Another one from Simon: Inner West: Chris Huhne approves of the Institute of Fiscal Studies picks up on an article in the Times (link in title) saying that Chris's stated policy of removing those on minimum wage from income tax would be "an enormous tax cut by recent standards and may require an equally big tax rise to pay for it".

Well, as Homer would say "doh!". The clue is in the manifesto - "Tax Shift". It's not meant to be a cut, nor an increase, in the overall burden of taxation. But a shift. That means big cuts in one type of tax (income) and balancing rises in other types of tax (eco). I've already blogged that "eco-taxes" must include land, and we know Chris supports LVT for other aspects of his tax shifting agenda.

But basically, the IFS are merely stating what Chris has already stated - that to be tax neutral his proposal to take minimum wagers out of income tax will require some other source of revenue to balance it out - except of course Chris puts it the other way around that the shift of more of the tax burden onto resource use will by happenstance free up money to start taking the least well off out of income tax. Where's the argument? Shifting around 4.2% of the total tax take seems quite modest to me (somewhat less than the tax shift the party proposed at the last general election, away from property and onto incomes in the form of Local Income Tax, I think).

However a real plus for Chris, to my mind, is what the Times goes on to criticise him for. That far from him most daring feat at Oxford being the attempt to break into the Indian Institute, he advocated individuals' freedom to choose their own preferred intoxicant, whether it be alcohol, cannabis or opium. Something I thought this party generally agreed with.