Skip to content

News with true faith

Opinion

Mark Littlewood Warns Tories Against Raising Top Tax Rate

Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, warned Tory ministers that raising the top tax rate is political posturing.

Mark Littlewood, the director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs think tank, has criticized Conservative ministers over proposals to raise the top rate of income tax to 50 per cent, describing the plan as political posturing rather than sensible economics.

Writing in the Daily Mail, Littlewood responded to reports that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Chancellor Jeremy Hunt were considering increasing the highest tax bracket above the level pledged by the opposition Labour Party.

The proposal followed the brief tenure of former Prime Minister Liz Truss, whose administration announced plans in September 2022 to abolish the 45p top tax rate before reversing course.

Littlewood noted that Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner had previously vowed that high earners would pay a 45 per cent tax rate on earnings above £150,000 under a Labour government, warning that the Conservative administration risked outbidding the political left on tax increases.

Warnings over Brexit and immigration policy

Littlewood, a former Liberal Democrat spokesman who leads the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, has maintained a decade-long commentary record evaluating Conservative economic and social policies.

Following the 2016 referendum vote for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, Littlewood warned that triggering Article 50 would inevitably cause economic pain and uncertainty, calling for an end to what he termed the Brexit blame game.

He questioned whether British independence from the European Union would transform the UK into a soaring economic powerhouse or leave the nation navigating choppy waters where economic growth became significantly harder to achieve.

In July 2016, Littlewood also targeted former Prime Minister Theresa May over her pledge to reduce net immigration into the United Kingdom to under 100,000 people annually, a target she originally established as Home Secretary under David Cameron.

Littlewood characterized the target as a foolish commitment that created a political time-bomb while May conducted diplomatic talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande.

Critiques of Conservative fiscal policy

Littlewood's commentary has frequently challenged the fiscal record of previous Conservative chancellors, including George Osborne.

In January 2016, he questioned whether Osborne acted as a Labour chancellor in disguise, citing criticism from economists that government policies were hammering middle-class households through changes to pensions, buy-to-let properties, and stamp duty.

In December 2014, Littlewood questioned how Osborne managed to frame a vast budget deficit as an economic triumph, writing that the chancellor's tactics would make Machiavelli proud.

His earlier writings for the Daily Mail also addressed former Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, warning after a television debate performance in April 2014 that a poor showing in European elections could cost Clegg his party leadership.

Debates on taxation and state intervention

Across earlier commentary dating back to 2012, Littlewood tackled domestic tax policy, welfare reform, and public health regulations.

In June 2012, he addressed personal tax avoidance and called on the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government to reduce charity subsidies after ministers reversed proposed charity tax changes.

Littlewood urged coalition leaders in early 2012 to embrace policies focused on low taxes and high economic growth, criticizing government intervention in public health after Health Secretary Andrew Lansley introduced plain packaging proposals for tobacco products alongside NHS reforms.

He also defended banking executive Stephen Hester regarding executive bonus payments, while arguing that the UK welfare state should function as a safety net rather than a comfort blanket and stating that government should not measure or manage public happiness.

Related

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *