Will the Conservatives really go along with Labour's 45p tax rate?

5pm Update: George Osborne has given a response to today's Telegraph story about the Conservatives supporting the 45p tax band in a webchat he has just done with the Manchester Evening News. Here's what the shadow chancellor had to say:

"What's actually happened is that Labour announced last November that it was increasing the top tax rate for those earning over £150,000 to 45 percent. What we've said is that, given the desperate state of the public finances, that is a Labour tax rise we will find it difficult to avoid. What we will be doing is also bringing public spending under control so that Britain lives within its means. Let's be clear: we have to deal with the economic mess that Gordon Brown has created - and in doing that today's Conservatives are not going to punish the poorest in our society unfairly. Everyone, the rich included, have to bear their fair share of the burden. I wish the economic situation were different, but sadly it is as it is."

---

There is much coverage in this morning's papers of the speech David Cameron made yesterday on public spending, which was covered here on ConservativeHome.

But as Peter Riddell points out in The Times today, there was a "big omission" in terms of any explicit statement form Mr Cameron as to whether he would increase taxes in order to cut debt.

However, the splash in the Daily Telegraph today would appear to give an unequivocal answer to that question, headlined as it is: "Tories will raise tax rates for top earners".

It continues:

"The Conservatives will go into the next election committed to raising the top level of tax to 45p for those earning more than £150,000. David Cameron signalled that the rich would have to pay “their fair share” to rescue the economy from the mounting crisis in the public finances. It was made clear that hundreds of thousands of top earners would face paying the new rate — which Labour will also introduce after the election if they hang on to power — if Mr Cameron enters Number 10."

"Senior Tory sources believe that the 45p tax rate is now necessary if the party is to fulfil its other pledges to reduce public debt and continue to maintain front-line public services such as health and education. One source said: “We do not like it but, given the current finances, we cannot pledge to avoid it.”

When Alistair Darling announced the 45p rate in last year's pre-Budget report  - but only to be introduced in the next Parliament - shadow Chancellor George Osborne robustly attacked the Government for creating an "unexploded tax bombshell timed to go off underneath the future economic recovery."

Yet it would appear that the party is now set to detonate it if elected to power next year.

When ConservativeHome surveyed readers after the PBR, 41% opposed the 45p tax band, 16% supported it and 39% wanted to wait and see.

Have the "wait-and-sees" among you now reached the view - like the party leadership, according to the Telegraph - that the party has to accept that tax increase as the responsible thing to do in order to keep debt down?

Or would going into the election promising such an increase be politically and/or economically wrong?

In the words of one Tory MP I have already spoken to this morning, "this is going to cause trouble".

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[James Maskell]

This is a problem the Tories have set themselves up for. Its all well and good saying that Labour is wrong and is storing up trouble but they are failing to find alternatives and are stuck reluctantly having to go ahead with what theyve criticised. The Tories have to get the money from somewhere and efficiency savings in themselves wont do it.

[David Belchamber]

I agree with David Cameron's general reluctance to spell out tax specifics at this stage. The longer Brown stays, the worse the public finances will become and it will require a lot of digging to find out exactly what has been hidden away off-balance sheet.
Only when the overall extent of the Brown debt is revealed can an overall response be made; it may well be necessary to have a temporary higher rate.
We truly are greatly indebted to Gordon Brown!

[Viscount Crouchback]

Anyone who opposes this measure is not a conservative. The most basic principle of conservatism is sound money. Pitt the Younger introduced taxes when the Exchequer needed revenue, and then removed them when the nation's finances were on a sounder footing. I am sure that Cameron will do the same.

Let us hope that our American-inspired, ideologically rigid backwoodsmen do not make trouble over this eminently sensible decision of Mr Cameron.

[HF]

What concerns me is where is the "New Plan" that needs to be in place to cope with the deep recession?

What about IHT?
What about Trident?

It is as if we are only slowly reacting to the new reality and why is Osborne not driving it? Is he still meddling in election planning and not fully focused on the Treasury?

[James Burdett]

We need to promote the idea that there is a limit to the good that government can do but no limit to the harm they can do. Within a framework that David Cameron is setting out of getting the public finances under control then tax rises to speed that aim may be necessary. It should be accompanied by the pledge to rationalise the taxation system once government expenditure has been brought under control.

[Oberon Houston]

Okay, its game on now. The announcements yesterday finally drew the battle lines for the next election. Brown will run on a "We spend more than the Tories, they therefore will cut public services" banner. Thats the only line he knows, and he even repeated it to a stunned and mute cabinet last month.

[Richard]

A 45p top rate of tax, over my dead body! I did not join the Conservative Party because I wanted to pay more tax, I joined because I believe lower taxes are a moral good.

At a time when tax take is down and the economy is on its knees we should actually be lowering taxes across the board. Lifting the poor out of tax altogether would save a vast amount of money, would win votes and it would give poorer people more money to spend or save. We should be lowering the top rate of tax to encourage wealthy people to remain UK residents and UK tax payers and we should be slashing business rates to encourage more businesses to come and locate in the UK, thus generating more jobs and more revenue for HM Treasury!

Living in the UK as it stands with crime, out of control immigration, substandard health care and education, loss of liberty etc etc is bad enough, but putting the tax bill up in such a huge fashion will be the last straw for many people. A tax rise like this would also be counter productive.

If this does become Party policy then I for one will not be lifting a finger come the general election!

[councilhousetory]

Gordon has created a Hundred Billion a Year deficit. 100 billion a year.

This won't be wished, hoped or prayed away. Cameron probably isn't going to like what he is going to have to do, but that's what leadership is about.

[RichardJ]

If taxes really must go up, make it VAT. That way those in finacial difficulty have a chance to avoid it (e.g. by buying lower-priced goods or limiting consumption).

[Truest Blue]

You cannot take a 45% rate alone but have to consider it in the context of NIC.

Next fiscal year the ceiling for personal NIC contributions of 11% is about £44k thereafter 1%. 40% tax starts at £34.8k. Apparently then a number of taxpayers will pay a combined rate of 51% from April 2009.

However politicians dress it up NIC is a tax.

If we adopt a 45% tax actual will be 46%.

Our tax system is a complete mess and needs a radical overhaul.

[Richard]

Lower taxes, not higher taxes are the way forward. As the Conservative Party proved in the 80's lower and simpler taxes actually generate higher levels of revenue for HM Treasury as the incentive to evade or avoid tax diminishes. Why are so many people on this site and in the Conservative Party listening to the arguments of the Left? Are we so bereft of ideas ourselves?

This has been our problem throughout this whole crisis; we have supported the Government on almost everything that they have done, even when Cameron and co must have known the Government was in the wrong. When we have been critical we have failed to offer credible alternatives and when some sound people like John Redwood and Michael Fallon have spoken, they have been ignored.

