We all want to live in a socially conscious society. A cynic might suggest that we like the idea of not having to worry about other people directly. As true as this might be, it belittles the fact that at the heart of it we do care. For all of us though this has a very real cost. One that in our darkest moments leads us to thinking it is down to others more than ourselves. Which is why the tricky subject of tax is one of the hardest things for parties to get right in their policies — and no more so as we crescendo into an election cycle.

With the Lib Dem’s getting to the guts of their policies at their conference, we now find ourselves at a place where the main players have all laid out their stall on what they see as the best way to make society “more progressive”. That fantastic phrase we all band around, but I’m fairly sure we don’t truly understand. Is it just about taxing the rich more? Or, should it be about making easier for the poor to earn more? Maybe, both.

So how do they compare?

• Tories — Freeze in work benefits for 2 years to help get the deficit down. Once achieved cut taxes by raising the personal allowance to £12.5k and the 40% threshold from £31865 to £37500. Raise the minimum wage to £7.
• Labour — Raise the minimum wage to £8. Raise the 45% rate to 50%. Introduce a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2m. With pledges to direct these tax increases to the NHS.
• Lib Dems — Increase personal allowance to £12.5k. A different flavour of mansion tax that involves changing council tax. However a pledge to build 5 new garden cities north of London. Increase the minimum wage for apprentices. Lower pension lifetime allowance from £1.25m to £1m.
• UKIP — Will raise the personal allowance to £13.5k, introduce a new 35% band for those earning up to £55k a year, which they will fund by taking us out of the EU.

So which do you choose?

Well, most of it is eye catching, but when you dig into it there are two trends. Increasing income for the poorest, and raising more taxes to pay down the deficit or fund the NHS. I’ve already made a slight at Labour’s effort in this article. They could have been so much braver and so much more socially progressive. The same argument falls on the Lib Dems. To be fair they have at least acknowledged that taxes will need to be used to pay the deficit, and that housing supply in the South is what is causing house price inflation to be so rampant. As to UKIP, leaving the EU is just nuts.

However, as Vince Cable has said today, any party that says taxes won’t need to go up, or that spending won’t need to tighten further are lying to the electorate about the remaining challenges facing the next government in bridging the £30bn a year in savings that the OBR suggest would be needed to get the government back into surplus. As an aside some suggest this is a slight at the Tories, but bear in the mind the Tories are not suggesting cuts until the deficit is under control. So it’s actually more of a slight at Labour.

So why is no one suggesting 21%, 41% and 46% for a few years?

Well, it is all about the election. They simply can’t be honest with the electorate about what they all need to do. After all the Tories may look nasty in suggesting they would freeze in-work benefits for 2 years, but the Lib Dems are saying they will need to be capped at 1% not inflation. Which is still a massive cut over two years. I’d imagine Labour agree, but are just being quite about it — and UKIP simply haven’t addressed the deficit.

So are any of these policies progressive?

Well, in the short term none of them. You can’t cut government spending by being progressive, and all the eye catching tax rises from Labour and the Lib Dems simply don’t take that much from them. The only way you would really hurt them is to up the 40% band — which no party has gone near.

So it comes down to these ideological offers:

• Labour and the Lib Dems — to add taxes for the top 1%.
• Tories, UKIP and less so the Lib Dems — to lower tax for the poor.

Terrifying if you actually look at the effect on overall tax take it is the right that is offering to make the rich pay proportionally more tax than anyone else — which as a liberal pragmatist makes me astonished and terrified.