<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tory National Insurance cut is regressive</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/</link>
	<description>Left Foot Forward is a political blog for progressives. We provide evidence-based analysis on British politics, news and policy developments.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:58:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The alternative to "Osborne's bombshell" &#124; Left Foot Forward</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/comment-page-1/#comment-30014</link>
		<dc:creator>The alternative to "Osborne's bombshell" &#124; Left Foot Forward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=12314#comment-30014</guid>
		<description>[...] a regressive move to cut to the planned increase in employer National Insurance &#8211; dubbed Labour&#8217;s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a regressive move to cut to the planned increase in employer National Insurance &#8211; dubbed Labour&#8217;s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amanda </title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/comment-page-1/#comment-26000</link>
		<dc:creator>Amanda </dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 18:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=12314#comment-26000</guid>
		<description>&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_comment&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_twitter_username&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_content&quot;&gt;@traineeGG it has been regressive, yes, needed rethinking but this will disproportionally benefit the better off http://bit.ly/9zHVTe&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span class="topsy_twitter_username"><span class="topsy_trackback_content">@traineeGG it has been regressive, yes, needed rethinking but this will disproportionally benefit the better off <a href="http://bit.ly/9zHVTe" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/9zHVTe</a></span></span></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tory Stories &#187; Blog Archive &#187; What the Tories say &#8211; and what they really mean</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/comment-page-1/#comment-22237</link>
		<dc:creator>Tory Stories &#187; Blog Archive &#187; What the Tories say &#8211; and what they really mean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 22:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=12314#comment-22237</guid>
		<description>[...] Conservatives win tomorrow they will have to resort to a VAT rise to fund the NI cut – lowering a progressive tax by increasing a highly regressive one; in relative terms, taking from the poor and giving to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Conservatives win tomorrow they will have to resort to a VAT rise to fund the NI cut – lowering a progressive tax by increasing a highly regressive one; in relative terms, taking from the poor and giving to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Plunkett</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/comment-page-1/#comment-20793</link>
		<dc:creator>James Plunkett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 May 2010 00:46:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=12314#comment-20793</guid>
		<description>&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_comment&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_twitter_username&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_content&quot;&gt;Who do the Tory tax plans benefit? - http://bit.ly/bdAxM7  That&#039;s a surprise!  via  @leftfootfwd&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span class="topsy_twitter_username"><span class="topsy_trackback_content">Who do the Tory tax plans benefit? &#8211; <a href="http://bit.ly/bdAxM7" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/bdAxM7</a>  That&#39;s a surprise!  via  @leftfootfwd</span></span></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Look Left – The Week in Fast Forward &#124; Left Foot Forward</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/comment-page-1/#comment-20670</link>
		<dc:creator>Look Left – The Week in Fast Forward &#124; Left Foot Forward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:23:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=12314#comment-20670</guid>
		<description>[...] the headlines the IFS revealed that the Conservative party’s flagship policy to cut the planned rise in National Insurance is [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the headlines the IFS revealed that the Conservative party’s flagship policy to cut the planned rise in National Insurance is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon E Mouse</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/comment-page-1/#comment-19755</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon E Mouse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:13:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=12314#comment-19755</guid>
		<description>Will - You&#039;re wrong on Trident as well dude!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will &#8211; You&#8217;re wrong on Trident as well dude!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon E Mouse</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/comment-page-1/#comment-19754</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon E Mouse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=12314#comment-19754</guid>
		<description>Will - I&#039;m pretty swamped at work at the moment - building engineering prototypes which mean more production in Britain for the companies we work for. The recession (finally) does feel to be ending - certainly our output is up which means increased work for our customers but to advocate increasing tax at this point is nuts. I actually work in the real world Will so it&#039;s not some theoretical discussion to me, it&#039;s real.

Yes of course business leaders will oppose higher taxes - everyone should - but to hit companies such as ours (two director/employees) is just unfair - and we did approach our bank and were refused an increase in our overdraft to cover the recession.

We are doing 20 hour days because we can&#039;t afford to take an employee on (in fairness it&#039;s not just the NI) - at present we would pay 12% on the employer contribution - if that goes up by 1 penny it is an increase of 8% to us (from 12 to 13 %) - and that doesn&#039;t include the employee&#039;s contribution.

So you can swear black is white all you like Young Will but to me the NI increase is a tax on jobs period. 

You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it - it stinks and we will have to disagree here I&#039;m afraid....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will &#8211; I&#8217;m pretty swamped at work at the moment &#8211; building engineering prototypes which mean more production in Britain for the companies we work for. The recession (finally) does feel to be ending &#8211; certainly our output is up which means increased work for our customers but to advocate increasing tax at this point is nuts. I actually work in the real world Will so it&#8217;s not some theoretical discussion to me, it&#8217;s real.</p>
<p>Yes of course business leaders will oppose higher taxes &#8211; everyone should &#8211; but to hit companies such as ours (two director/employees) is just unfair &#8211; and we did approach our bank and were refused an increase in our overdraft to cover the recession.</p>
<p>We are doing 20 hour days because we can&#8217;t afford to take an employee on (in fairness it&#8217;s not just the NI) &#8211; at present we would pay 12% on the employer contribution &#8211; if that goes up by 1 penny it is an increase of 8% to us (from 12 to 13 %) &#8211; and that doesn&#8217;t include the employee&#8217;s contribution.</p>
<p>So you can swear black is white all you like Young Will but to me the NI increase is a tax on jobs period. </p>
<p>You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it &#8211; it stinks and we will have to disagree here I&#8217;m afraid&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will Straw</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/comment-page-1/#comment-19693</link>
		<dc:creator>Will Straw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:40:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=12314#comment-19693</guid>
		<description>Hi Anon.

