Would you vote Labour if they pledged to raise Income Tax?

Question

On the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, they had someone on who suggested that simply by raising Income Tax by 2.5p in the pound, all elderly care costs could be free at the point of delivery, much as the NHS was planned after Beveridge.

She was slapped down straight away by Humphrys who said "you've lost, why can't you admit that?". She came back by suggesting that the general election was two years away, and this is the very sort of thing that the Labour could be discussing to put in their election manifesto.

They then had on the man who headed the report into elderly care who said that this wouldn't work because all that would happen would be that Government would divert the money to more needy causes (bankers' bonuses or gay marriage?) and the elderly would be left, as with the hospitals, with a care structure that is breaking down because their funds were squeezed.

I would go further - if the Labour Party pledged to raise Income Tax for all that can afford it by 5p in the pound - straight off, no messing, use the money to address cuts in essential services and to bringing down stealth taxes. Also they would look again at making public services run more efficiently, cutting out waste and corrupt practices, and go after the international bankers rather more seriously for stealing our money and leaving us with this deficit. Any left over would go to bringing down the deficit, and preferably balancing the books as soon as possible.

If you vote Labour, or are thinking of voting Labour, would you still support them if they did this?

Answer 1

Yes - and if they promised to abolish tuition fees in England (I live in Scotland) and fund that by cancelling the replacement for Trident, withdrawing any remaining British forces from Afghanistan and increasing VAT on items such as furs, jewellery, recorded sound and image, golf club subs, marina berths, private aviation etc, I would campaign for them.



And if they would revitalise public libraries, support for community groups etc, by introducing further upper bands of council tax, I might even re-join.



And if they would punitively renationalise railways, English water, energy, NHS services, telecommunications and everything else stolen from us since 1979, without compensation, I would willingly lead Ed Miliband page by page through the Kama Sutra and the Perfumed Garden!!!!!

Answer 2

I would sooner go blind than vote Labour. All the years of their rule did nothing for the poor, the left wing idiots that believe they are for the working man need to take a look around the big Cities in this country. They are in a worse state than they were after years of rule by the slippery Tony and psycho Brown. The only person that got rich was Blair. Manchester council are spending 5-5 million pounds cutting trees down in a park against the peoples wishes at the same time it is making workers redundant and closing public services, this is how they look after you, using you as pawns to score points and blame the government for job losses. The labour council leader gets £200,000 pounds salary which is more than the Prime Minister. Wake up to Labour lies they believe if the poor get more prosperous they might not vote Labour anymore, it is in their interest to have poverty.

Answer 3

Yes, but I would vote Labour anyway as the alternative is the disgusting Tory party who never give a damn about anyone except the wealthiest among us.

I've no problem with tax going up to pay for care, but I would hope that VAT came down. It is also a fact that if ALL the tax holes were closed that allow people at present to rip off this country for as much as £120BN a year, then there would be no need for tax rises and no need for the vast majority of cuts that are being implemented.



A note to Robert X. The Tories have said they will cut immigration, it ain't happening. Romanian's and Bulgarians will be allowed to come here at the beginning of next year. There is nothing in place to prevent millions of them coming over if they want to. That's the price of being in the EU. The Tories are saying that as they can go to other EU countries then we won't have a massive amount come here, as with the Poles, but this is not guaranteed.

You should also note that the Poles have actually contributed to £2BN of the economy, so have actually made us money, not cost us it.



Pete, you are so wrong. A vast amount of regeneration went on under Labour and they did a vast amount for the poor. The minimum wage, pension credits and Surestart centres to name but three. Now try and mention anything the Tories have ever done that has benefited the poor.

Answer 4

Taken at face value - yes. Or at least, it'd be a point in their favour.



However:



Would this be 2.5% across the board, 2.5% on average but increased progressively (eg 1% on lowest income bracket, 4% on highest) or would it be averaged, but regressively? What provision (if any) would be made for the lowest earners already struggling to feed their family & manage 1 meal per day for themselves with having a tax rise?



Would the money raised actually be used for elderly care & essential services (& what would they consider "essential" anyway?) or would it be simply used to give more benefits to those who didn't need them. Would the money that's spent on essential services be spent wisely or just thrown away on unsustainable projects like PFI?



Where would this fit in with the rest of their economic plan? Would taxes (besides income tax) be raised against the lowest earners further still? How far would they go to punish the low earner? Alternatively, would they do a 180 degree turn & actually help the lowest earners as the pre-Bliar labour party used to?



Where would they stand on law & order? Whilst I was happy with the enforcement of the law last time - they did introduce some awful laws (either needless, badly crafted or both & also retained at least 1 law that had been proven over 2 decades to have failed) & I'd wonder what else they planned to make illegal. What otrher ham-fisted assaults they'd make on personal freedoms.



I'd also be concerned about what environmental policies (locally, nationally & globally) they'd have? Would they still want to pave over childrens' playgrounds, farmland & wildlife habitats for a short-term economic boost? Or would they look to improving transport infrastructure, reduce emissions, have a coherent long-term energy strategy & actually take the issue of climate change seriously?



You can probably tell from the above that I'm still angry with the previous government. Once bitten, twice shy & it will take a lot for me to trust the party at a national level. It's incredibly unlikely that labour will get my vote in the 2015 general election.



FWIW - I agree with you that Gordon Brown had a mandate to become PM.

Answer 5

If the tax rise was to offset cuts in important public services then maybe, but the problem with taxation is that the wrong kind of people end up avoiding it. Better to raise VAT and hand out exemption subsidies to those in society who genuinely need them.



