Taxation and the behaviour of the rich vs. the rest of us
On today’s (BBC2 13 March 2012) Daily Politics, Lord Lawson (the former Conservative monetarist chancellor, Nigel Lawson) was advocating cutting the top rate of tax because of the “behavioural implication” on the rich which would mean a reduction in rate would result in a greater overall tax take.
Presumably if Lawson thinks cutting tax on the rich from 50% to 40% will bring in more tax, we should also look at cutting it to 30% or even 20% to maximise this “behavioural change”.
Meanwhile taxes on the rest of us can just rise – because the rest of us despite being “all in it together” behave differently!
It’s very simple, but we are too obviously dumb to understand.
If you cut the rich’s tax rate by 10% they become more entrepreneurial and we get more tax – so lets cut it by 20% and get even more entrepreneurs and even more tax-take. (They will clog up London and increase congestion and house prices in the South East, but no matter – at least they will need servants).
However, if you are young you don’t need to have the minimum wage increased to incentivise you – different breed of person obviously who thinks differently, so can be treated differently.
And if you live in the colonies of Great Britain (the North, the far South West, and those parts of this United Kingdom who have the good sense to want to break away), you should apparently have your pay and benefits frozen (or even cut) to incentivise you to work for all those entrepreneurs who apparently want workers in those provinces. The fact that a lot of these entrepreneurs are chancers who will sack you after 51 weeks (or possibly soon 1 year and 51 weeks) or make you redundant with no compensation in the name of labour market flexibility is irrelevant – we’re foreign obviously and think differently, so can be treated differently.
We may “all be in it together”, but that does not apparently mean we need to be treated the same. The passengers on the Titanic were all affected by the same iceberg, so could be said to have all “been in it together”.