We are ahead in the polls and that is good, but we should be further ahead. Cameron shouldn't be having narrow wins at PMQs; he should be wiping the floor week-in-week-out; and not just Cameron, all the Shadow Cabinet. From Defence to Health, from Education to Immigration, this Labour Government has destroyed this country and yet we do not seem all that angry about it. I am angry, my family is angry, my colleagues are furious as are my friends and everyone else I speak to. Can we please some bold, radical policies and some anger from our front bench, before it is too late!

[James Burdett]

Richard - I was under the impression that in the early 80's taxes were initially increased.

[councilhousetory]

James Burdett

They were. Quite Significantly.

[Guido Fawkes]

Voting none of the above for me.

[Iain]

I gather the 45p tax rate would generate £2billion.

The Aid budget is going to rise from £5.4 billion in 2007/8 to £7.9 billion in 2010/11.

David Cameron is pledged to keep our Aid budget rising, the only area of public expenditure growth he's pledged to keep growing other than the NHS.

So its fairly clear where the 45p tax rate money is going. Its going from British tax payers to African despots Swiss bank accounts.

Great policy Dave, I am glad I don't have to defend it!

[Opinicus]

@Viscount Crouchback
As a true Conservative I do not need lessons from you on sound finance.
As someone with a brain I know it is not necessary to propose 45% tax as you can reduce expenditure to achieve sound finance
As an amateur historian I know that Pitt the Younger invented income tax and that we still have it 200 yrs later
As an enforced backwoodsman I will delight in making trouble if this becomes policy but as a true Conservative and amateur historian I will be toasting Gen Ross come August 2014

[resident leftie]

Surely, to be a proper Tory, you need to cut public expenditure first and foremost, and only then look at higher taxes to balance the books. Put it this way - I applaud his decision! Next, the IHT pledge.

[Richard]

In Nigel Lawson's 88 Budget he lowered the top rate of tax to 40% that was what I was reffering to. This lowering of tax generated as mauch income as increasing the current top rate by 10%.

[Doug]

There is a need to emulate the early eighties and increase tax take and decrease spending. On the spending front there are big projects that can be cancelled - ID cards, inoperable IT projects - that amount to tens of billions of commitments that can be diverted to keep down debt. On the tax front there is no change in the critic Osborne gave the 45p tax idea. It was dumb then and it is dumb now. There is more than one way to skin a cat (and anyone who lays down a 'conservative test' is being deeply unconservative and far more socialist). Increase VAT so that those who conspicuously consume (and have the cash to do so) pay more. Increase certain duties. If they want a political coup then scrap the planned inheritance tax cuts. The last thing is about timing. It will probably take most of 2010 to see any sustained growth so tax increases should be deferred to 2011 so as not to pull the rug out from under the economy.

[Paul J]

I can see that this might be necessary in the context of the need to significantly reduce public expenditure and waste. However, I would be less than happy if the party makes a specific commitment to raise any taxes withour making equally specific commitments to reduce spending.

[Emily Sedgefield]

As usual, it's a loser. It will chase the rich away from the country altogether. If we cut the public sector to the bone, stop all financial aid abroad, deport all illegal immigrants and stop wasting money on quangos, working parties, redecorating government offices, financing dying banks and their huge pension payouts, financing legal aid and aid for terrorists and told all unemployed non EU foreigners to leave, we could start to see a saving!

Are you the same as Labour or do I have to vote elsewhere?

[David]

"Lifting the poor out of tax altogether would save a vast amount of money, would win votes and it would give poorer people more money to spend or save. We should be lowering the top rate of tax"

So, if you aren't poor, or you aren't rich, but your average person just about making ends meet, you should be dumped on from up high to pay all the tax this country needs?

No thanks. If we are to help the poor by removing them from the tax system, we need to make up for the lost revenue. This should be got from the well off, not those already struggling with tax bills.

[Sally Roberts]

Viscount Crouchback @ 09:10 - you are absolutely right!

"David Cameron signalled that the rich would have to pay “their fair share” to rescue the economy from the mounting crisis in the public finances"

Quite correctly David Cameron points out we are all in this together. Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures and those who are critical - what would you have us do? Float along in a small blue bubble pretending nothing is wrong and sticking fingers in ears "Laa Laa Laa, I'm not listening" - stylee? or facing up to telling people the unpalatable truth.

Perhaps a bit of World War 2 Blitz Spirit might be in order?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Difference is Richard in 1988 the economy was growing quite fast and now it's not. I'm with those who believe we have to cut our absurd level of borrowings before we advocate (any)tax reductions.
I would be amazed if public expenditure reductions would be sufficient but hope I'm wrong.

[Mike Thomas]

There is little to no alternative.

Day one of a new government, stop the PSND haemorrhage, the government must get control of its own borrowing. The current government budget is fanciful.

The biggest untold truth is that taxpayers are going to have to pay more, that's all taxpayers. There has to be a prolonged period of fiscal drag or headline increases.

This was an issue that needed to be addressed in 2005 urgently, inaction then has only made the deficit black hole even bigger.

And yes in 1979, the tax take was increased so that the government could get interest rates down. Once government borrowing was under control, surpluses built up, then taxes started to come down.

[Michael McGowan]

So earned income gets clobbered (unless you are an MP where you can dress it up as expenses claims) while the Tories are still pledged to reduce the tax burden on unearned inherited wealth. So much for the party of enterprise. They are also pledged, like Labour, to spend unlimited sums of money on our failed and unreformed healthcare and education systems. Do they have any clue at all about how to put the UK back on a sound competitive footing?

[John Moss]

In the early 80s, top rate income tax was reduced from 98% - on unearned income - and 83% on earned income, to 60%. At the same time, VAT was increased from 12.5% to 17.5%.

The effect of these changes, together with changes to corporate taxes and to National Insurance (increased), was that overall tax receipts as a percentage of GDP rose until 1982, when it started to come down. Through the rest of the 80s, both basic rate and higher rate taxes were cut, from 33% to 25% and from 60% to 40% repesctively.

The benefit of these measures was to better align incentives with saving and investment, rather than reckless spending and something similar is needed and still possible now.

The IHT cut will provide more cash for people who probably don't need it so they will probably invest it. I hope we will stick with our tax-free savings plan, allowing you to put any income you have already paid tax on into a tax free "wrapper" with no limit and I hope we will be bold enough to raise personal allowances substantially and go back to two rates of tax, or even just one!

Whatever we do has to be about energising the economy to return to growth so that we can reduce, then eliminate the deficit and start to repay Brown's debts.

We must also be bold and radical about the assets Government holds. The social housing estate is worth about £350-400 billion and a re-energised "right to buy" ought to be able to liberate 25% of that value over 10 years. We can then use that cash, instead of tax receipts or borrowing, to fund the re-building of run down estates or the building of new homes.

