Thinktank shoots down Cameron’s tax warning

Locked out: Cameron will talk himself out of Downing Street if he carries on making stupid mistakes.
Locked out: Cameron will talk himself out of Downing Street if he carries on making stupid mistakes.

It seems the Conservatives can’t make a single claim without having it shot down by the fact-checkers these days. What does that say about David Cameron’s integrity?

Yesterday, standing on the steps of 10 Downing Street (a big no-no during an election campaign), he told the world that if Ed Miliband took up residence there, the cost would be “over £3,000 in higher taxes for every working family to pay for more welfare and out-of-control spending. Debt will rise and jobs will be lost as a result”.

Within hours, the Institute for Fiscal Studies dealt this claim a devastating blow. The IFS said Labour could meet its fiscal targets with as little as £3 billion in tax rises from 2018-19, and not the £15bn in tax rises from 2017-18 onwards that the Conservative numbers assumed. It’s point-by-point rebuttal stated:

  • The £3,000 figure was a cumulative increase over parliament and not an annual increase.
  • The figure also assumed that all of the burden fell on only 17 million working households, and not on the 26.7 million total households in the UK.
  • If the figure was recalculated on an annualised basis, households would beonly £560 a year worse off.

In a note, the thinktank said: “There is little value in bandying around numbers which suggest either party would increases taxes by an average of £3,000 for each working household. We don’t know what they will do after the election. But neither of the two main parties has said anything to suggest that is what they are planning.”

Incredibly, George Osborne refused to admit that the game was up and kept digging. He declared that the Tory figures “were based on what the Labour party has voted for in parliament. They voted for a £30 billion saving and Ed Miliband has said half of that should come from taxes – that is £15 billion – and then you take the working families and you come up with that number, £3,000, for the next parliament.”

No, thicky! It’s time for another point-by-point rebuttal:

  • Firstly, Labour did not vote for a £30 billion saving. Osborne keeps trying to put this one over on the voting public but you’d have to be really stupid or a supporter of the SNP, Plaid Cymru or the Greens to believe it or repeat it. Labour voted in favour of the Charter for Budget Responsibility and its aim to balance the budget within a rolling three-year period. There is no mention of £30 billion of savings in that charter.
  • Secondly, why is Osborne only including working families among those facing a rise in taxation? Everybody pays taxes. Is he trying to demonise people who don’t have a job, either through sickness/disability or because the Conservative drive to kill British industry has deprived them of any opportunities (Tories started dismantling our industries in 1979, in order to create insecurity among the workforce)?
  • Finally, a £3 billion tax rise, divided among the 26.7 total households in the UK, means a total tax rise of £112.36 per household – but Labour probably won’t hit every household. Raising the highest band of Income Tax back to 50 per cent will raise a huge amount, alone – remember, the richest are twice as rich now as they were in 2009. while working families have around half as much, if that, after living expenses are deducted from their income.

The last point is most relevant: Labour won’t tax everybody; they’ll rebalance taxation to ensure the richest pay their fair share. That’s what the Tories fear; what they are desperate to avoid.

They’re hoping that, by telling you a lie about £3K extra in taxes, they’ll be able to prevent their own supporters (and themselves) from having to pay their way.

Conservatives would much rather make you pay their dues for them.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have enjoyed this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
flagging up the big lies of the election campaign.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Related posts

13 Thoughts to “Thinktank shoots down Cameron’s tax warning”

  1. If such statements are made then the Chancellor and Cameron should back them up with irrefutable proof of the actual statement and the figures. Without such figures the statements represent desperation on their part.

  2. When you have a cowboy outfit like the Tories, for whom lying is inherently normal, sensible people don’t believe a word they say.

  3. John Gaines

    (Tories started dismantling our industries in 1979, in order to create insecurity among the workforce
    And, Labour did damn all to bring them back; now, it seems, they are still kissing business asses when they should be exposing them, especially those who have Gov. contracts.
    I sometimes wonder if Labour actually knows whom they are supposed to be ensuring gets a fair deal, not the crap that is passing for employment these Days.

    1. Mike Sivier

      That was neoliberal New Labour under Tony Blair. That organisation no longer exists and Ed Miliband has been working to curb the right-wing elements in his party.
      Some critics are determined to ignore this, pour scorn on it, or at least cast doubt.
      One has to wonder about their motivations for doing so.

  4. The Conservatives haven’t needed Labour to make them look out of touch with reality for some time, they’re doing it all by themselves, and this is yet more evidence!

    1. True, but the Tory loving press (Rothermere (DM) Murdock (Sun/Times/Sky/Fox)) never publish any articles about their lies, not unless it gets no longer possible to ignore the counter evidence.

      As this article shows… The IFS (a right leaning body if ever there was one) pulled apart the Conservative statement, but none of the above-mentioned news sources have published a thing on it, just running with Camoron’s blatant electioneering outside of Downing Street.

  5. aturtle05

    OK, so yet again we have a self-servative caught in a lie, and as it’s election time it’s a mud-slinging lie.

    Why can’t these politicians learn that we, the people who elect them want to hear their proposals for their policies and not “Don’t vote for him, he’s a Leftie/Rightie”. I don’t care what the Conservatives think that Labour will do when they get in, I want to hear how the Conservatives are going to borrow more so they can spend more.

    I want them to tell me how badly off I will be if they get in, I want to know, before I am dragged off kicking and screaming, which camp they are sending me to. I want to be sure the hospital I use to have my knee operation will be able to care for me rather than having an unqualified butcher to do it.

