I have given much attention to the Mirrlees review by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in the past - just look here and take your pick.
Now they have published their final report.
I know the world bows down to the IFS - but I don't. And that's because the whole of this review is a coordinated attack on the ordinary people of the UK and as such is shameless promotion of the interests of the elite that neoliberal economics serves.
Take some examples:
- This morning's headline that 50p tax does not work, when there is no evidence to prove that case: this is just far right promotion of the Laffer curve by Mirrlees
- The promotion of much higher VAT
- The suggestion that corporation tax should be abolished to be replaced by yet mo0re VAT
- The suggestion that taxes on savings should be reduced
- The idea that NIC should be abolished shifting the burden from employer to employee
And on, and on.
This is the tax agenda of the Washington Consensus played out for adoption in the UK, with the inevitable, intended and elite driven intent of shifting tax from profit onto labour, increasing division in society, promoting tax haven activity and ensuring greater inequality.
Now it's not difficult to work out where this drive comes from. For all practical purposes on this issue the Institute for Fiscal Studies overlaps heavily with the Oxford Centre for Business Taxation.
That centre has close ties with the FTSE 100 group - who sponsored it.
Members of staff at that centre happily endorse tax haven activity whilst turning a blind eye to its consequences, the evidence of which they deny.
And they always take a profoundly neoliberal line believing on all occasions that the free market works (although there's little evidence in most cases that they've been willing to trust their fortunes to it - always a paradox at the core of the thinking of such places).
So of course they promote taxes that deliver exactly what neoliberal thinking wants - which is a shift of returns from labour to capital.
And they wrap it up as if it has 'objective' status. Don't be deceived: this is blatant politicking of the worst sort lacking all elements of objectivity and designed solely to serve the goal of increasing inequality in society.
At which point I guess I have to give credit where it is due: given that this is what they want to do their recommendations will certainly deliver what they want.
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:
Specifically, on the Hundred Group’s funding of the Oxford University Centre against, sorry, for, Business Taxation, there is this article, from Accountancy Age.
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/feature/1782228/profile-christopher-wales-browns-buddy-goldman-sachs
A relevant paragraph:
“Based at the Saïd Business school and backed by £5m-worth of funding from the influential Hundred Group of Finance Directors, the centre has been set the goal of using academic weight, alongside HM Revenue & Customs and business expertise and assistance, to achieve a more competitive tax system for British businesses.”
Now Accountancy Age doesn’t deconstruct that word ‘competitive’ but we all know what that means, in the context of funding from the Hundred Group. There is some deconstruction of that word here, though. http://treasureislands.org/deconstructing-the-oxford-study-on-uk-tax/
A month ago – and I’m still waiting for a reply – I sent this question to the BBC: “On page 225 of Harold Perkin’s ‘The Making of a Social Historian’ Prof. Perkin recounts being sued 1973-5 by the Institute of Economic Affairs until they dropped the case, and as part of his defence the IEA was forced to reveal its list of donors. The BBC is cited by Prof Perkin as one of those donors. Is this true, and for how long did this continue?”
So when the IFS conducts sponsored research on the subjective question of the progressive/regressive nature of tax changes – you will disregard that too due to your strident views of the IFS as an organisation?
Hidden agendas turn research into propaganda.
Richard’s honesty is to be applauded, James.
I always make my position on IFS clear
“I know the world bows down to the IFS — but I don’t”
You do when they support your case.
My consistent criticism is unambiguous and annoys them, often, I am pleased to say
So more nonsense from you
“[The tax system] could raise as much revenue and achieve as much redistribution as it currently does in far less costly ways,” said Nobel Prize-winning economist Sir James Mirrlees, who led the review.
This is a bland statement of evidence-backed fact from a respected academic who has spent years researching the subject. To suggest that he has set out with a deliberate aim of increasing inequality defies rationality.
The UK tax system has grown over many years: would you really design it to operate in the way that it currently does from the ground up? There is an opportunity at the moment (ie, it is on the Government’s agenda) to make the system work better for the country and everyone it affects. If you lash out in this way rather than engage with the process, you will lose the opportunity to shape the outcomes.
