Institute for Fiscal Studies picks apart the propaganda

By : Administrator
Published 28th April 2015 |
Read latest comment - 30th April 2015

Great story on the beeb how the IFS has analysed the main parties financial plans and picked holes in them and questioned the need and complexity of more layers of tax.

"Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats plan to increase the personal allowance - the amount one can earn before paying income tax - to £12,500 by the end of the next parliament.

But the IFS said that would not help the 44% of people who now pay no tax...

Labour's plans to introduce a 10% starting rate for income tax also came in for criticism.

The IFS said this change would be worth a "princely" 50 pence a week to most tax payers...

...Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats plan to introduce a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2m.

But the IFS said it would be much more sensible to let the council tax take care of wealth in the housing market.

"Setting up an entirely separate tax is unnecessarily complicated", it claimed.

The bit that really made me smile

"The IFS accuses all the parties of planning to extract a huge amount of money by clamping down on tax avoidance -"mysteriously missed" in all previous clampdowns."

IFS: Households can expect lower incomes, whoever wins the election - BBC

These tax avoidance clampdowns are starting to sound like a 1980's Daz advert, even whiter than the last time..

Steve Richardson
Gaffer of My Local Services
My Local Services | Me on LinkedIn

The bit I'm completely baffled on is this Tory promise of making it law about no tax or NI rises in the next 4 years.

How does that work? So if they break it do they go to prison? 

How long does it take to get an act of law through parliament? Years. For once I agree with Miliband and this does sound like a desperate gimmick.

What's next, NHS Doctors waiting time law, or maybe locking up your dentist if he over runs?

Enjoyed the Andrew Neill debate about the various parties stance on the Armed Forces and in particularly Trident.

Think the greens representative was out of her depth, and claims that the Greens would disband the standing army, scrap the Navy and Airforce didn't lend much to credibility.

Then the bizarre analysis of the Greens website which allegedly said you can join the Greens if you are a member of a terrorist group, as long as you haven't killed anyone, which the representative finally got badgered into saying she didn't agree with the policy.

I thought the Lib's came out with the best policy ref Trident, renew, but have 1 less boat, and scrap the current 24/7 expensive nuclear patrols, as we don't really have an obvious nuclear threat to combat. But the deterrent is their to be re-activated as and when needed if the world stage changed, or Russia slid into a more nuclear aggressive posture.

Interesting analysis from the Tory defence minister ref giving up Nuclear weapons. The Ukraine recently gave up it's stockpile of former USSR nuclear weapons. If it hadn't, would Russia been so quick to invade? 

Scary "what if" food for thought...

Steve Richardson
Gaffer of My Local Services
My Local Services | Me on LinkedIn

This Thread is now closed for comments