    Please, Messrs Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, Farage et al, please tell us what YOU will be doing, not what you imagine another party will do.

  6. If we are to use the Gwant Shapps/Michael Green/Sebastian Fox (all one of him) method of accounting… then the cun’servatives have promised to cut SIXTY BILLION from social security.

    To put that in to context the figures for JSA and ESA in 2011/12 were 4.91B and 3.58B.

    That means if they totally did away with JSA and ESA they would only save 8.49B leaving them with a further 3.51B to cut.

    IF UC was ever to work (stop laughing at the back) it would increase the benefit spend by about 16B so to save 12B they would need to save 28B or ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY BILLION over the 5 year period.

    But how can UC increase the spend? Simple… It pays all benefit entitlements, and also saves all Fraud and error payments (a huge assumption).

    Fraud and error, Over payment = -3.4B, under payment = +1.5B = -1.9B over paid.
    WFTC/CTC not claimed = +8.34B (Working/Child tax credits)
    HB not claimed = +6.76B (housing benefit)
    PC not claimed = +3.16B (Pension credit)

    -1.9
    +8.34
    +6.76
    +3.16
    =16.36B Current underspend WILL be paid because UC automatically pays ALL eligible benefits.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-2013-to-2014-estimates (Fraud and error rates)

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending (spend 2011/12)

    https://speye.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/universal-credit-not-a-penny-more-not-a-penny-less-why-it-will-cost-at-least-20-billion-more-per-year/

    And some iddiots think IDS/Shapps/et. al. are good with the economy and IDS specifically is the second coming via welfare “reform” WTAF!

  7. Barry Etherington

    My link to your notifications isn’t working properly just opens for a few seconds then scrolls to end then won’t let me scroll back up

    1. Mike Sivier

      I don’t know why that should be; it’s an automatic process that has nothng to do with me at all.
      In the great tradition of “Have you tried switching it off and then on again”, how about unfollowing the blog, waiting a little while (a minute or so) and then re-following it?

  8. You’ve gone too far now Mike – you call me (an SNP supporter) stupid because I am not voting Labour. Well let me tell you this, if I do move back to Wales eventually, I will be voting for Plaid like I used to before I moved to Scotland. You call anyone who is voting for any other party except Labour thick or stupid – has it never occurred to you that YOU may be the stupid or thick one?
    Let’s see, the Labour party became New Labour when Blair took office and has slowly but surely seen the loss of members due to it’s policies and its tendency to go more right than left.
    People are sick and tired of just a two-party vote (I have never counted the Lib/Dems as a threat just like many thousands of people). People are wanting politics changed and the way to do this is to open up the ring for other parties to get in and fight. Also, some of these parties would look after the whole of the UK by voting on very important things such as the NHS and Welfare etc. At the same time they would hope that they could pull labour back to the left and get them actually caring for the poorer, working man and woman. They may also shut Labour up with the “hard working familes” routine that they are going along with at the moment. People cannot help being unemployed, disabled or long-term sick or under-employed, yet Labour very rarely speak about these people and keep on about the Working family, just as much as the Tories have done for the past 5 years.
    You are either blind to the fact that Labour has changed beyond all recognition to how they used to be and that they need to change again to become a party for the people, or that they need help in being pushed that way – Or, you don’t want anyone to vote for “Their” party no matter what.
    I am neither stupid or thick, what I do is vote for the best party to help the country I live in be it for Independence or not, for more devolved powers or not or for change to the system or not. I do not find these things in the Tories, the Lib/Dems or Labour and am deeply disappointed in Labour, truth be told.
    There has to be a huge change in the way we vote, the way the different parliaments are run and a great big change to Westminster ruling each country. We also need a party that will be for England that is devolved from London as that is where the biggest fault lies but, only by starting to vote for other parties can we get that change.
    Again, I may not be the most eloquent with words or get my points across better, but I am NOT thick or stupid and I would appreciate that you kept that in mind when your arrogance towards other voters who are not going to vote what you want them to vote for!

    1. Mike Sivier

      Oh dear. Where to start?
      I didn’t call you stupid. I said you’d have to be really stupid or a supporter of the SNP, Plaid Cymru or the Greens to believe it or repeat it. As a supporter of the SNP, you support a party that has a vested interest in undermining the Labour Party and has done so with a large volume of lies. Therefore it seems clear that supporters of the SNP – and again, I’m not pointing at you in particular – will repeat it. Are you saying they haven’t?
      Labour’s membership has increased rapidly since the 2010 election. If your logic is correct, then Labour is once again leaning more left than right.
      Your comment about the two-party vote is irrelevant to the article. This is about Cameron’s false claim that Labour will push taxes up by thousands of pounds for every family in the UK.
      You do mention Labour’s appropriation of the “hard-working families” slogan from the Tories. Has it not occurred to you that the unemployed, disabled, long-term sick and under-employed are also hard-working, simply to make ends meet? What makes you think Labour is not talking about them as well? Is it just because you know the Conservatives aren’t? As has been noted many times before, it is a fallacy to tar those parties with the same brush.
      No, Labour doesn’t need to be pushed into doing the right thing. I understand the SNP has a regressive taxation policy – perhaps it should sort that out before criticising others on their left-wing credentials?
      You want a party for an England that is devolved from London? Forgive me if I don’t understand what you’re suggesting here. London is part of England and has been its capital since long before there was a United Kingdom.
      I reiterate: I did not say you were stupid. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you misread my article and then revise your own opinion.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this:

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close