1. The distributional analysis looks at who benefits as the Tories bring the planned rise in National Insurance down from 1% to 0.5%. The IFS analysis clearly shows that those towards the top of the income distribution to better than others.

2. Business leaders oppose tax shocker. You&#039;ll be telling me that the unions oppose public sector cuts, next. I presume you haven&#039;t seen the article in today&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/ceTtlp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Guardian&lt;/a&gt; showing that the business leaders who backed the Tories ignored their own accounts in rushing to their judgments.

3. They did and they broke their manifesto promise. I&#039;m glad they did since the scale of the recession was unanticipated in 2005 and I would rather those earning over £150k made up some of the difference rather than rising the base rate of income tax was raised.

4. I agree that the whole campaign has been more negative than positive but the media has largely ignored Labour&#039;s positive agenda including the launch of their health, defence, and environment manifestos among others. We covered the latter but there&#039;s only 2 of us working full time and, in our judgment, exposing the risks of a Tory government is a higher priority. Plus we don&#039;t agree with everything that Labour is proposing eg Trident renewal.

All the best,

Will</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Anon.</p>
<p>1. The distributional analysis looks at who benefits as the Tories bring the planned rise in National Insurance down from 1% to 0.5%. The IFS analysis clearly shows that those towards the top of the income distribution to better than others.</p>
<p>2. Business leaders oppose tax shocker. You&#8217;ll be telling me that the unions oppose public sector cuts, next. I presume you haven&#8217;t seen the article in today&#8217;s <a href="http://bit.ly/ceTtlp" rel="nofollow">Guardian</a> showing that the business leaders who backed the Tories ignored their own accounts in rushing to their judgments.</p>
<p>3. They did and they broke their manifesto promise. I&#8217;m glad they did since the scale of the recession was unanticipated in 2005 and I would rather those earning over £150k made up some of the difference rather than rising the base rate of income tax was raised.</p>
<p>4. I agree that the whole campaign has been more negative than positive but the media has largely ignored Labour&#8217;s positive agenda including the launch of their health, defence, and environment manifestos among others. We covered the latter but there&#8217;s only 2 of us working full time and, in our judgment, exposing the risks of a Tory government is a higher priority. Plus we don&#8217;t agree with everything that Labour is proposing eg Trident renewal.</p>
<p>All the best,</p>
<p>Will</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon E Mouse</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/comment-page-1/#comment-19670</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon E Mouse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:17:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=12314#comment-19670</guid>
		<description>Will - I thought you had a financial based education?

1. How can a tax on jobs help workers of his country?
2. Why have 110 thousand business owners, including Digby Jones, Gordon Browns business minister, said this will be a disaster for workers and jobs?
3. Didn&#039;t Labour say they wouldn&#039;t raise the top rate of tax in every manifesto since 1997?

Do Labour ministers not have one have a single positive thing to say about the Labour Party Will?  

Stop being reactive about the Tories all the time - it just demonstrates weakness and there is a danger that idiot Nick Clegg may hold the balance of power in this country in eight days time...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will &#8211; I thought you had a financial based education?</p>
<p>1. How can a tax on jobs help workers of his country?<br />
2. Why have 110 thousand business owners, including Digby Jones, Gordon Browns business minister, said this will be a disaster for workers and jobs?<br />
3. Didn&#8217;t Labour say they wouldn&#8217;t raise the top rate of tax in every manifesto since 1997?</p>
<p>Do Labour ministers not have one have a single positive thing to say about the Labour Party Will?  </p>
<p>Stop being reactive about the Tories all the time &#8211; it just demonstrates weakness and there is a danger that idiot Nick Clegg may hold the balance of power in this country in eight days time&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Politics Summary: Wednesday, April 28th &#124; Left Foot Forward</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/tory-national-insurance-cut-is-regressive/comment-page-1/#comment-19624</link>
		<dc:creator>Politics Summary: Wednesday, April 28th &#124; Left Foot Forward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=12314#comment-19624</guid>
		<description>[...] 87 per cent, the Tories another 82 per cent, and the Lib Dems looking for a further 74 per cent. Left Foot Forward looked yesterday at the distributional impact of some of the tax policies that have already been [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 87 per cent, the Tories another 82 per cent, and the Lib Dems looking for a further 74 per cent. Left Foot Forward looked yesterday at the distributional impact of some of the tax policies that have already been [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

