Mitchell Palmer has a useful CAPX reminder of why the good folk at Makerfield didn't know what they were likely to end up with by voting for Andrew Burnham as their new MP. In particular, they didn't know if he would continue failed redistributionist policies of the past.
The whole piece is well worth reading as yet another example of how easily voters are steered into voting for more of the same.
Burnham’s fantasy about ‘trickle down economics’
- The economic argument for lower marginal tax rates on higher incomes is not that giving rich people more money will make them generously sprinkle it over the poor
- The real question is not whether the rich are getting more than their ‘fair share’ but whether Britain can afford to keep punishing work, saving, investment, and enterprise
- Rich people could just move to Dubai, Singapore, or even Italy
The Left often accuses the Right – and particularly the last Conservative government – of practising this voodoo art form. Supposedly, right-wingers give tax breaks to the ‘rich’ in the sure and certain hope that these tax breaks will ‘trickle down’ to the poor. Or, as is often asserted, they might do so to curry political favour from their ‘mates’. After all, as Peter Manion said in The Thick of It, ‘some of my best friends are money-grabbing w*****s’.
As a description of the last Tory government’s actions, nothing could be further from the truth. Between 2010 and 2024, the only group who saw their direct tax bill increase were the top 10% of income earners. Today, the top 10% of income earners earn 34% of the income, but pay 59% of the income tax, up from 55% in 2010. If successive Tory Chancellors believed in a supposed ‘trickle-down’ theory, they were incompetent at executing it.
1 comment:
It always irritates me when debates about trickle-down revolve around money trickling down. Rich people don't sit on huge piles of money, they invest it in new factories or support firms through shares, so what trickles down is employment. Similarly if rich people are consumers that too stimulates employment or, in the case of technology, reduces the prices for ordinary people.
Consider the trickledown of technology. At one time only the wealthy could afford chimneys, stairs, plumbing, good sanitation, double glazing, refrigerators, central heating, televisions, cell phones. Now most people can afford them. If you punish the wealthy through envy or malice then that technology trickle down grinds to a halt.
Post a Comment