[Yet Another Anon]

Raising the Income Tax threshold should be a priority, switching Health funding out of being funded by NI Contributions, or making such Health spending contributions related. Reduding National Insurance and Income Tax rates should be a priority.

Raising the Standard Rate of VAT should be avoided, but perhaps VAT could be extended and a Super Rate of 20% introduced. Switching alcohol, tobacco, petrol, diesel and drugs onto a Super Rate of VAT and abolishing Excise Duties would streamline the tax system and help a lot of corner shops out.

There need to be cuts in public spending with public spending restraint starting ASAP, immediately if possible - it is not acceptable to cut Defence Spending given how low it is, in fact it should be doubled and conventional and nuclear forces expanded, funding for Criminal Justice and National Security needs to go up.

The NHS should be a big target for efficiency savings and raising money commercially, it needs to be broken up and transferred to private charities limited by guarantee. Scrap the position of Chief Medical Officer.

Deregulate the Labour Market abolishing BERR, abolishing the Minimum Wage, Working Time Regulations, abolish the regulation of redundancies, merge what is left with the DWP into the Treasury, streamline the welfare system reducing the numbers of benefits and making eligibility criteria for disability benefits stricter, a national ID database can be used to make fraud more difficult, if someone is not on the database then they wouldn't be allowed to claim. Possibly scrap the Social Fund, raise the Retirement Age, equalise JSA rates at a lower rate than the 25+ rate with couples rates being double that of single people to avoid perverse incentives for people to claim to be single when they aren't.

R&D and Transport all need more money. New nuclear power building and new alternative energy development can be funded out of utility bills.

NO MORE PROPPING UP OR NATIONALISING BANKS.

A new privatisation programme featuring parts of the BBC, wholesale privatisation of Parcelforce, London Bridge, remaining civil airports in state or local government ownership, Barbican Centre, Royal Opera House, NEC, Royal National Theatre, reducing regulation from the public sector will reduce the number of buildings that will be needed, these can cease being rented, transferred for other uses or if owned sold, reduce non jobs such as jobs for people walking children to school, there are too many therapists - a cull of therapists is needed.

Tackle the litigation culture head on, stop local government having to pay out huge sums for people who trip over paving stones or end up under a tree.

The government needs to be aggressive when cutting, it may be neccessary to railroad changes through in the teeth of bitter opposition from the Civil Service and Lobby Groups.

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper / Old Tonbridgian]

Pitt the Younger had European wars to fight and would have been appalled by today's level of government intrusion and taxation.

The Tories are Labour with nobs on.

Floreat Aetona!

[David]

"Pitt the Younger had European wars to fight and would have been appalled by today's level of government intrusion and taxation."

Conversely, we'd be appalled by the utter squalor people in Pitt's time were left in.

[David]

"a national ID database can be used to make fraud more difficult"

Ugh. You want a £20 billion ID card system? Go join Labour.

[Raj]

Spending efficiency won't be enough. Taxes will probably have to rise somewhere at least temporarily. So if the leadership can't find the money I'd support increased taxes on the wealthy - not out of spite but out of necessity.

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper, anti-roon]

Well David, what would you suggest the government should have done? Sop up any spare capital to go into Welfare programmes rather than invest in the industrial revolution? How would that have helped?

Too much taxation = destruction of innovation and enterprise = squalor, but we won't have long to find out and there's a lot of squalor in the subsidised north of England and inner cities already that you can take a look at now.

[christina Speight]

Cameron fails to grasp the seriousness of the situation we are in and goes on as if these were normal times.

The Telegraph leader today takes up that point saying
" fearful of antagonising public-sector workers, is reluctant to talk about cutting back on state programmes; but causing offence will be unavoidable, because it is inevitable that the Tories will have to challenge the post-war consensus on how those programmes are paid for." and that he "needs to construct a coherent and straightforward case for the state to spend less, borrow less, tax less and do less by getting out of areas where it is neither needed nor wanted."

Janet Daly goes further - -
"I do hope that Mr Cameron is aware that until about twenty minutes ago, the insistence on sitting back and keeping quiet was coming from his own camp and was directed at critics like me who were arguing that cowardice was no way to impress the electorate.

Too many on this blog, too, seem to think that we live in normal times! Let's be clear. Those 'normal times' are gone for good.

[Yet Another Anon]

Establishing identity is crucial to the War on Terror and the War on Crime.

I'm not in favour of the card system, that's really a gimmick, but a biometric database system for everyone passing through the UK will make it easier to know who is in the country, to reduce multiple claims for benefit or services, to pickup criminals and terrorists who at the moment may avoid detection because the system hasn't checked them.

If someone isn't on the database then it would be up to them to proove their identity and that they had a legitimate right to be in the country, until then they would be jailed, interrogated and denied access to services.

As Labour are opposed to withdrawal from the EU, opposed to withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice and opposed to Capital Punishment then I certainly am not going to join Labour.

[Mark Hudson]

Well, I would like confirmation that this is actually true, first of all. If it is, then it means that this Conservative Party is no longer one there is any realistic chance that I can support. If they think I am paying 45%, they can take a running jump.

As Iain correctly points out above, forget this tax on high earners and zero the Overseas Aid budget for starters: it does nothing more than waste UK taxpayers' money propping up corrupt black dictators.

[Tony Makara]

We must not destroy incentive or investment. One might even argue that tax cuts for those in a position to create jobs through enterprise or investment should be a greater priority than tax cuts further down the pecking order. If money is to be saved then it has to come from a restructuring of the public sector, not through a taxation on incentive.

[A North-Western Tory]

Best we can hope for in the first term of a Conservative government (knock on wood) is the current tax pressure unchanged as public expenditure is gradually cut (there are ways to do that, some of which need not be barbaric, such as a hiring freeze in the public sector for the next five years: staff requirements can be fulfilled by absconding people from offices where they might be redundant).

Hopefully then when the economy rebounds,the surge in tax receipts would allow the Treasury to pay off the debt, move towards balancing the budget (although I fear that is something my grandchildren will see) and push through the more structural spending reforms (the Wisconsin-style unemployment benefits reforms are a great objective- we missed that boat ten years ago thanks to "El Gordo" Brown- but hard to implement in this recession).

We're not going to see significant tax cuts until 2014 at the earliest.

[Richard]

"So, if you aren't poor, or you aren't rich, but your average person just about making ends meet, you should be dumped on from up high to pay all the tax this country needs?"

I never said that. I want lower taxes for everyone. I just think it is rather silly for people on low incomes to pay tax and then to get money back in the form of tax credits. A far better solution if to remove them from the tax system altogther by raising the level at which people start paying tax.

