll be up to my chin in (more) stealth taxes by 2020. Stealth taxes are dishonest government and make people behave in ways that damage the economy. Any hope of the Tories getting my vote just went out the window.

tkane

buglawton wrote: »

That might be unconstitutional.

You can't have an unconstitutional act when we don't have a constituition

buglawton

But this will do for me
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/unconstitutional

michaels

tkane wrote: »

You can't have an unconstitutional act when we don't have a constituition

Now there is a policy I would support, a formal constitution, it would also mean that we would be much more certain of what powers were wielded at local, national and european levels.

Many countries have (and pay lip service to ) a balanced budget law. Why anyone would want a taxation cap law I can not fathom - is it a 'tea party' thing? In general politicians don't think enough about how their policies impact on the amount of our income that is taken from us as tax, either immedieately or in future if it is deficit funded in the short term but I can not see how this policy is the answer. Is it California where they passed some ballot initiative that prevented any increases in state property taxes, but this was the only important way they could raise revenue so now their schools are crumbling with no legal means to raise the money needed even though the majority would support more spending on schools....

wiltsguy_2

cut taxes & reduce benefits...simples! stop punishing the workforce of the country!

antrobus

padington wrote: »

For five years. So the chancellors hands will be tied and unable to increase Income tax, VAT and NI.

Talk about desperate. It all feels so slap dash.

Pointless too because another law can be passed to veto that law, other taxes can be raised to increase overall taxation level and the moment they get round the coalition table, which they know they will, it aint happening anyway.

What nonesense.

Gesture politics. Just like the Climate Change Act and its 'legally binding targets'.

buglawton wrote: »

But this will do for me
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/unconstitutional

Providing a dictionary definition of the word does not remedy the UK's lack of a formal constitution.

redux

Its a good job Cameron didn't say this 5 years ago.

The coalition government increased VAT and some aspects of national insurance.

There is no reason to handicap the options available. A future Chancellor may wish to increase one of these taxes for some people while reducing the same or other taxes for others. And it wouldn't necessarily only be Labour that want to to it.

Gangaweed

While I like the idea of no more taxes... This smacks of desperation.

The Tories economic credibility is disappearing fast.

buglawton

antrobus wrote: »

....
Providing a dictionary definition of the word does not remedy the UK's lack of a formal constitution.

Nor was that the point.
The point was, Cambridge Dictionary says the term 'unconstitutional' means "not allowed by the constitution (= set of rules for government) of a country or organization"

And my original point was, of Parliament tries to pass a tax act that says 'this act may not be rescinded for 5 years' it might be a breach of parliamentary rules.