The chancellor has defended raising the top rate of income tax to 50%, because he asays it is only "fair" that those with the "broadest shoulders" paid more.
I have no briedf to defend the rich, but the logic is appalling. He went on to say htat the raise was necessary because of the "extraordinary circumstances" of the recession.
Well he didn't fix the problem and we still have a £173 billion deficit after the £1 billion raised by this measure, so the argument of necessity seems weak.
He said he still wanted people to see the UK as a good place to do business. Of course he does, but seeing their post tax income drop by 10% of the gross or 17% of the net is hardly going to encourage them to do so. He can say the same thing when the tax rate hits 80%, but it won't work then either.
But then he goes on to say "I don't think there's a single item of government expenditure that you can't say: let's have a look at it, do we need to spend this money, can we spend it better and more efficiently?"
So that blows the necessity argument out of the window. According to the chancellor every item of government expenditure probably incorporates some waste. But instead of working on reducing it, he chooses to put up taxes to pay for it.