[YourNameHere]

They need to go up so we can get out of the mess. Once we've cleared our debts, we need to reduce them again. I understand that, and so do most people I think.

Of course, we also need to strip down expenditure in parallel to this too.

I don't mind paying tax if it's spent well.

[Richard]

The Daily Telegraph got it right when this morning they said, "A strategy for rectifying this dreadful state of affairs must be put in place now, but it must not involve, as the Tories seem to believe it should, an acceptance of the 45p top tax rate planned by the Government."

[Steve Tierney]

Viscount Crouchback at 09:10
>>Anyone who opposes this measure is not a conservative. <<

What an arrogant nonsensical statement! "Anybody who disagrees with my opinion, which MUST be right because its MY opinion, isn't a Conservative." All hail the ultimate political Guru, Viscount Crouchback! I'm sorry, but I do disagree with you sire, please don't have me executed.

Sally Roberts at 10:05
>>Quite correctly David Cameron points out we are all in this together. <<

And we all agree that. But there's nothing "all in this together"'ish about some people bearing a proportionally heavier burden than others.

>>what would you have us do? Float along in a small blue bubble pretending nothing is wrong and sticking fingers in ears "Laa Laa Laa, I'm not listening" <<

Cut our ridiculous expenditure in order to live within our means? Stop throwing money down the toilet? God forbid we might actually look to cutting our waste and folly before taking the easy route and charging everybody more and more and more.

>>or facing up to telling people the unpalatable truth.<<

"The unpalatable truth" is not that our frugal and careful government needs more money for fair use, it is that it spends much, much too much.

>>Perhaps a bit of World War 2 Blitz Spirit might be in order?<<

Blitz Spirit will not be encouraged by slapping the successful with a higher tax percentage. That'll create class division.

A percentage is a magic thing. The result of its calculation is greater, the higher you earn. As if by magic, people pay more money each time they earn more money. it's fair, and it treats everybody exactly the same. People agree the rich must pay more because they can afford more, and via a percentage that is precisely what should, and does happen.

But making them pay a *higher* percentage? That's not fair. That supposes that they are somehow "better" than those who earn less. I've never yet seen an argument that makes me accept that *any* higher percentage is right. I'd be happy with a single flat percentage for everybody.

If we need to help the poor (which I accept we do) then let's increase the personal allowance and take more people completely out of tax, then have a flat-rate higher percentage for everything earned above that rate in proportion for what a properly slimmed-down and honest government needs to run the country.

[Yet Another Anon]

The General Public are probably very confused - David Cameron and George Osborne were vigourously opposed to the creation of a 45p tax rate, if they really are supporting it now then they have to answer their own arguments against it - are they sure it will really raise any money or will (as Kenneth Clarke was saying just a matter of weeks ago in tv interviews) it cause so many rich people to move their money that not only will it damage the economy, but will raise no extra revenue or significantly less than the amount suggested it would raise?

[ToryBlog.com - The Editor says that I must warn you that I have been a naughty boy and not a loyal Tory-abix]

The IHT cut was very clearly defined as tax neutral as it was offset perfectly with the non-dom levy income.

In current circumstances, it would be reckless not to assess how the expectation of how much can be raised by this tax may have fallen to see if the IHT cut is still viable.

It is time for Cameron and Osborne to be honest, if the IHT cut is staying, then it, imho is clearly a tax cut, not a tax neutral measure.

[Sally Roberts]

Steve, I am most certainly not disagreeing with you that waste must be cut and we know that Labour are the Past Masters of Waste Generation! Over on the Local Government blog there is an article about NuLab's gimmicky scheme for the creation of "Young Mayors". There are all sorts of other gimmicks and wheezes which create "spin" for Labour but not much else. Let's have the Government cut its advertising budget for a start! Listening to the radio we hear public information ad after public information ad...whether it is DEFRA telling us not to smuggle sausages from non-EU countries or the FCO telling us to be prepared for our foreign holiday so that if Stacey the Chavette throws herself off the hotel balcony in a drunken stupor her mates will know where to get help! Cut the constant stream of this patronising guff and millions could be saved at a stroke.

[dcj]

What a dreadful, dreadful idea. Do some Tories NEVER learn? Higher direct taxes secure increased employment (for tax avoidance lawyers) travel agents, international removers and bloodsucking parasites in Government offices. Haven't we shown that the 45% rate brings in peanuts but will cost oodles in enforcement?

Taxes may well need to go up to repay McBroon's slate at the Last Chance Saloon but I for one will not be happy with any tax increases unless every last bit of public waste has been cut out. Why aren't we proposing getting rid of the Arts Council? Slashing Labour's armies of real nappy co-ordinators? Being ruthless with the Help A Dictator Fund (aka the International Aid Budget)

If there has to be pain - and there has - the ones who should feel the most are the ones overpopulating the jobs pages in the Guardian who've done well out of ZaNuLab without putting anything back.

And if we really have to put taxes up we should be looking - as MT did - at indirect taxes. That in itself will discourage consumption and just maybe encourage savings.

And all those like our aristo friend who doubt this should look at the glee from the odd troll on this site.

Think again, Dave - or the job you'll save will be yours as Leader of the Opposition.

For a time, anyway.

[Bishop Swine]

With the public purse in such a bad state, it would be a very dishonest party that claimed to be in a position for tax cuts. Of course the better off can afford a little more and most will except it, providing the medium term aim is to reduce taxation as soon as financially possible. Those who oppose this rise might like to point to viable alternatives, I am all ears.

[Jack Stone]

Of course David Cameron should back raising taxes for the well off. Its clear that efficiency savings alone will not cure the debt problem so taxes will have to go up and its right that burden falls on the well off.
Increasing VAT hits the poor most so that should not be an option.
The trouble with those on this site is that they haven`t grasp the fact that there are not massive savings to be made in the public sector. Not enough anyway that will plug the hole in the poublic finances.
You either increase taxes or you start cutting frontline services and throwing, doctors, nurses, teachers etc out of work.I know what the majority on this site would like but if you do it in government you will rightly get kicked out at the first opportunity.

[RichardJ]

"Perhaps a bit of World War 2 Blitz Spirit might be in order?"

I suspect our modern more individualistic society is less likely to accept such an idea. So many of us have had it so easy that the idea of austerity is more likely to provoke riots than a silent acquiesence.

[Teesbridge]

Slicing an extra 5% from the pay of the BBC's Director-General and the Guardian's Chief Executive has a curious attraction somehow...

[Opinicus]

@Sally Roberts @10.05

I have known spaniels that were less loyal.

