The Tories have published the findings of their Tax Reform Commission, which was, by the way wholly staffed by KPMG (I know, they asked to meet me, although I note they have ignored all I said). The recommendations are intellectually bankrupt and economically incoherent.
Let's take a starter:
While theoretically attractive, moving directly to a "pure" flat tax in the UK would not in practice be viable. Financing current levels of government expenditure would require a flat tax rate which would entail either undue risk with the public
finances or major cuts in expenditure or a steep increase in tax rates for those on low incomes or for middle earners. Nevertheless, many of the features of flatter taxes - simplicity, stability, a broader base, higher thresholds, fewer rates - can and should be actively pursued.
They say this just days after the IMF have shown that flat tax is an idea whose time has gone and which does not deliver the claimed benefits.
Then they note:
Tax reform can work. Many other countries have recently embarked on programmes of tax simplification, base broadening and rate reduction. Examples include Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Ireland. These countries have cut their tax rates and simplified their tax systems. At the same time, they have achieved budget surpluses and enjoyed strong economic growth. This in turn has made further reform affordable.
I argued this point a while ago with one of George Osborne's tax advisers, a person of maybe 26 years of age who must have done terribly well at Balliol or wherever but clearly knew nothing of the real world. He was completely in awe of Ireland getting Google's head office when the UK did not. But what he, and the Tories show by the above statement is their simple naivety. New Zealand is a tax haven. The Netherlands is a tax haven. Ireland is a pariah state feeding itself by stealing the taxation revenues due to other states in the EU and US. These are not sustainable tax models for major economies. They are the actions of small states with limited economic activity of their own willing to steal from others and hoping to get away with it for a while. This is a zero sum game: it is the race to the bottom. And the Tories have bought it, hook line and sinker.
The let's look at their main recommendations in turn:
• Improving understanding of how tax affects economic growth.
This is main plank of the some pretty right wing think tanks who think this will prove that flat taxes work because they believe it shows that tax always harms the economy. There are two obvious conclusions. The first is that the Tories haven't given up the idea of flat taxes. The second is they still hate government.
• Reducing personal taxation
An interesting idea. But no clue is given as to how it is to be funded.
• Simplifying personal taxation. The basic rate of income tax and the savings rate should both be set at 20 per cent. The complex web of tax free employee benefits and allowances should be reviewed and, wherever possible, abolished. National insurance and income tax rules should be aligned with consideration being given to merging the two systems in the medium term.
A flat tax idea, of course. And note that the effect is to actually cut tax reliefs for ordinary working people. In addition merging tax and national insurance will have one certain outcome, which is that pensioners will pay more tax. So much for concern for the poor.
• Reducing business taxation. The main rate of corporation tax should be reduced to 25 per cent. Over time, there should be one rate of corporation tax of 20 per cent.
Now the Tories are showing their true colours. And since I've already shown that big business only pays at 22.3% on average in the UK a cut to 20% from 30% will actually, presumably, mean a real rate of 12.3%. Much lower than the tax rate for any individual of course and designed to keep business happy but also to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, because it's ordinary taxpayers who will pick up the bill for this. It al;so happens to be lower than Ireland. Is this a coincidence?
‚Ä¢ Simplifying business taxation. The corporate tax base should be broadened and tax rates reduced by replacing the complex schedular system with one based on accounting profit. The upper marginal rate of 32.75 per cent should be abolished so that all profits above £300,000 are charged at the main rate of corporation tax. The indexation allowance should be abolished. Full pooling of losses should be permitted. R&D tax credits and film tax credits should be abolished. Safe harbour rules should be introduced and a general anti-avoidance rule once substantial simplification has been achieved.
This is tinkering. And actually these changes will substantially cut tax bills, especially the change on losses. I note the commitment to a GAAR, but these don't work as accountants abuse all rules: it has to be a General Anti-Avoidance Principle. Finally, you introduce one of these to simplify things, not when you've achieved simplicity. The causation is wrong here, and on this logic will never happen.
• Reducing and simplifying capital taxation. A short-term capital gains tax which tapers to zero over ten years should replace the current complex system of taper relief and indexation. Inheritance tax should be abolished and replaced with a short-term capital gains tax on death (the family home would remain exempt from capital gains tax.) Stamp duty on UK shares should be abolished.
Or let's put it simply: let's make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Abolishing stamp duty will over inflate an already over inflated stock market and boost City earnings, pushing up house prices more, so denying ordinary people any chance of buying a home. There is no argument for abolishing Inheritance Tax unless you see no problem in an enormous wealth divide. The Tories clearly don't, and abolishing capital gains tax will be a tax avoiders charter.
• Reforming how tax law is made.
So what if the above is what you're going to do?
In summary, this is a disastrous tax package. It shows the Tories have not changed their spots. It shows they have no green credentials because this is all about stimulating growth which fuels global warming. And it shows they want to increase the divisions in our society.
I guess that's what I'd expect. From the Tories and KPMG.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I once had the dubious pleasure of sharing an office with William Hague in approx 1988. He and I were jointly supplying advice to a major UK group on its business strategy. My input to the project was on corporate tax for this group, his was on the financial models. We were working for different firms of advisers.
He cocked up the tax numbers in his financial model and, when questioned during a presentation to the Board on the financial model’s results by the financially astute chief exec, blamed me for the tax mistake as the tax adviser. I was not present at that Board meeting. The mistake was not mine, but William Hague’s inadequate modelling. The chief exec accepted the mistake was not mine
Needless to say I did several things when I found out later what had happened:
1. Threatened to throw Hague down a staircase.
2. Vowed never to vote Conservative while he was a member of their party.
3. Resolved never to trust a Tory on tax.
Nothing I have come across since (including this latest garbage probably researched and mostly written by what used to be described as teenage scribblers) has done anything but reinforced my resolve on point 3.
Roger
Fantastic!!!
I’ll retell it for years
Richard
If I can jump in on the Australian economic growth, it is worth noting, although the comment referred to could easily be read that its growth is as a result of changes to the tax system, Australia has an abundance of natural resources which is driving areas like Perth forward at an awesome rate, but it is also on the doorstep of Asia and this is something that has not escaped the Aussies.
Therefore, it is not their tax system that is driving them forward, it is there location and natural resources.
But what he, and the Tories show by the above statement is their simple naivety. New Zealand is a tax haven. The Netherlands is a tax haven. Ireland is a pariah state feeding itself by stealing the taxation revenues due to other states in the EU and US. These are not sustainable tax models for major economies.
I cannot believe that you are an accountant!!!
Should each country have a tax rate of 100 % for each person and company? No taxation rate is ever substainable because there will always be new demands of the leaders on their subjects or a benefit given from one group of tax payers to another group of non- contributors!
No government ever balances their books! By the way is tax competition not the same as competitive devaluations or indeed beggar my neighbor increasing global interest rates to draw funds into bankrupt economies today !!!
I assure Richard that I am a full blown accountant – my cv is available on the Tax Research web site.
And of course I don’t want 100% tax rates. That is simply an absurd argument. As is also the argument that no government ever balances their books – many do.
Can we keep to economic reasoning here?
Richard
Richard,
I read your CV after submission.
How do you define a sensible tax rate which is “non competitive”?
What would suggest the tax rate should be for the UK given their obligations for pensions and PFI and whose parents still need to contribute to their childrens university costs?
What should the tax rate be for the Isle of Man which doesnt waste money on agricultural subsidies and whose children educational fees are fully paid by the IOM gigovernment?