I'm guessing actually that you
liked
some of the budget. What about would I
be right in thinking that you like the
lifting of the two child benefit cap but
you didn't like the freezing of tax
thresholds?
>>
Correct. So um we do support the lifting
of the two child benefit cap for two
reasons. First of all, we think it is
morally the right thing to do. And
secondly, because it saves money for the
taxpayer in the longer term because we
know that children growing up in poverty
ends up costing the taxpayer more
because they have worse health outcomes,
worse educational outcomes as well. Uh
we support uh the government's attempts
to increase taxes on the remote gaming
companies, for example. So those are
good things uh that we do like, but we
are deeply concerned deeply concerned
about this double whammy stealth tax on
both households and on high streets. I
want to come to to all of that, but um
this is unusual for Liberal Democrats.
You you you guys all have an eye to
popular policies and lifting the cap is
a pretty unpopular po policy because
people say
you have a choice these days about how
many children you have and why should we
subsidize when we have decided to have
only two children. Why should we
subsidize people who want to have more?
Honestly, I think politicians have not
gone out and sold the argument on this
one. The fact is that if you don't
subsidize them, to use that word, uh
when they're growing up as children, we
end up subsidizing them lifelong. And
so, you can save money in the public
purse. If you invest in children when
they're young, they get better health
outcomes, better educational outcomes.
They're less likely to be unemployed as
adults. So if we want to tackle the
welfare bill which is projected to grow
and grow and grow, one of the best ways
of doing that is to invest early on so
you save later on. Uh though uh let me
put to you something that Kathy Ashton
who's on the panel today and who was a
Labour minister um said which is that
when she was in government the money
what they put money into was Sure Start
and there are many people including
David Blunkett former cabinet minister
who've been saying this week that
actually if you had three billion to
spend
>>
that is a more effective way of of using
it rather than giving three and a half
thousand people uh pounds to people who
may or may not use it well may or may
not use it to support their children.
>>
But there are lots of different ways in
which you could spend this money. Of
course there are. So there are different
interventions we can have that argument.
But there's absolutely no doubt that the
vast majority of um child poverty
charities have said if you want to do
this instantly, if you want to have an
instant impact, this is the fastest way
of having an instant impact on child
poverty today.
>>
All right. One one item um I wasn't sure
you would like in the budget is the um
council tax sir charge on homes over 2
million. Um you for that or against it?
>>
We're against it because it's just such
a mess. Economists from left to right
have said in the last few days this is
very complicated. It's a messy system.
It won't come into effect for three
years and it's going to raise 400
million pounds. If the chancellor wants
to go after wealth, we have said why not
raise a windfall tax on the big banks.
You could raise 30 billion pounds in the
next 5 years. If you want to go after
wealth, then why not reform capital
gains tax in a more progressive fairer
way so the 0.1% super rich pay more. If
the government is serious about going
after wealth, they could raise a digital
services tax on people like Elon Musk
and Mark Zuckerberg. The all three of
those measures would raise significantly
more than 400 million from tweaking a
system that's could be ever so
complicated. So, I think the government
needs to get its priorities straight.
Well, you're you you um have a priority
of your own, which is to tax big
business, and you said you've mentioned
two kinds of big businesses. Um big
businesses, of which there are by the ONS
definition, 8,000 or so, employ 11
million people in this country, 40% of
the workforce. and they're going to be
saying tomorrow morning to each other
that they need to slow hiring because
national insurance hike and now because
of business rates. Um,
>>
you're going to kill if you were in
government, you'd be killing growth,
wouldn't you?
>>
No, we absolutely wouldn't. We have been
calling for measures that would boost
growth. We have singled out particular
businesses and particular sectors where
we think they could pay more money. So
for the big banks, for example, the
windfall tax that we're calling for is
not a tax on the profits they've made
from lending any money. It's the money
that they've made from doing
nothing at all, from taking no risk at
all because of a glitch in the
quantitative easing process. When you look
at the digital services tax, this is a
tax that would be levied on these
really, you know, these billionaires, the
richest man in the world. I don't think
you can honestly say that these
particular sectors could
>>
you're not seriously saying Elon Musk is
going to pay a welfare bill. Pensions
alone knocking on
130, 140 billion. Even Elon Musk hasn't
got that kind of money.
>>
Look, when you add up all of these
different measures that we're calling
for, it does add up to billions of
pounds. And also, we said you've got to
grow the economy. We can't keep talking
about just taxing or cutting. We have
got to grow our way to prosperity. And
the best way of doing that is getting a
better deal with Europe, which even
within the government's own red lines
would bring in an extra 25 billion
pounds a year.
>>
Okay, so rejoin the EU.
>>
Look, that's not on the cards right now.
What is on the cards is getting a better
deal with Europe. There's so much red
tape, so much red tape affecting British
businesses in this country right now. If
the government got a better deal and got
rid of two billion bits of paper that
businesses have had to complete since
the Brexit deal, we could improve
growth. You could have British
businesses exporting abroad. That would
bring extra revenue into the public
purse to pay for our public services.
>>
Okay, last quick questions. How worried
about are you about the fact that Mr.
Zach Polansky is hogging the limelight
as a sort of leftish receptacle for
disillusioned Labour voters?
>>
Zach is clearly a very charismatic guy,
but when you look in the ballot box, we
Liberal Democrats have been absolutely
winning in so many of the bi-elections
recently in many places where the green
vote has been going down. So we're
pretty confident that where we are
fighting hard, we are doing
0.5x - Slower
0.75x - Slow
1.0x - Normal
You might also like these videos
If you enjoy using our custom video player, why not join thousands of subscribers who have signed up to our free weekly lessons?