Clegg’s tax message to Osborne: we’re not in this one together
The Lib Dem leader has set the terms of pre-Budget debate and put the Tories on the defensive.
By Rafael Behr Published 23 February 2012
There is a Russian joke from the Soviet era: a genie offers to grant a poor peasant his heart's desire. "My neighbour has this beautiful cow that produces bucketfuls of milk," says the lowly farmer. "He sold the milk and bought a bull. Now he has a whole herd of cows . . ." "I get it!" the genie interrupts, "your wish is to have a cow like your neighbour's." "No," the baffled peasant replies. "I want you to kill my neighbour's cow."
When the system is rigged so that the little guy can't imagine making a fortune for himself, he thinks it only fair that the already fortunate should be brought down a peg or two. British capitalism doesn't yet suffocate ambition quite like Soviet communism but it lacks convincing offers of self-advancement. The surest way to get rich in this country is to have rich parents; the likeliest outcome for poor children is poor adulthood. Those in the middle, made insecure by rising unemployment and frozen wages, feel dragged down by economic currents and doubt their individual efforts can beat the tide.
Addressing that fear of financial drowning is the biggest political challenge facing the Chancellor ahead of his 2012 Budget. The economic challenge is to stimulate growth. The two imperatives are related but not as easily aligned as George Osborne would like. The natural way to bring them together is to reinforce the pockets of the less well-off with tax cuts.
Wealth stealth
The problem is that Osborne has made extreme parsimony the emblem of his credibility in the eyes of voters and financial markets. Any tax cut has to be balanced with an equivalent spending cut or a tax rise. To help the "squeezed middle", Osborne has to make someone else pay.
Who? The obvious candidates are people with plenty of money already, but that is a tricky proposition for a Tory chancellor. Conservatives abhor using rich people's cash to compensate others. It is a practice believed to denigrate aspiration and stunt the economy by punishing enterprise. This ethos – the need to privilege "wealth creators" in the tax system – is ingrained in the party's culture (and policed by its rich donors). It was adopted by New Labour on the understanding that Britons were mostly unoffended by other people's wealth and hostile to the idea of it being confiscated for collective ends. (In reality, Gordon Brown redistributed energetically but felt obliged to so so mostly by stealth.)
A vital question in politics today is how much that attitude is changing. The financial-sector bailout felt like a redistribution from the ordinary to the opulent. The City authors of the economic crisis were spared the pain of austerity. Plainly, bankers are ripe for a bashing. It is less clear whether that translates into an appetite for wider-reaching raids on the well-off.
Nick Clegg is gambling that it does. He is staking his party's future on a policy of easing the tax burden for people on low pay and making up the difference from those higher up the scale. In practice, this involves vigorous, high-profile lobbying of the Chancellor to accelerate raising personal income-tax allowances towards £10,000. This is already coalition policy, but only as an aspiration to be met some time this parliament. Clegg is openly challenging Osborne to get a move on.
This is not quite an ambush. The Lib Dems warned their coalition partners what they were about to do, but did not seek their approval. "It was squared with Downing Street, but not exactly agreed," says one senior government official. The Tories grumble that the Lib Dem campaign is a travesty of Budget tradition. Coalition changes the rules, reply the Lib Dems. There is no tradition of two-party government.
On the question of where the extra money would come from, the Lib Dems have floated trimming pension relief for higher-rate taxpayers. Clegg also clings to the idea of a "mansion tax" on houses worth more than £2m.
That policy is toxic for Tories, whose safe seats are dotted with fancy real estate. The prospect of sizing up the nation's housing stock for a new tax threatens also to make ordinary households look wealthier than they feel. Labour, by contrast, is open to the idea. The mansion tax is being actively debated in Ed Miliband's office, partly because the leader's freshly advertised enthusiasm for fiscal discipline needs reinforcing with revenue-raising measures and partly because, with parliament on course to stay hung at the next election, there are strategic reasons to flirt with Lib Dem policy.
