Historical about-face of the British Conservatives. After winning the elections waving the "no tax" banner, the prime minister of London, Boris Johnson, announced a resounding £12bn tax increase the year. It's about the highest tax increase in the last seventy years in Great Britain and was approved in Parliament with a more than large majority: 319 votes in favor against 248 against.
In short, Johnson has reneged on the main campaign promise which allowed him to get to Downing Street. A decision that fueled controversy and bewilderment among the Tories themselves, who however, in the end, allowed themselves to be convinced to vote for the measure without defections.
“The Conservatives are becoming the heavy state party,” writes the Financial Times.
"The voters will never again believe your promises on taxes", increases the dose Keir Starmer, number one of Labour, until yesterday the "tax and spend" party.
But how does Johnson justify himself? "It's true - admits the prime minister - in our program it was written that we would not raise taxes, but two years ago in the electoral program of no party it was written that we would have the pandemic".
Indeed, the tax increase aims to increase the resources available to the British National Health System to deal with the pandemic emergency.
However, it will not be painless: as the British government itself explains, for an average salary of £30 gross a year, the tax increase will weigh on £5 a week, that is £250 a year, about 300 euros. But the structure of the increase is progressive, so whoever receives 100 gross pounds a year will be called to pay about a thousand pounds more, and so on.
However, critics argue that it is not a socially equitable intervention, because, by raising the tax on National Insurance, it affects more those who have a permanent job. For example, it does not concern a landlord who rents out houses, while her tenants, perhaps poor, will be affected.
Labor would have preferred a progressive income tax or rather a "wealth tax", a tax on wealth, applied to taxpayers and very high-income companies.
Finally, most commentators argue that £12 billion a year is not enough to revive public health and social welfare after a decade of crippling cuts. Cuts always decided by the Conservatives.
