Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Helen Goodman (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 July 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.


Finance Bill

The Minister shakes his head. They clearly do not know the answer. The Conservative-Liberal coalition cannot agree on its environmental policy either, which is presumably why, rather than taking action on environmental taxes, we now have yet another commission to look into the climate change levy. Once again, therefore, a potentially progressive measure is being put on the backburner. We do not know when it will happen. We do not know when we will see progress on it. Many hon. Members have spoken about the unfairness of VAT. The Government claim that they had no choice, but of course they had a choice, and they have made it. Their choice has been to change the national insurance regime and replace the increase in national insurance with an increase in VAT. However, one of the things that the Government will not admit is that VAT is also a tax on jobs. VAT also drives a wedge between the cost on employers for the goods and service that employees buy, and what they pay for them, so the notion that we can have an increase in VAT without seeing an impact on the number of jobs in the economy is yet another fantasy. The Government have not explained what they are doing about the lower rate of VAT, on essentials, and many Opposition Members would like some clarification on that. The third and final issue that I would like to discuss is fairness in the income tax and benefits system. The Liberal Democrats say that raising the personal allowance is their major attempt to be fair to poor people. The attempt is being made, but it has not produced the upshot that the Liberal Democrats are looking for. Rather, it has failed, because they have not taken account of the interaction with the tax credit reductions and the cuts in welfare benefits. The distribution figures on page 66 of the Red Book purport to show what the position in the Budget is. However, a day or so later, we all discovered that chart A2, entitled "Impact of all measures as a per cent of net income by income distribution", in fact included not just the measures taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in announcing his June Budget, but the measures taken previously by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, which were jumbled up with them. When those figures were stripped out and separated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we could see that the distributional impacts were totally different. Whereas my right hon. Friend's Budget took less than 0.5% from the poorest and almost 7% from the richest, the June Budget took 2.5% from the poorest and 0.5% from the richest, so the claim of fairness is completely fraudulent.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
513 c309-10 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Poverty Children Corporation tax Exports Excise duties Fuels Private sector Insurance premium tax Economic growth Forecasts Low incomes Pensions Public expenditure Unemployment Rural areas Public sector debt Tax avoidance VAT Resignations Tax evasion Tax burden Building schools for the future programme Office for Budget Responsibility Budd, Alan
Legislation
Finance Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk