Latest news with #AdamSmithInstitute
Scottish Sun
2 days ago
- Business
- Scottish Sun
Fed up Labour voters warn against ‘Nanny State' as ad ban sparks freedom row
'Labour entered Government promising to stabilise business and unleash growth. Yet we are seeing the opposite', slam pub bosses NO TO NANNY Fed up Labour voters warn against 'Nanny State' as ad ban sparks freedom row Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) NANNYING ministers must stop snatching away public freedoms, Labour's own voters have insisted. More than half — some 53 per cent — told a survey that banning adverts for products such as booze or cigarettes sets a dangerous precedent. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up It comes as the Government is drawing up a partial ban on alcohol promotional material. Three-quarters of voters who chose Labour last year said they should be free to make their own lifestyle choices, the poll for the Adam Smith Institute think tank revealed. And 61 per cent of Labour voters agreed adults should be trusted to make their own decisions about smoking or nicotine use. Just 13 per cent said they should not. READ MORE ON THE NANNY STATE OAT OF ORDER Porridge branded 'junk food' under Government's latest nanny state crackdown Maxwell Marlow, Director of Public Affairs at the Adam Smith Institute, said: 'Time and again, voters have told politicians that they want to be left alone in the choices they make. 'And yet nanny state ideologues still railroad through changes that either don't work, or drive the sale of these goods into the hands of criminals. 'The state needs to step back, respect freedom of choice, and concentrate on the big issues the public really cares about.' Emma McClarkin, boss of the British Beer and Pub Association, has written to Health Secretary Wes Streeting about her 'extreme concern' over an advert ban's damage to the industry, which pays £17billion in tax. She said: 'Labour entered Government promising to stabilise business and unleash growth. 'Yet we are seeing the opposite: a relentless layering of regulation and financial burdens on a sector that is already one of the most tightly regulated and heavily taxed in the UK. 'This approach is actively disincentivising investment and growth and runs counter to the ambitions Labour has set for Britain.' The Twix ad BANNED from TV after being branded 'dangerous'
The Sun
2 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Fed up Labour voters warn against ‘Nanny State' as ad ban sparks freedom row
NANNYING ministers must stop snatching away public freedoms, Labour's own voters have insisted. More than half — some 53 per cent — told a survey that banning adverts for products such as booze or cigarettes sets a dangerous precedent. It comes as the Government is drawing up a partial ban on alcohol promotional material. Three-quarters of voters who chose Labour last year said they should be free to make their own lifestyle choices, the poll for the Adam Smith Institute think tank revealed. And 61 per cent of Labour voters agreed adults should be trusted to make their own decisions about smoking or nicotine use. Just 13 per cent said they should not. Maxwell Marlow, Director of Public Affairs at the Adam Smith Institute, said: 'Time and again, voters have told politicians that they want to be left alone in the choices they make. 'And yet nanny state ideologues still railroad through changes that either don't work, or drive the sale of these goods into the hands of criminals. 'The state needs to step back, respect freedom of choice, and concentrate on the big issues the public really cares about.' Emma McClarkin, boss of the British Beer and Pub Association, has written to Health Secretary Wes Streeting about her 'extreme concern' over an advert ban's damage to the industry, which pays £17billion in tax. She said: 'Labour entered Government promising to stabilise business and unleash growth. 'Yet we are seeing the opposite: a relentless layering of regulation and financial burdens on a sector that is already one of the most tightly regulated and heavily taxed in the UK. ' This approach is actively disincentivising investment and growth and runs counter to the ambitions Labour has set for Britain.' The Twix ad BANNED from TV after being branded 'dangerous' 1
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
I won't take lessons in economics from clueless Labour
Reform believes Britain can once again be a prosperous and powerful country. Unlike the entire political establishment, which has resigned itself to managed decline, we know a remarkable recovery is tough, but possible. The path to getting there requires halting the unprecedented exodus of the country's biggest taxpayers from the country, and indeed persuading more to come here. To create jobs, wealth and apply their broad shoulders to the tax burden. It also requires repairing the social contract. For too long those who set their alarm clocks and go to work have been getting a raw deal. Decades of foolish policy from witless and gutless politicians has resulted in tens of thousands of the wealthiest people in Britain fleeing the country. According to the Adam Smith Institute, this will cost £115 billion of growth over the next decade, and tens of billions in lost tax revenue. So, we announced a new policy yesterday, introducing the Britannia Card. We will make the UK attractive to the world's wealthiest people. But they must pay a £250,000 landing fee for the privilege of being here. All of those fees will be pooled and distributed directly to the 2.5 million lowest paid full-time workers in the country. This will make us competitive on the global stage, the entrepreneurs and wealth creators we want will make the UK their