And you criticise us for living in a blue bubble

You ask what else we can do
1)Scrap every non job advertised in the Guardian since 1997
2) Scrap or suspend most Quangos for the duration of the emergency
3) Announce that with the cuts no single doctor nurse teacher or policeman will be sacked
4) Retire from the ECHR and stop all benefits, housing entitlement, health and education entitlement for illegal immigrants. They will deport themselves.
5) End the Barnet Formula
6) Pull the army out of Cyprus, Germany Iraq and Afghanistan
7) Hold a referendum on the EU and withdraw

That's the £100b saved. Use half to pay off debt, a quarter to reduce corporation tax and a quarter to raise the income tax threshold

[Steve Tierney]

Okay Sally. We are in agreement there.

The problem with tax changes is their cyclical nature.

If you increase taxes, people have less to spend so government money is coming from wage taxation rather than consumption taxation.

If you decrease taxes, people have more to spend and so taxation is coming primarily from consumption.

Now its true that "outside elements", like fear of recession or fear of bank safety, affect this. But beneath all that, it is still basically true.

In both cases the amount of money remains the same, but the first is the government "taking" taxes and the second is the people "choosing" to spend. I prefer the latter.

In regards to needing more money to escape our current financial trap, there have been a great many suggestions as to how we can save huge amounts of money, here and elsewhere, none of which had anything to do with higher taxation.

In the end, I'd support the "blitz spirit" and higher (across the board) taxation from the Conservatives if, and only if, all the cost-saving measures had been implemented and found wanting. Then, I agree, it would be proven necessary and we will all have to "do our bit". I won't accept people unfairly paying the burden of a top-heavy state which spends what it likes, when it likes, with no regard to who pays.

[pp]

The biggest boost to wealth generation in this country would be to free up the human-resources currently tied up in the wealth-consuming public sector, so they are free to generate wealth in the private sector.

Sacking a civil-servant is a double win:

1) They stop being part of the tax-burden

2) They are free to become wealth generators, and so share the tax burden.

We need more wealth generators -- we don't need to import them, we just need to free up
the people who are currently unproductive.

The more senior the civil servant, the more likely they are to be successful wealth-generators in the private sector.

Put these people to work for the country - by sacking them from their public posts.

However the burden of gordons debts should not fall on future workers who have barely benefited from gordons wealth destruction. It should fall on those who have become rich under gordons mad economics. An exceptional tax/grab on the rich (including their tax avoiding trusts) to put this country back on the rails.

Don't discourage the wealth generators of tomorrow - just recover what should never have been handed out in the first place...

[Yet Another Anon]

Those who oppose this rise might like to point to viable alternatives, I am all ears.
The 45p rate proposal is a tax increase, it has not been legislated for, David Cameron and George Osborne with Kenneth Clarke's backing had made it clear that if elected they would not introduce the increase, that the proposed increase by Labour would damage the economy and raise little revenue, probably not even that suggested.

As things stood it was to be a matter for the General Election.

As things stand if this change in policy has occurred then Laboura and Conservative Partys go into the election both pledged to create the 45p tax rate, as I understand it the Liberal Democrats remain opposed and UKIP of course want a flat tax which is the best option.

[Sally Roberts]

Thank you Opinicus for your ideas. I most certainly agree with you on items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I also believe that item 7 might well lance the boil.

As for comparing me to a spaniel - well that is one of the finest compliments you could pay me. As the daughter of a former Cavalier King Charles Spaniel owner and breeder I know what beautiful dogs they are! An interesting fact about them you may not know is that because they are "Royal" dogs beloved of the Late King Charles II they are allowed in any Royal Palace without let or hindrance!
Apologies Editor for going off topic...

[ToryBlog.com - The Editor says that I must warn you that I have been a naughty boy and not a loyal Tory-abix]

Look, someone just needs to ask Cameron:

#1 Is the IHT tax staying?
#2 If so, does he believe it is still tax neutral?

That looks like a real tax cut to me, which I support, but I just wish Cameron would be honest about it because if he supports that cut at this time of enormous debt, then he can't also argue that taxes must rise because of the same debt.

[Mark Hudson]

Jack, you are clearly in need of some serious professional help. Taxing the allegedly well off is a compete nonsense. It raises comparatively little, will drive people and companies to relocate and ensure the proliferation of avoidance schemes.

The public sector is spectacularly inefficient and bloated. If you want practical demonstration of this, read The Guardian Jobs section every week and see how many wholly pointless jobs there are on massively inflated salaries.

[Michael McGowan]

Politicians lie, cheat the voters and steal from them. That is what they do regardless of party. Both parties are responsible for the current mess. Labour created it and the Tories condoned it and still do condone it, because they are terrified of alienating the Guardian and the BBC. Once taxes go up, whatever the pretext, they tend to stay up: show me the politicians who would rather spend a pound of their own money when they can spend a pound of yours. They will always claim that they "need" your money for skoolsnospitals.

[christina Speight]

Jack Stone @1110 writes "the fact that there are not massive savings to be made in the public sector."

Oh yes there are but he can't see the wood for the trees he's in. Scrap ID cards now. Massive savings of billions. Scrap the failed NHS computer project which will never work - saving billions. Scrap regional government - saving billions. CVut quangos down - particularly top salaries.

These cuts (just for starters ) would be popular except with our Socialist friend Stone.

[SG]

It may well be necessary to have a 45% tax band, but this should only be as a last resort after efficiency savings and other cost-cutting measures. We have an opportunity here to slim down the size of government and make it more efficient, and the danger is that introducing new sources of taxation will reduce the impetus to do so.

If we do introduce a 45% tax we must make clear that it is a temporary measure, preferably with an end date, and that we were forced into this by the disastrous economic policies of the Labour government.

[Alan Carcas]

In the present political climate re bonuses, fat-cat financiers and bankers, greed, etc., etc., it would be political suicide for David Cameron to do anything other than commit to the 45p tax bracket. He hasn't abandoned the Tory party principles of lower taxation, smaller government, and a more balanced society, all of which brought me into the Tory party 60 years ago, but, in the present climate he is right to adopt a pragmatic approach. Thatcher did. She didn't achieve it all overnight. She didn't promise tax cuts, just a rebalancing of the taxation system between direct and indirect taxation. Doing it was enough to cause a hell of a furore in her 1979/80 budgets, but the progress stemmed from there.

It's no use right-wing Tories demanding "action this day" the problems the nation has, created by this contemptible government, will take time to sort out. I give you the four P's. Be Positive my brethren, embrace Pragmatism, discover Patience, and, dare I say it, Prudence!