Privately, senior figures around Miliband admit to being impressed at how effectively Nick Clegg has set the terms of pre-Budget debate and put the Tories on the defensive. Although Labour harbours no affection for the Lib Dems, there is recognition of a shared interest in branding the Conservatives as defenders of inherited privilege and hoarded wealth.
Genie released
Meanwhile, Clegg's manoeuvres have aroused the competitive tax-cutting spirit on the Tory benches. In recent weeks, Osborne has fielded calls from his own side for corporation tax cuts, tax breaks for married couples, scrapping the 50p top rate and reducing employers' National Insurance contributions. That last suggestion overlaps with one prong of Labour's five-point growth plan – a National Insurance break for small businesses. Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, would also cut VAT and has warily acknowledged that, given the need for economic stimulus, Clegg's plans to raise the income-tax threshold are better than nothing.
A Conservative chancellor should thrive in a climate where the consensus is settling around the need to trim taxes. But Osborne is constrained by the obligation to match any relief with immediate and equal pain elsewhere. That dilemma will follow him right up to the next election. Politics in the age of austerity will be framed increasingly in terms of who pays, or, rather, whose pain. The Chancellor once said it could be everybody's all at the same time, in it together. It was never a persuasive line. Now even the Lib Dems aren't toeing it. They are campaigning for faster redistribution.
Nick Clegg is looking at Tory cattle with a murderous glint in his eye and a powerful political genie is released from the bottle.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


10 comments
yes!! stop people being landed or wealthy... it's sick!!
@Shinsei67
With all things Tory, ignore the rhetoric, examine their actions...
The wealthy and landed can sleep easy.
@Iain
Thats clever, agree - never looked at it like that before.
I think we should follow Denmark (i.e the opposite of Balls and Gordon) and increase VAT to 22.5% because it penalises imports and importers - its one of the only lawful import tarrifs there is. This would create jobs in the home economy.
In the medium to long term, high VAT also makes people cheaper relative to capital which creates jobs.
The money raised could be used to increase the personal allowance further making lower paid people cheaper to employ - i.e. it also creates jobs.
Basically, Balls is anti-jobs (like with the employers NI increase he wants) and is focussed on policies which are popular with sections of the population so that he wins votes and power.
And again Ed Balls false assertions that a VAT cut helps the poor and middle income families goes unchallenged.
VAT on fuel is set at 5%, and there is no VAT on un-prepared foodstuffs, these two commodities make up the bulk of the expenditure of the poorest in our society.
Labour’s VAT cut = 2.5%
Lib Dem Tax threshold increase = £ 510
To get back the same from a 2.5% VAT cut as you would from a £ 510 threshold increase you would need to spend £ 20,400.
To get £ 20,400 after tax your income has to be £ £ 26,218 (Laour's plan assumes no increase in the tax threshold).
Bear in mind that you now have to add on the cost of your fuel, any un-cooked food and any other zero-rated items such as newspapers, books etc before you start to benefit from the VAT cut and you are looking at having earnings in the 40% Income Tax bracket before you even begin to benefit more from Labour’s proposals than from those of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour, anyway, lost the argument on taxation when they increased the basic rate of income tax from 10% to 20% and yet introduced the most generous capital gains tax regime for the rich at 18% and with tapered relief.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that Tories are against wealth taxes. Spend any time on Conservative Home or the Spectator's Coffee House sites and you'll see plenty of Tory MPs and Tory think-tanks supporting various forms of wealth tax.
As a general rule Tories are obviously against high taxes in general; but if taxes need to be raised then it is better to tax consumption and wealth, especially unearned wealth, than income (which is a deterrent to entrepreneurialism).
Hence the reason many think a mansion tax is a better way of raising tax than the 50p income tax rate.
The trouble comes with getting down to details and implementation. Who determines whether a house is worth £2m or not ? Is a mansion tax likely to be up-and-running in less than two years ?