home. While they won't pay tax on foreign assets, they will, beyond the landing fee, still pay an average of £120,000 per year in direct taxation on UK earnings, and much more in VAT, Stamp Duty and (via their companies) Corporation Tax. Based on conservative assumptions of uptake of the card, the lowest paid full-time workers will receive a tax free annual payment of £600 to £1000. The rest of the country will benefit from the billions more these international job creators will pay in tax, beyond the landing fee. The economy benefits because those 'Britannia dividends' paid to workers will be spent in local cafes, high streets and cinemas. Those who earn the least have the highest propensity to spend. Nigel Farage is the first political leader in decades to have the courage and wisdom to say that Britain needs the wealthy to have any chance of getting out of the deep fiscal hole it's in. Non-doms have been vilified, firstly by Tories and now by Labour. According to Bloomberg, they represent 0.1 per cent of the population and pay 1 per cent of the tax. They're literally the last people you'd want to chase away if you cared about our country. The announcement was met by comical howls from the Tories. The clowns who managed in fourteen years the astonishing feat of hiking the tax burden on working people to the highest level in 70 years, tripling the national debt to £40,000 per person, and leaving public services on the brink of collapse. All at the same time. They have been appropriately rewarded for this with electoral oblivion. Labour, meanwhile, claim our policy will 'cost the treasury money'. Wrong. Reeves is the genius who hiked the Capital Gains Tax rate in her Budget, and – along with the woeful OBR – claimed it would raise billions in extra taxes. We now know the opposite has happened. It cost the exchequer billions, and she's borrowing that money as a result. She will then soak everyone else with higher taxes to make up for her incompetence. The same thing is happening with the non-dom policy. The OBR said that scrapping it would raise billions, but assumed that just 1.5 per cent of the non-dom population would leave each year. Just 10 months in and 10 per cent have left already. Once that hits 25 per cent (which it will in short order), revenue for the taxpayer will decline. That's why the Treasury are sounding the alarm, and she will almost certainly U-turn. I started a tech company from scratch, grew it to tens of millions in revenue and sold it for hundreds of millions. I know what it means to take risk, the sacrifice required to create wealth, and I know how people in that situation think. Not a single member of the Labour cabinet has started a business, or had a consequential job in the private sector. That's why they keep announcing policies straight from the student union. Time is running out. We need competence back in Westminster. It won't be easy, and we will need more than one term to do it. But make no mistake, Reform will restore this country to prosperity.
Newsroom
21-06-2025
- Health
- Newsroom
Seymour's ‘light up' message alarms tobacco researchers
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour's comments to a London audience calling smokers 'fiscal heroes' – and declaring people should 'light up' to save their government's balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say. Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as 'quite evil' the Labour government's plan to create a smokefree generation. Early in its term, the coalition Government sparked controversy by repealing a law that would have banned the sale of tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009 and dramatically reduced both the number of outlets able to sell tobacco and the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month. Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been 'quite evil, in a way' and described smokers as 'fiscal heroes'. 'If you want to save your country's balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you're a hero,' he said to laughter from the audience. Seymour told Newsroom his remarks were based on arguments he made before about the role of the Government when it came to smoking. 'I'm not seriously suggesting that we should encourage people to smoke to save the Government money. It's clearly an absurd statement, but you do have to have a bit of a sense of humour in this life, otherwise it would be too dull.' The state should make sure the public was aware of the dangers of smoking, while stopping smokers from doing harm to others (such as through second-hand smoke) and ensuring they did not impose financial costs on others. 'As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?' (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year's NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.) Seymour said it was 'just a sad fact' that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses. 'If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.' However, he backtracked on his suggestion the last Government's smokefree generation plans were 'quite evil', saying: 'I'm not sure that was the right word, on reflection. 'I certainly think the idea that, in 30 years' time, someone's going to have to prove that they're 49 rather than 47 does seem draconian – it seems almost a bit of an Orwellian situation.' While the Adam Smith Institute's event page billed Seymour as the Deputy Prime Minister, he said his speech was delivered in a private capacity rather than on behalf of the Government, while he had not used taxpayer money for his travel (he also confirmed the Institute did not cover any of his costs). Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says the last Labour government's smokefree policy was fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds. Photo: Marc Daalder Labour Party health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom the minister's remarks showed the Government had the wrong priorities when it came to its smokefree policy. 'They are prioritising balancing the books on the misery done to smokers due to the harms of tobacco.' Verrall said there was clear evidence of tobacco's cost to the health system, and the last government's smokefree generation policy had been 'fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds'. 'This is an addictive product: it is unique in that it kills half the people who use it. It's not like the more nuanced debates we have about … social media for kids.' University of Otago associate professor Andrew Waa told Newsroom Seymour's 'perverse' arguments were further evidence of the Government placing tobacco tax revenue over other concerns. 'It's literally blood money: it's money that the Government taxes on a deadly product, and yet they're still treating it as a profit margin for them.' Waa said the minister's comments ignored the social costs of tobacco, and would only help an industry 'intent on exploiting addiction at whatever cost'. 'I don't know if it's naive, or if it's [his] ideology that it's all personal choice – there's no choice when it comes to smoking some of these things. 'There's a reason why certain communities are more likely to smoke, because they get tobacco products shoved in their face all the time; by the time they decide to think that they don't wanna use the stuff, it's too late.' Janet Hoek, the co-director of tobacco control research partnership ASPIRE Aotearoa, told Newsroom that the comments were 'really ridiculous and reprehensible'. 'It just seems incredibly disappointing that Mr Seymour apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that addiction, and early and often painful death, are a good way to generate government revenue.' Hoek said the environmental and productivity costs associated with smoking also needed to be taken into account, as did the social harm done to communities when their loved ones died prematurely. While some politicians dismissed public health experts as 'muppets … living in ivory towers', the suggestion that smokers were making an informed choice was itself out of touch with reality.
Times
11-06-2025
- Business
- Times
Date of ‘tax freedom day' is latest for 40 years
The tax burden on workers is greater than at any time over the past 40 years and is likely to rise to a record level within three years, according to a free-market think tank. The Adam Smith Institute says 'tax freedom' day falls on Thursday, six days later than last year and 20 days later than before the pandemic. It has not been this late in the year since 1985 when the Thatcher government was attempting to rectify the disastrous public finances after the economic crises of the 1970s. Tax freedom day is a symbolic indication of how long into the year the average person would have to work to pay their annual tax bill, with all money earned thereafter going to themselves. The think tank says that under government tax and spending plans, tax freedom day in 2028 will not arrive until June 24, which would be its latest date. That would make the tax burden higher than it was during the Second World War or the Napoleonic Wars. It adds that tax freedom day could fall more than halfway through the year as soon as 2030 unless the government changes course, meaning taxation will exceed 50 per cent of net national income for the first time. This year, the 'cost of government day', which factors in borrowing as well as taxes, is July 22, the latest date since the pandemic. The think tank has also released data showing the extent to which the tax burden is being shouldered by the rich. It reports that in the last tax year, the top 1 per cent of earners paid 28.2 per cent of total tax liabilities with the top 10 per cent paying 60.2 per cent. It noted: 'With their share of liabilities steadily increasing over the last 25 years, many wealthy taxpayers are leaving the UK altogether.' The think tank predicts that Britain is on course to lose a greater proportion of millionaires than any other country over the course of this parliament, 'raising questions about the viability of our current tax regime'. James Lawson, the chairman of the Adam Smith Institute, said: 'Britons are now working nearly half the year just to pay taxes — and the burden is only getting heavier. A tax system that consumes 162 days of our working year is simply not sustainable. It stifles our economic growth, productivity and our long-term prosperity. 'What's even more alarming is that, unless we reverse course, the UK is on track for taxes to swallow more than half of national income by 2030. This would take us beyond anything seen even during the world wars or the economic crises of the 1970s, raising profound questions about the nature of our economic model. He added: 'Politicians from all parties must ask themselves whether they want a country where work is penalised, innovation suppressed, and families see more of their income swallowed by the state each year. If we are serious about turning around our stagnant economy, we must start by cutting taxes.' Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at the investment platform Hargreaves Lansdown, said the freezing of income tax thresholds was where most ordinary people were paying more tax. She said: 'Last tax year, there were 37.7 million taxpayers, and we handed over an eye-watering £301.9 billion in income tax — up 10 per cent in a year and up 37 per cent since 2021-22. The pain is far from over, because these thresholds are frozen until 2028.'