The UK is too centre-heavy and intrisicly corrupt with far too many practices 'grandfathered-in'. So I don't actually trust any of the parties at the individual MP level to do what's best for the country until they have nicely feathered their own nests at our expense.



It means that I will vote only on local issues as that is where the wrongs need to be righted in the first instance. Mandates don't work with established parties.

Answer 6

Firstly let me say that I used to vote Conservative, however, I didn't at the last election and never will again. As for Labour, I would never vote for them because all they ever do is increase the Countrys debt with their unaffordable socialist programmes. The NHS already takes a vast amount of money so before giving it any more it should be streamlined, layers of management should be got rid of, primary care trusts which serve no practical purpose should be got rid of. All that's needed is a Ministry for Health and proper hospital management, preferably with a medical background so they actually understand what they're doing. The NHS is not National anyway because there is too much difference in treatment depending upon where you live. Raising taxes beyond a certain point is counter productive, those on lower incomes would pay more tax, would therefore have less take home pay and would be driven into applying for benefits of some kind. It has been proven in any number of Countries that raising the top rate of tax beyond a certain limit actually produces less tax because, as in France at the moment, the very wealthy just relocate so the government lose all their tax. Labour and other Socialist parties can't seem to understand this.

Answer 7

Yes, it's something I've been I advocating since I first started work.



I'd happily pay more tax but in return I think we should provide better social care and look at reducing (or even abolishing) tax on necessities etc. Doing that eases the burden on those of more modest means.



If we taxed people properly all pensioners or those on low incomes could have things like a certain amount of free rail travel (something thats already done with bus passes to some extent), subsidised utility bills etc.



Taxation is the governments way of redistribution of wealth yet we don't make the most of it. It's not about penalising people it's about helping bring about a fairer society for all.

Answer 8

Nope. I do not trust any politician as far as I can thrown them. Increasing tax is not the way to fix the issue, how about all these politicians and lords take a pay cut and put that into the pot instead? How about we restrict the amount of money we give to benefits, so they can't afford multiple game consoles, plasma TV's and all the other luxuries that even those on dual incomes cannot afford?



When one of the issues with those struck by poverty is obesity, I believe we are looking in the wrong place to reclaim money for the government.

Answer 9

Well, I always vote Labour anyway - I don't always agree with everything they do, but I vote on the basis of ideology, and as far as I am concerned that is the only vaguely intelligent way to do it.



Yes, I would happily support an increase in income tax. When I started working, income tax was at 29%, today it is at 20%. I didn't feel unduly disadvantaged back then, so I certainly wouldn't feel so if the rate went up to 22.5%



(Yes, Browne did have a mandate to become PM, as the way our electoral system works is that you vote for an MP in your constituency, you don't 'vote for a Prime Minister'. Whoever happens to be leader of the party with the most constiuencies won becomes the Prime Minister. If Tony Blair had decided to quit as an MP, then a bielection would have been held in his constuency, but simply deciding to quit as party leader doesn't necessitate a general election, just as it didn't necessitate one when Thatcher stood down in 1990).

Answer 10

I know this a vote for the tories will always lead to poverty for the underprivileged their sole aim is to look after their money men no matter how they get it Ihave never voted tory and even with the imperfect labour they are still more caring and reliable than any of the greedy manipulative millionaires in government now. @ me again true to form can only come up with insults and no constructive policy you stick with the tories we would not want your warped sense of politics.

Answer 11

Speaking as a lifelong Labour voter, I would want to see how it fitted in with their wider taxation policy and precisely what they intended to do with the money. Single issue discussions filled with hypotheticals are just that - and are not indicative of what a political party would actually do when they are in power. For those who doubt what I am saying, look at the Lib Dem pre-election pledges over tuition fees that were swept aside ("as soon as the Lib Dems got to see the actual financial position of the country").



I would also want to see pledges on SAVING money on things like Trident, Afghanistan, tax-cuts for the rich etc and stronger action on immigration policy and taxation on fuel. I'd also want reassurance on their ability to control and manage banks and to see action to stop the outrageous constant meddling with things like education policy and public sector employment.



Above all, I want to see a few politicians who have principles, humility and leadership qualities.

Answer 12

In 2 countries i have never Voted Labor if i believed my Vote would advantage the labor party i voted Communist

Answer 13

@ J - 'Program' and 'Programme' are two different words with different meanings. 'Program' generally refers to a computer program, a 'programme' is a television show, or a schedule/agenda.



In answer to your other question, there are 100 pence in one pound sterling, just as there are, for example, 100 cents in an American dollar. So, to increase tax by 2.5 pence in the pound is to increase tax by 2.5%.

Answer 14

labour all the way! before labour poorer children had one meal a day tgey baught in free school dinners etc labour protect and help lower classes and conservatives just prtect tgey upperclass who can afford to help.. they have made a real mess and got no one back to work on their scheme. i have my own business a five bed house and enough to get by.. if my increase taxes helps anyone i am greatful.. England is one of the riches countries people dont starve to death hear anymore here here laubour! thats what i say

Answer 15

They could pledge to give me a chauffeur driven Rolls and l wouldn't vote for that bunch of idiots..



Gordon Brown Prime Minister... unelected, despised then thrown out by the scuff of the neck.



Labour only picked him for PM because Gazza turned it down.

Answer 16

British talk funny. Add all these extra letters like programme (looks like it should be pronounced program-me) and labour (looks like it should be pronounced laboor) like it's the 19th century. But your women are so hot. SOO beautiful.

Answer 17

Yes.

Answer 18

My answer is no. I think your question should ask can you believe anything the labour party say.

Answer 19

yes

Answer 20

You must be joking, remember it was labour who opened the flood gates of immigration and can't be trusted.