The high cost of work promises

Digest opened free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Sorry, they have a few. But among all the sorrows of the Labor Party, there is an original sin that precedes other errors – the inter -commitment not to raise personal taxes to workers.

It was pledged not to increase national insurance, value -added tax, or income tax rates by the strategies as necessary to match voters. Now it is seen by many as a basic mistake, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will leave up to 30 billion pounds in additional revenues in the November budget and in ways that may hinder the task of wider growth.

One of the senior minister argues that although “traditional wisdom” is that the Labor Party has made a wonderful campaign, but it was poor in power, the campaign is “aligned with us.”

Call Reeves to break what one calls “the commitment of slaves“For this tax promise, not the least of which is because the alternative may be additional taxes on them. The influencer The accuracy of the Foundation of Thought Similar arguments have been presented. “We either divide the tax promise or the promise of change.”

Although the upper numbers expect the line to be placed (“” You can never say you never say, “one of them says), all of this, except for a little regret. Reeves is widely expected to extend the spirit of the tax promise by extending income tax sills to the end of the contract, a tax increase in the real conditions.

Representatives ready to spend on Reeves. The advisor appears to be sure to demand the lifting of the so -called binary cover that limits the benefits for large families. There is a strong poverty issue for this, but it requires money that you do not have.

Breaking one of the tax pledges is the simplest way to increase dangerous revenues, but it is difficult to exaggerate the size of this error. The political cause is simple. To abandon such a clear pledge, a station with voters can actually put the party in the Death’s Angroph. Starmer and Reeves will not recover.

This is supported by a broader ethical point. Governments must maintain explicit promises. That is why these comprehensive tax obligations are foolish in an unpredictable world. Starmer and Reeves can argue that the election of Donald Trump and the greatest need for defensive spending have changed the account, but they raised and borrowed large sums in the budget last year and spent them on other priorities. In any case, the state of public finance was clear before the elections.

The tearing of such a central promise will not only hurt labor. It will be completely unfortunate for democracy, which enhances the opinion that all parties lie and increase belief in politics.

But the tax pledge was not just a political account. He was rooted in confession that ordinary people were struggling after years of stagnation in wages. Abdening and low wage growth remains the primary challenge for most UK citizens. Party leaders felt that they could not take more money from people who have already weighted due to the cost of living.

After 15 years of almost average of medium profits, the real entry began to capture again, but it is It is expected to stagger for the next two With companies passing additional energy and tax costs from last year’s budget.

Progressive leaders elsewhere see a urgency to address the cost of living. One of Mark Carnary’s first work as Prime Minister of Canada was a middle -class tax reduction.

The reaction of the Labor Party is the imposition of more taxes, not the least of which is the financing of transportation operations from the rich to the poor. There are calls for wealth and taxes high property, but they come with major political problems (a very large number of retired homeowners on limited income) and for discounts in mitigating pension tax with a higher rate, although this is mainly increasing taxes for anyone who gets more than 50,000 pounds. There is an issue of dangerous tax reform but must be after careful study, not as an emergency measure.

The best argument for violating the pledge is that it will allow workers to rule as he wishes and avoid other increases that may harm business and include inflation. But this assumes that money will spend well.

There is an alternative, although it is unlikely to take work. Instead of returning to more money, the government needs to reduce spending. Reeves expects to find some savings and ministers preparing another tour of the interest bill next year. The problem is that Starmer has lost many of its deputies, first with the failed effort to teach fuel batches for a retired test, then with their rebellion against luxury discounts. Part of cash springs from the absence of a case of difficult spending options.

It is a sign of the extent to which the Labor Party has declined to the comfort zone, which is considered a company on the pledges of the statement as a leadership work even with the rise of Reeves through billions in another tax rise, which will often return to the real economy.

The work has already made his big bets on spending. If growth is the main task, Starmer and Reeves know that they cannot impose taxes on their way there. The task must now be to find savings. Britain spends and borrows too much. UK debt department bill It is expected that it will reach 111 billion pounds this year.

It is a good idea that the leadership of the work understand the risk of breaking its tax pledges. But real progress will not wish a secret.

[email protected]