Today's papers cover in detail the distributional impact of thirteen years of Labour rule. The picture represents a clear progressive redistribution.
Today’s papers cover in detail analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies on the distributional impact of thirteen years of Labour rule. The picture is stunning and represents a clear progressive redistribution from rich to poor with those earning over £100,000 paying the most.
Newspaper reaction is unsurprisingly along partisan lines. The Guardian broadly praise the redistribution with a piece titled, “Labour’s tax and benefits strategy has closed the income gap, thinktank says”:
“The poorest 10% of households gained by 13% while at the same time the richest 10% saw their incomes cut by almost 9%. When households earning more than £100,000 were treated as a separate category, the figures showed they faced tax rises that cut their incomes by 15%…
“According to the IFS, middle income groups have neither gained nor lost from tax and benefit changes over the 13 years. Most rightwing commentators described the budget as the last in a long line of attacks on middle income earners. But the IFS figures show that while households in the higher income groups lose out compared with lower income groups, the effects are only marginal.”
Sean O’Grady in The Independent writes:
“The richest households in Britain are about £25,000 a year worse off as a result of changes to the tax and benefits system introduced by Labour since 1997 – while the “working poor” are better off by almost £1,700, or 13 per cent of their income…
“These figures, from the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), will bolster the Government’s claims that it has been sharing the burden of adjustment in the economy “fairly”.”
The Financial Times says “Rich hit hard by 13 years of Labour Budgets”:
“Not since 1974, when Dennis Healey was said to have threatened to tax the rich “until the pips squeak”, has a British government sought to redistribute income from the well-off to the poor so aggressively, the IFS analysis showed.”
The Daily Mail, unsurprisingly, have a different angle: “The fleecing of the middle class: How Labour’s punished any family earning over £30,000”. The average annual income is £24,000.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
39 Responses to “Labour’s “Robin Hood” legacy”
Tank the Tories
RT @leftfootfwd GRAPHIC: Robin Hood government: Labour has taken from the poor to give to the rich http://bit.ly/abZuQV
Stephen Murray
How the left and the right papers see income distribution under New Labour http://bit.ly/9FZeC0 (H/T @BevaniteEllie )
Post Free Ads
RT @BevaniteEllie Thinking every Labour PPC should put this graphic up in their office. http://bit.ly/abZuQV
Pete Bowers
RT @leftfootfwd: Labour's "Robin Hood" legacy http://bit.ly/9FZeC0
Chris Brown
@BevaniteEllie <Robin Hood government> How unbelievable is this! Spare us please! http://bit.ly/abZuQV