1 thought on “Debate: Which tax would you axe? (Part 2)”

  1. Posted 30/09/2018 at 12:52 | Permalink

    Axing sounds exciting but trimming is better. I would reduce employee’s national insurance, initially by 1-2%, with the aim of trimming the same amount each year as the economy adjusts, so that employee’s NI could disappear over two parliaments. National insurance is a tax on work, so reducing it will boost jobs, increase prosperity and reduce welfare dependency, paying for itself. National Insurance is a regressive tax, falling harder on low paid workers than high paid executives, so reducing it will make our system fairer. Finally, National Insurance is a dishonest tax, because its name pretends the benefits of insurance and supports the idea that income tax is 20% – 45%, when it is actually 45% – 60% including employee’s and employer’s NI. Supporting more jobs, enabling working people to keep more of the money they earn to spend how they choose, improving fairness and the honesty of our public debate make this a proposal that everyone can support.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.