Probably pure blind luck but still: as Napoleon pointed out, luck ain’t a bad thing to have.
So Gideon’s decided to reduce the NI…the tax upon jobs.
Which is a good thing. Yes, this is even more of a good thing the further left (or Keynesian perhaps) you go.
Rightie kitten skinners (but only if they’re live mind!) like me argue that we need to cut the number of flatulents occupying government offices across the land. Move further left (not, to be honest, all that difficult) and you start to hear people saying that this will cut vital public services. So, what we need to get out of this mess is more growth.
With more growth she’ll be right. Budgets will come back into balance and no diversity officer need be harmed in our economy.
So, if you do believe this version of the story what should you be arguing we do about taxes?
The results of the analysis suggest that income taxes are generally associated with lower economic growth than taxes on consumption and property … These findings suggest that a revenue-neutral growth-oriented tax reform would be to shift part of the revenue base towards recurrent property and consumption taxes and away from income taxes, especially corporate taxes. There is also evidence of a negative relationship between the progressivity of personal income taxes and growth.
That’s the OECD that is and there’s a nice little chart there as well. If growth were your aim you’d reduce taxation upon personal incomes….NI is taxation on personal incomes….and thus Gideon is doing the right thing.
Now if I actually believed that he (or anyone else at CCHQ) had the gumption to read OECD reports then I’d applaud his actions.
But I don’t, this is blind luck.
Or, of course, he’s been reading the UKIP manifesto.