[timforchange]

Nobody in the Conservative party wants to increase tax to 45%. If we could start from a blank sheet in 2010 our natural instinct would be to look at how we could CUT taxes. Unfortunately, we will be taking over a country that has monumental debts both on the record and off the record (PFI liabilities estimated at 100bn GBP). It's a bit like buying a house and then finding that the previous owner has smashed everything up and only left the shell of the building. Don't underestimate the seriousness of the disaster that Labour have left as their legacy. Many of the projects that they have started any Conservative government will be legally obliged to feed with more cash. New laws to restructure government spending, cut expenditure and bring more accountability cannot be passed overnight. There is so much to fix when the Conservative come into power that it is naive to say "the Conservatives should just cut expenditure and then cut taxes".
Better to have this argument now. It demonstrates just what a mess Labour has put this country in. It also has the advantage that it prevents Labour from attacking us as budget cutters. I genuinely believe the majority of the country will understand this move and although top earners will not welcome it, they will realise that it has to be done. We need to follow through and communicate that the fault is Brown's as Chancellor and PM.
I believe that the majority of the country will back this. There will always be some ideological 'die hards' who will say that the party should be committed to tax cutting at every opportunity. But ideology (predominantly of the left variety) over practicality and pragmatism has been what has ruined Britain over the last 12 years. A conservative government must be pragmatic and responsible, this move is both.

[Raj]

show me the politicians who would rather spend a pound of their own money when they can spend a pound of yours

Ken Clarke cut income tax without putting it up in other ways in his last budget before the 97 election, didn't he?

To be honest I'm not fussed if the IHT changes are deferred. Might be fairer to cut income tax instead given the financial crisis and fall in house prices.

[Jane Gould]

I don't think we've been left with much of a choice.
This country has again been run into the ground by a socialist government which can't count.
At least we are developing some positive plans to reduce waste; but we CANNOT just take a meat cleaver to the public sector as the social cost and long-term fallout would be appalling.
Note - to those who have described themselves as "traditional Tories" the Telegraph is written to back up your views. Not to help you move on.

[A Reformed Labour Voter]

Truth is NO ONE wants to pay for Gordon's mess. But it has to be paid for anyway.

The City is in bits, Oil is running out, manufacturing long gone. There are no easy answers.

So given that 'we are all in this together', we do not try to get one group to pay a disproportionate amount. We put a flat tax of say 5% or whatever, on every penny paid (or deducted from benefit) until the debt is cleared. This could be doubled for migrant workers. And so that everyone knows what this tax is and who was responsible, we call it 'Gordon's Levy'.

Then hopefully, the electorate will remember Gordon Brown for the hubristic buffoon that he was AND they'll remember his profligate Party - every single day. Especially when there is an election!

[buffymaun]

What is more alarming: the economic ignorance that underlies the thought that raising taxes on the wealth creators increases total tax take, or the thought that they know this is rubbish but are prepared to pander to the Redtops and Guardian agenda for cheap popularity regardless? Neither prospect pleases.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: A Reformed Labour Voter | March 20, 2009 at 12:04

So given that 'we are all in this together', we do not try to get one group to pay a disproportionate amount.

and

We put a flat tax of say 5% or whatever, on every penny paid (or deducted from benefit) until the debt is cleared. This could be doubled for migrant workers.

Oh, the irony!

You should tax people based on what they can afford. If you tax the poor, you are taking money from people who are scrimping and saving for food and electricty, whereas for another person tax means they are forced to move their holiday destination from the Seychelles to the Greek islands.

We should all be sharing the pain, and that's no the same as sharing the tax. Tax burdens still fall disproportionately on the poor.

In fact, the highest 10% of earners pay a lower proportion of their income than the lowest 10% (42.6% vs 34.9%). Surely even you think that is unfair?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/
pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070222/text/70222w0005.htm

[Malcolm Dunn]

Some people don't get it I think.We or Labour if they win the next election will have to make the swinging cuts in public expenditure anyway. I simply don't believe ID cards or the present level of civil servants or other public sector workers will survive as they are either. I'm sure 'waste' will be curtailed too. But I really doubt that that all that will anywhere near enough. The glib statements coming out of people like Jack Stone (well I suppose that is to be expected) but also many on the right on this thread would be funny if the situation wasn't so serious.
Sooner or later Cameron and Osborne are going to have to start giving indications where they intend to make savings. That may well cost votes but I think it's a price worth paying.Being honest with the electorate will pay off in the end.

[Victor, NW Kent]

We are in for 5 years, at least, of austerity in order to rebuild the shattered economy. I see no reason at all why those who earn over £150,000 a year and are best off should not shoulder some extra part of the load.

We certainly cannot get more tax from the unemployed or the low paid or those who are just about staying above the water.

This is nothing to do with Conservative principles, which I have always held - there is a greater imperative and that is sheer survival.

Once the country is back on an even keel and debt reduced all round than it may be possible to look at tax reductions.

Those who will leave because of the higher taxes may easily find that their new host country faces similar taxation needs.

So, if Cameron will not get your votes because you cannot face reality then face another 5 years of Labour - you will have deserved it.

[Adam in London]

Malcolm,

quite right. Assuming Cameron becomes PM in 2010, he will takeover a government that will be borrowing in excess of £150bn a year. So, even if we manage to cut £100bn out of expenditure, we'll still be borrowing £50bn and won't have even started to pay back the goodness knows how many billions of debt Brown will have already racked up by then.

There is no longer a choice between raising taxes and cutting spending - we have to do both.

[RichardJ]

We should recall the money we've given to the banks for a start.

[HYUFD]

A 45p top rate is here to stay. Both main parties support it and so do the public, with more than 70% backing it in the last Yougov poll, so it will be politically difficult to reverse it. When you consider that the top rate was 60% until the last years of Thatcher it is not that significant and brings us into line with most of Europe, Australia and Canada. Unless it goes up to 50% or more then there will be no major political argument on the top rate.

[John Broughton]

Opinicus - thnks for yor reminder about the eu contributions; stopping them would make a big dent in the debt mountain with the added benefit of being free of the dead hand of Brussels.

[Richard]

It saddens me that the vast majority of people posting on this site have given up and have no real thoughts of their own. The majority of comments can be summed up as follows:

"Brown has made a real mess of things therefore taxes will have to go up to pay for the mess."

In reality what these people are saying is:

"The country is in a real mess financially and we have no Conservative ideas of our own so we may as well back what Labour are saying, it is much easier that way."

Even if the Tories just cut the Civil Service back to 1997 levels they would save billions.

[Richard]

"A 45p top rate is here to stay. Both main parties support it and so do the public, with more than 70% backing it in the last Yougov poll."

The Labour Party support it because they are Socialists, the Tories support it because they have no ideas of their own, and 70 per cent of the UK support it because they will not have to pay it.

There will however be a significant number of people who do have to pay it and they will not like it. Many of these people will not be fat cat bankers, they will be the wealth creaters that this country needs and many of them will simply leave. You only have to look at how many major companies have moved away from the UK in recent years.

I have several friends who have either left already or are planning to leave.

[Comstock]

"I have several friends who have either left already or are planning to leave.

Off you pop, you won't be missed.

Of course if incomes were more equal none of this would be an issue.

You really want to out flank Labour? Support a maximum wage of 100k a year.

[HYUFD]

Richard,

As Australia has a 45p top rate, Canada has around a 47p top rate, China has a 45p top rate and France and Germany have top rates of more than 45p I doubt there will be that many places high earners can 'flee' to. Even Obama is putting up the top rate in the US.

[Richard]

"As Australia has a 45p top rate, Canada has around a 47p top rate, China has a 45p top rate and France and Germany have top rates of more than 45p I doubt there will be that many places high earners can 'flee' to. Even Obama is putting up the top rate in the US."

There are nearly 200 countries in the world many which have lower levels of taxation than we do in the UK.

[A Reformed Labour Voter]

Resident Leftie

You talk about irony!

It is your friends who have brought this disaster to our door. And you're on the attack about progressive/regressive taxation! Now THAT'S irony, actually no it's laughable!

If you slap big taxes on the talent and the wealth producers, as they did in the 60's & 70's, they just leave the country. We've been there and know where it leads.

Lower taxes have been shown many times to bring bigger tax receipts because people stop using avoidance schemes. And they encourage wealth creation - work hard, take the risk and keep more cash for yourself. Not rocket science is it?

The truth here is that though Mr Brown was the architect, he was aided and abetted by the Bankers and indeed every man & woman in the street who used their homes as investments and lived high on the hog courtesy of credit cards and mortgage equity withdrawal.

Those who know me called me Doom Monger because I was warning of disaster from 2004 onwards (or check out read Moneyweek or Fred Harrison's book, they also warned).

So WE ALL share responsibility for the mess (well Mr Brown is still refusing to accept his) and WE ALL have to pay for it.

If those who have made a few more quid always get squeezed when it hits the fan, then those at the bottom act (and vote) without thinking.

If they get hit in the pocket Dude, they might think twice before voting Labour ever again.

It's called growing up.

[Alan Carcas]

Jane Gould wrote:
This country has again been run into the ground by a socialist government which can't count.

Jane, it isn't so much that they can't count, they bl***ywell never "want" to count. I've seen them all since 1945, and even in the Blair heyday when everybody thought he was the best thing since sliced bread, I tried to warn that this is how it would end. The signs were there then, belive me. But, oh brother, after 1951, 1966, 1970, 1979, this is the worst of the lot. It will take more than a decade of Thatcherism-style government to sort this one out. A period of Conservative inspiration is called for from David Cameron, indeed all of us!

[RichardJ]

"A 45p top rate is here to stay. Both main parties support it and so do the public, with more than 70% backing it in the last Yougov poll, so it will be politically difficult to reverse it."

If we're governing by poll can we limit immigration to 20,000 a year, restore the death penalty and leave the EU?

"Off you pop, you won't be missed"

Rememeber the brain drain of the 1970s? I think you'll find people were missed when forced out by high taxation.

"You really want to out flank Labour? Support a maximum wage of 100k a year."

Have you any idea how economically demented this is? Do you honestly think this wouldn't cripple our economy?

[Malcolm Dunn]

But none with the debts we have Richard.How do you suggest the government repays debt with a lower tax take and a declining economy. We cannot borrow forever.Are you sure you've thought this through?

[David Galea]

Labour's 45p tax rate chess move is causing trouble now, so it'll be interesting to see how Cameron plays it. The international development pledge is a vote loser, for example just think of the students whose course fees are going up and how angry they will be. I think Cameron is on our side but these are difficult decisions. Obviously the Labour trap is to get Cameron stuck in a 'damned if you do damned if you don't' situation to break Conservative unity, and we can expect more of this over the next year. We shouldn't be underestimating Harriet Harman, she is going to be a lot more trouble than anyone seems to realise at the moment. Brown's going to throw the kitchen sink out of desperation, so I think we should be critical of these tough decisions yet still remain loyal to the leadership as the fight to lead Britain is going to be dirty and hellish.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: A Reformed Labour Voter | March 20, 2009 at 13:53

Lower taxes have been shown many times to bring bigger tax receipts because people stop using avoidance schemes. And they encourage wealth creation - work hard, take the risk and keep more cash for yourself. Not rocket science is it?

Well, no they haven't. The relationship between taxes as a share of GDP and growth and productivity is statistically insignificant, while the relationship to inequality is strong and significant:

http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2000/equity/2.htm

If those who have made a few more quid always get squeezed when it hits the fan, then those at the bottom act (and vote) without thinking

You didn't read the figures, did you? At the moment, someone in the lowest decile pays a greater proportion of their income in tax than the lowest decile! This is not vaguely equitable. I don't see how you could ever have voted Labour if you don't believe in equitable taxation.

50% of the population between them own only 7% of the wealth, and that's under a slightly redistributive government. They aren't benefitting from improved IHT thresholds and CCG tax free allowances. Tax Credits help, but they are not enough. This rate of tax is reasonable and is supported by 70% of the population. If you are earning 150K+ you can afford it.

[HYUFD]

Richard,

Certainly we will at least need to impose further restrictions on immigration in the present economic climate based on skills shortages and those genuinely fleeing persecution and build on Labour's points system. I also fear the BNP will win MEPs and could get as much as 10% of the vote in June.

[Andrew S]

"Anyone who opposes this measure is not a conservative. The most basic principle of conservatism is sound money. Pitt the Younger introduced taxes when the Exchequer needed revenue, and then removed them when the nation's finances were on a sounder footing. I am sure that Cameron will do the same."

I agree with you. I believe Cameron will revoke these measures after the economy has recovered.
I don't really see how people can object to a 45% tax rate for higher earners. It makes sense that if you have more money, you should pay slightly more tax.
You could say that it is a disincentive to succeed, but that's rubbish really isn't it?
You'll just have to work that little bit harder if you're really that bothered by an extra 5%. Bah.

[JS]

If raising the highest rate of tax becomes part of Cameron's policy this is just another proof, if one was needed, that the man is not a Conservative. What does the Party stand for if it isn't for greater personal freedom to spend your own money how you choose, for less government interference and for cutting, and then cutting again, every aspect of needless public expenditure and for the lowest possible rates of taxation. Private initiative and enterprise should be encouraged by low income tax rates, by abolishing capital gains and inheritance tax and the reward for hard work and job creating industry. We shouldn't pander to the politics of envy and jealousy by those who think the Government owe them a free ride and who resent the success of anyone else, however hard won that success has been. That is Socialism.

[ToryBlog.com - The Editor says that I must warn you that I have been a naughty boy and not a loyal Tory-abix]

"How do you suggest the government repays debt with a lower tax take and a declining economy"

By preventing a taxodus of corporations, and even encouraging new ones to invest in the UK.