I'd personally favour putting capital gains tax on all properties (and scrapping stamp duty as a quid pro quo) but I suspect the 25 million householders in the UK would be up in arms.
It's easy to clamour for a mansion tax if your particular home comes below the definition of mansion.
Interesting but I wonder if the World"s mind is on Syrria at present - As a socialist I wonder about the World and if we are all in it together? Should the World declare Homs a tank free, artilliary free zone and possibly a no fly zone? this could only be enforced by democratic Arab countries and not the Gung Ho West. The vile Syrian leadership seem not to realise that history has passed them by but it is up to the Arab people to deal with their bullies. As a peaceful, democratic socialist I appeal or a peaceful solution.
It is reassuring to see that considerations of fairness - what is fairness, how can we realise this objective in our society etc, are back to the center of the political debate. I went to an outstanding debate on fairness last year at HowTheLightGetsIn festival. The video is available on the iai.tv website - have a look, it's a must see in these times of economic crisis ;):
http://iai.tv/video/in-love-and-war
Indu Pendant and Iain,
How do you expect people to take you seriously when you start from a false premise? You are not getting your basics right. It was NOT the Tories who introduced the 10p tax rate, it was Labour.
"The starting rate of income tax, often known as the 10p rate, was the lowest rate of personal income taxation in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2008. It was introduced by then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, in his 1999 budget and abolished by him (in his last budget as Chancellor) in 2007."
Abolishing the 10p tax rate was a serious error and that was probably what helped cost Labour the 2010 election.
Iain, honestly you are falling over your own hurdles to try and make the Liberal Democrats proposals look good. VAT is a regressive tax, LDs used to believe this which is why they attacked the Tories with a negative campaign depicting an unexploded bomb and the words "VAT Bombshell"
Indu Pendant honestly your comments are muddled you cannot just include the word "starters" and not give any facts and figures, care to elucidate a bit so everyone knows what you are talking about, what starters?
Overall this leader does nothing to repair the damage the Liberal Democrats have inflicted upon themselves. They were caught lying over student fees, now they have helped the government almost get the NHS reforms into statute - why should anyone believe a single thing that Nick Clegg says?
They make much about being in a coalition which is why they could not keep their manifesto, however, they haven't even stuck the coalition agreement either.
The LDs start from a complete fabrication, they know in all their election campaigns that they will never form a government, the best they can hope for is to form some kind of pact/coalition with either of the main parties, so they should base their manifesto on this rather than making promises which they know fully well they can never keep.
The way they have voted with the government three times in order to get the Health and Social Care Reforms bill into statute, they will never be forgiven for. It looks very much like Cameron is going to push this unwanted reforms thorough, if he succeeds not only will it prevent the Tories from winning the next few elections, the Liberal Democrats will be finished as a political party.
No one will believe a single thing the Tories have to say about the NHS - ever.
Liberal Democrats have reneged on workers rights, human rights, student fees, the NHS and they are now attacking the vulnerable with horrendous welfare policies. Clegg natters on about his 'pupil premium' this money is not new and it has been taken from elsewhere in the budget, he should stop taking people for fools.
"Conservatives abhor using rich people's cash to compensate others."
What? The Tories are one who introduced the 10 pence tax to give self starters a boost. Labour took it away and took away the small company tax start up tax rate for small young companies - all part of Gordons crusade against SMEs.
The Tories abhor kicking and punishing people who go and make some money especially businesses. Thats totally different from the "I dont have so you cant have" your money belongs to me Labour philosopshy of tax them until the pips squeak.
Some devious Tories are urging "Chips' Osborne to raise the tax threshold by £2000 on top of the LibDems policy of taking the lowly-paid out of tax altogether -thus outdoing the LibDems by not taxing a greater proportion of the needy.
How will they pay for it? Naturally by raising indirect taxes - VAT for a start. Talk about pole tax. This is far easier.
You have to get up very early to con a Conservative.
As Angela Merkel would say "VAT are we vaiting for, little Englander?'
Goose Step