The Green Party, 60% Income Tax And Lessons From The West Wing

 

Natalie Bennett and the Green Party decided to use (or rather, waste) one of their rare moments in the media spotlight this weekend to announce their grand plan to levy a 60% marginal income tax rate on anyone earning over £150,000 a year.

The Greens are not even approaching the issue apologetically, with the tired old claim that confiscatory rates of income tax are necessary to fund public services. No, now they are suggesting that wealthy Brits should be hit with punishing rates of tax because apparently Britain’s brightest minds, shrewdest investors and most successful entrepreneurs “take too much” out of our society:

The highest earners would face a 60p top rate of tax under Green Party plans to make the richest “pay back” to society and deter companies from paying “excessive” salaries.

Britain’s top earners currently face a 45p rate on income over £150,000 but Natalie Bennett, the Green Party leader, claimed that they deserved to pay even more.

“What this 60p is for is really to identify the fact that some people are taking too much out of our society, they need to pay back,” she told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show.

You read that right. The Green Party actually believes that the people who invent things, make scientific breakthroughs, create jobs, run Britain’s top industries and make our art and culture the finest in the world take stuff out of our society. The people who already pay the most tax and keep our precious public services ticking over are nothing more than parasites, according to Natalie Bennett and the Greens.

Clearly Natalie Bennett is not a fan of hit US television show The West Wing. If she was, she would know that even starry-eyed left wingers like fictional President Bartlett’s speechwriter, Sam Seaborn, accept that it is unseemly to bash the rich while taxing them to death at the same time.

In one very memorable quote (see the video above), Sam Seaborn says to a union boss:

“Every time your boss got on the stump and said it’s time for the rich to pay their fair share, I hid under a couch and changed my name. I left [my old job before going into politics] making $400,000 a year, which means I paid twenty-seven times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share. And the fair share of twenty-six other people. And I’m happy to, because that’s the only way it’s going to work. And it’s in my best interests that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads.

But I don’t get twenty-seven votes on election day. The fire department doesn’t come to my house twenty-seven times faster and the water doesn’t come out of my faucet twenty-seven times hotter. The top one per cent of wage earners in this country pay for twenty-two per cent of this country. Let’s not call them names while they’re doing it, is all I’m saying”.

Hard to put it much better than that.

Of course, the Green Party delight in the fact that their radically “alternative” politics place them far to the left of even staunchly left-wing opinion.

But given the harm that a 60% top rate of tax would do – and it would be a catastrophic act of economic self-harm, based on Britain’s historical experience and the cautionary tale now underway in France under President François Hollande – even supporters of greater wealth redistribution may well think twice before endorsing this ruinous policy.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are left to wonder exactly what kind of twisted mind convinces itself that success is a bad thing, to be punished and discouraged at all costs?

The West Wing Green Party Natalie Bennett Sam Seaborn - Taxing The Rich - General Election 2015

Uninspiring Tories And Labour Will Bring Deadlock And Chaos To Britain

Hung Parliament Bad For Britain

 

As the official 2015 general election campaign gets underway, all of the polls and indicators point not just to a hung parliament, but to a precariously balanced and dangerously weak government ultimately stumbling from the wreckage.

From today’s Telegraph:

If there is no majority government, then the opposition parties could vote against the government in a no-confidence motion. However the new Fixed-Term Parliaments Act would then trigger a fresh general election if no government can be formed within two weeks. It’s hard to predict how the fresh result would be different. The Conservatives might benefit if people felt that Labour and the SNP had been obstructive, but it would be an uncertain and speculative venture for all parties.

The last option is for a minority government. A party grouping with fewer than 326 seats could win a no-confidence motion helped by some opposition abstentions. This avoids the compulsory new election. But the minority government would have to build a fresh coalition for every Commons vote. And without a “confidence and supply” agreement, there is no guarantee that even the budget would be passed. In short, life would be much more difficult for a minority government.

This meltdown scenario is unlikely, but it has a real chance of happening. Perhaps it would be the natural end for a campaign without a clear winner.

This could truly be the nightmare scenario for Britain: the election results may leave both Labour and the Tories feeling bruised, the LibDems nearly wiped out and not in a position to give either party a majority in coalition, UKIP and the Greens furious that their substantial national support failed to translate into many Westminster seats, and the SNP strutting around in triumph as Scotland effectively becomes a one-party nation.

Continue reading