There seems a unique opportunity to do this with Obama and his euro-like policies in the WhiteHouse.

That's why Gordon Brown is so wrong. We do not need a 'global bargain', we need to get tough, think for ourselves and start competing!

Cameron could even argue that lower taxes will help corporations through the crisis, helping them to retain jobs and prevent unemployment increasing.

Keeping people in work by lowering the tax burden on struggling companies is an easy to understand message.

[Sean Fear]

"You didn't read the figures, did you? At the moment, someone in the lowest decile pays a greater proportion of their income in tax than the lowest decile! This is not vaguely equitable. "

They may well pay a higher *marginal* rate of taxation, but they won't be paying a higher proportion of their income in tax. Quite a high proportion of the income of the top 10% will be taxed at 40%, while none of the income of the bottom 10% will be taxed at that rate.

The bottom 10% are also likely to be receiving back far more in the way of social security payments than the top 10% will.

[Terry]

It is actually wrong in principle to take 45% of anyone's income at any level.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: Sean Fear | March 20, 2009 at 14:45

They may well pay a higher *marginal* rate of taxation, but they won't be paying a higher proportion of their income in tax. Quite a high proportion of the income of the top 10% will be taxed at 40%, while none of the income of the bottom 10% will be taxed at that rate.

I said they will be paying a greater proportion of their income in tax, not they would be paying greater income tax. It's the total tax burden which is important.

[John Reeks]

What's the big deal? An extra 5% tax isn't going to make much difference to those earning above £150,000. Surely its important to send the right signals, that when the going gets tough the richest have to pay a fair slice. And an extra 5% on the top rate could actually be beneficial, to stifle to calls that we are the party of the rich and to act as a placebo for a society which, frankly, is probably in the mood for something far more stringent.

[pp]

Sheesh - I thought arguments about 'marginal tax rates' and 'proportion of income' were for the school debating societies.

If you put the top rate of tax up, then the bosses will give themselves pay rises to protect their 'take home pay' and there will be less money to pay the workers, so they won't get anything. When you later cut the tax everyone will complain that the rich are being 'given' a bonus.

Differentials will find their own level as the bosses and workers use the tools at their disposal to trouser the largest share possible (threats of redundancy vs strike action).

The bulk of Browns debt should be covered by a tax on assets not on pay. Brown gave our money away, it has been spent on assets, we should take it back (a one off exercise) - not punish future wealth-creators.

A tenner off a single mother struggling in a part time job will matter to her - quarter of a million off a multi-millionaire will not make them go hungry.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

A 'fair share'?
Define 'fair'.
None of this is 'fair' to any sector of society. What would be 'fair' is that the government take full responsibility for the mess that we're in rather than blithely predicting an imminent end to the recession, and cut back drastically on non-essential public sector spending. Why on earth Cameron isn't protesting vehemently Brown's proposals to spend even more of our grandchildren's earnings is beyond me.

[Jack Stone]

The NHS IT project as been badly managed but if they get it to work alright it will increase efficiency in the NHS and give patients a far better service.
It shouldn`t be scraped but managed better so it is fully brought in quicker. At present new technology is used to access x-rays for instance and this does mean that doctors can have access to x-ray results in minutes so the prize of getting it to work fully is far greater effiencincy and service.
The Conservative party shouldn`t be luddites and think we should go backwards but say they will manage these things better and bring healthcare fully into the modern world.
Ms Speight a lot of the alleged savings that are mentioned by you and others on this site are actually money that as already been spent.The money needed to bring the debt problem down can not be raised by spending cuts alone. Taxes are going to have to go up and I think the ones who should pay are are the haves and not the have not`s.

[Frankland Macdonald Wood]

Well, we have all long thought that there is little to choose between the Cameroons and Zanulabour. Both are 'tax and spend' parties with not a monetarist fibre in their beings. The axiom of a true conservative is NEVER to raise TAXES but ALWAYS to REDUCE SPENDING, just like it is at home.

It is high time we did the following:-

1) Withdraw from expensive foreign military adventures.

2) Resist spending on more expensive capital ships for the Navy.

3) Stop pretending we have or we need a nucleur deterrent (whatever that can now mean?).

4) Stop immigration, asylum seekers and all the on-costs.

5) Take an axe 'Benefits Culture' sector of society. Pay far fewer people far less money far less often.

6) Take a hatchet to grants and subsidies; on the basis of "If a thing is worth doing it will pay its own way. If a thing won't pay its way, probably we should not be doing it".

7) Reduce the number of people going into University Education. There are far more students at university than there are persons of real academic ability. Thus many idle away their time, drop out, get poor degrees in 'silly subjects' or still find they cannot get any employment at the end of the process.

8) Encourage people to take out private health insurance and private education, so as to cut the numbers in the NHS and the state schools.

9) Stop the waste of so-called 'Foreign Aid'. Much of it goes in admin, corruption or to the 'wrong' people. Why do it anyway? I thought we were in a financial mess? And I thought all those 'hard-luck' cases wanted their independence. Well, independence means just that.

In other words stop the spending that we cannot afford. Don't soak the other useful and productive sector of society. It deserves help and encouragement for being in work and in funds; not punishment for failing to be a malingerer, sponger, drop-out, wastrel, economic migrant or other useless no-hoper.

Get a grip Britain! Get a grip Tory Party! Stop the rot. Spend less. Tax less. Interfere less. Give us back our country, our economy and our lives. Stop pratting about on Hoodies, Green Issues, Foreigners and Losers and start looking after the intelligent and winners; because when all is said and done they are the only people that really matter to any nation. We all know that is true but are too PC averse to say so.

Many of us are getting to the state of being so pissed off we may just avoid all of you and look to other means. That would be unfortunate to say the least of it.

[Tax the greedy rich, yes please!]

"A 45p top rate of tax, over my dead body! I did not join the Conservative Party because I wanted to pay more tax, I joined because I believe lower taxes are a moral good." (Richard)

The tax rate is going to be for earning over £100,000. Do you earn that much? I don't and doubt I ever will yet I'll probably be paying about 1/3 of my income in taxes. Why shouldn't top earners pay more tax, especially the b(w)ankers!

[RichardJ]

"It shouldn`t be scraped"

The word is scrapped, Jack.

[RichardJ]

"I don't really see how people can object to a 45% tax rate for higher earners."

Because the idea of giving almost half of what you earn away is pretty obscene.

"It makes sense that if you have more money, you should pay slightly more tax."

You already do. There's a very large gap between 20% and 40%. Furthermore even if there was a flat rate of 20% those on a higher income would be paying more.

[denial]

This is a new one for the Conservative Party, promising to raise taxes before the election.

It caused enough trouble when we promised not to increase them and then did so afterward.

Today's Conservative Party stands for nothing.