Osborne torpedos Clegg's wealth tax

Chancellor says proposed tax would "drive away the wealth creators and the businesses".

The submarine Chancellor has risen to torpedo Nick Clegg's proposed wealth tax. In his first broadcast interview since returning from holiday, George Osborne told ITV: "I am clear that the wealthy should pay more which is why in the recent budget I increased the tax on very expensive property transactions. But we also have to be careful as a country we don’t drive away the wealth creators and the businesses that are going to lead our economic recovery." In other words, it's a non-starter.

Osborne's stance is short-sighted. As I wrote earlier, taxes on wealth are both more progressive and economically beneficial than those on income. By shifting investment away from unproductive assets and into wealth-creating industries, they can increase growth (something the British economy conspicuously lacks), rather than reduce it (as taxes on consumpation and income do). For the Tories, who cannot afford to be seen as the party of the rich in an age of austerity, heavier taxation of wealth also makes political sense. As ConservativeHome editor Tim Montgomerie argued this morning:

A reasonable wealth tax can be used by the Conservative Party to signal that we are not the party of the privileged and already propertied in the South East but also the party of the young northern entrepreneur or homebuyer who is starting out in life. More taxes on mansion owners in the south to fund less taxes on younger people starting out in life. If the Conservative Party embraces such a policy it's the nearest thing we have to a Clause IV moment

But Osborne, wedded to conservative dogma, is still unwilling to recognise as much.

George Osborne warned that a wealth tax risked "driving business away". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

@Simon_Cullen via Twitter
Show Hide image

All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover

Where do I even start?

Hello. Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong that if you have seen today’s Daily Mail cover, you no doubt immediately turned to the person nearest to you to ask: “Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong.”

But just how wrong is the wrong Mail cover? Let me count the ways.

  1. Why does it say “web” and not “the web”?
  2. Perhaps they were looking on a spider’s web and to be honest that makes more sense because
  3. How does it take TWO MINUTES to use a search engine to find out that cars can kill people?
  4. Are the Mail team like your Year 8 Geography teacher, stuck in an infinite loop of typing G o o g l e . c o m into the Google search bar, the search bar that they could’ve just used to search for the thing they want?
  5. And then when they finally typed G o o g l e . c o m, did they laboriously fill in their search term and drag the cursor to click “Search” instead of just pressing Enter?
  6. The Daily Mail just won Newspaper of the Year at the Press Awards
  7. Are the Daily Mail – Newspaper of the Year – saying that Google should be banned?
  8. If so, do they think we should ban libraries, primary education, and the written word?
  9. Sadly, we know the answer to this
  10. Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time
  11. Upon first look, this cover seemed so obviously, very clearly fake
  12. Yet it’s not fake
  13. It’s real
  14. More than Google, the Mail are aiding terrorists by pointing out how to find “manuals” online
  15. While subsets of Google (most notably AdSense) can be legitimately criticised for profiting from terrorism, the Mail is specifically going at Google dot com
  16. Again, do they want to ban Google dot com?
  17. Do they want to ban cars?
  18. Do they want to ban search results about cars?
  19. Because if so, where will that one guy from primary school get his latest profile picture from?
  20. Are they suggesting we use Bing?
  21. Why are they, once again, focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victims?
  22. The Mail is 65p
  23. It is hard to believe that there is a single person alive, Mail reader or not, that can agree with this headline
  24. Three people wrote this article
  25. Three people took two minutes to find out cars can drive into people
  26. Trees had to die for this to be printed
  27. It is the front cover of the Mail

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.