Sometimes I just sit open-mouthed at what political
groups come out with - the ideas are so bad that one must conclude that either
they are hopelessly incompetent, dreadfully dishonest, or a bit of both. Some of what we've seen recently can only
lead me to believe that they don't have much of a clue about economics, or that
they do know their stuff, but they think the general public is utterly clueless
about these issues. Or maybe, just
maybe, Ed Miliband has worked out a way to be clever with this one,
particularly when one considers that the issue up for discussion here was one
of the key factors in Labour doing so poorly in the last election.
Here’s why the viagra analogy is telling; many people on low incomes are not particularly poor – a significant proportion of them are part of a two-income team, with them being the low earner behind a relatively high earner. Thus it is much more prudent to increase the benefits of the single income low earners, and not simply reinstall a blanket 10p lower rate of income tax, because many ‘beneficiaries’ are having money that the poorer people need more. .
This is basic GCSE economics – so don’t you think it’s
odd that Labour is trying to grab the attention with this obviously ineffectual
policy? I can think of three reasons why
Mr Miliband might be trying this:
1) Ed Miliband hasn’t given enough thought to how taxes
operate best
2) Ed Miliband has given
thought to how taxes operate best, but thinks the lower earning voters are economically
illiterate enough to believe they are being targeted favourably
3) Ed Miliband realises that in reinstating something
Gordon Brown abolished, he might be able to symbolically distance himself from
the much criticised Labour Government that held office for so long in recent
years, and brand his current party as being more in touch with the old leftist brands
of yesteryear.
None of these seem commendable – but then again, despite
deserving the opprobrium of the masses (which is what I hope will happen), one
might argue that Ed Miliband is only doing what opposition leaders have to do
these days to win elections; criticise the current Government and make their
policies seem flawed; announce headline-grabbing policies that sound
progressive to those looking for an economic carrot; and distance their party
from the legacy of the past failures. If
he genuinely thinks he’s got a good tax policy here, then I suspect he’s probably
being incompetent and honest. If he
knows he hasn’t then he’s probably being clever and dishonest. Were he to increase the benefits of the single
income low earners, ditch blanket tax proposals, and employ an intelligent case
by case analysis that ensures tax breaks go to those that need it most - he
would be doing something both clever and honest.