Neo liberal economists are not value free
They set out to assist the processes I describe assisted by apologists who excuse them
The only person owing an apology here is you for believing or excusing him
You are just not ‘getting’ how well developed the Global NeoCon Conspiracy actually is. They have also infected the OECD. Read this from the OECD Tax Policy unit:
“The analysis suggests a tax and economic growth ranking order according to which corporate taxes are the most harmful type of tax for economic growth, followed by personal income taxes and then consumption taxes, with recurrent taxes on immovable property being the least harmful tax.
Growth-oriented tax reform measures include tax base broadening and a reduction in the top marginal personal income tax rates. Some degree of support for R&D through the tax system may help to increase private spending on innovation.”
Mirlees, IFS, Nobel Laureates and now even OECD. Is there nobody they can’t get to?
http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_34533_46591435_1_1_1_1,00.html
If they have “infected” the OECD, then they have infected the 34 countries that are members of the OECD. I suspect you know little about the OECD, its history and its goals.
Oh I think you’ll find I know the OECD quite well….
I know its unrelated to this particular topic but just a quick highlight of the latest in the manx media re. Zero-Ten
http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=54877
OY!! Get your own monicker!! 🙂
George Monbiot wrote a thought provoking article in the Guardian about how think tanks are distorting or even driving political debate; and their authority and impartiality is seldom challenged even though their ‘research’ is clearly funded by groups promoting their own special interest whilst staying in the shadows.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/12/thinktanks-crushing-democracy-pr-agenices
Why would abolishing NIC shift the burden from the employer to the employee?
Not least because employer’s would not compensate employees with pay rises
A drop in employee NIC would put more money in workers pockets. I suppose if it is shifted to income tax then it is balanced out, or to VAT and it costs more to buy things.
A cut in employer NIC would go to either cheaper goods and services, or higher salaries or profits/dividends (and which way it goes depends on competition in the markets). If it is ‘shifted to VAT then overall goods and services using UK employees would fall in price against imported goods and services.
And you don’t for a moment consider the distributional impact, I note
No, I am not considering the distributional impact, and that would indeed be a very long post (e.g. shifting employee NIC to income tax could also increase taxes on income from savings and investments).
I was just curious why abolishing or reducing NIC would be “shifting the burden from employer to employee”. Do you mean just the employer NIC side?
I wonder if there has been any research into the effect of increasing or decreasing employer NIC? Does increasing employer NIC lead to falling salaries or rising prices or falling profits or some combination of these?
My assumption is we can’t do without the ‘ers NIC
So it will be shifted to the ‘ee
But if employer does not increase wages then ‘ee pays more NIC
It’s really not hard, is it?
Thanks. And yes shifting er NIC to ee NIC would effectively to a government enforced pay cut. No politician (that wants to be re-elected) would do something so obvious.
For reasons I have said before, I think shifting it to VAT would be better and make UK produced goods and services more competitive.
Oh, and shift tax onto the poorest in society
Great….
The bottom 10% do pay a higher proportion of their houseehold spending on VAT.
However VAT increases inflation and this feeds into benefits increases. So the poorest households (which are more reliant on benefits) are cushioned from VAT increases.
I was talking to someone I used to work with. His wife runs a small business. She employs a couple of people part time and makes sure none are paid enough each week to pass the level for NIC. She could employ someone full time but employer NIC discourages that.
That is such patronising rubbish
For your complete contempt of the poor I will be blocking your further comments
Over 70 people, mainly academics from around the world collaborated on the project with only about 5 from Oxford. The review was sponsored by the Nuffield Foundation and ESRC, neither with a “right-wing” agenda.
I’m therefore a little bemused how you can link the report to the Oxford Business Centre for Business Taxation and right wing propoganda.
It’s easy to lin them
Most of those ‘academics’ were very junior
The drive was all from Oxford – as were many of the lead writers
I assure you I have good reason for thinking as I do
If you have a good reason for thinking so, why not share it with us. Bald, unsubstantiated accusations don’t really enhance the debate.
This blog is a longitudinal narrative
You can search it and find the evidence
It’s not my job to be your search engine
I think that George Monbiot piece was brilliant.
In my opinion, ANY research funded by business can’t be read as truly “objective”. It’s strange that most academic economists operate within the neoclassical paradigm – where altruism is assumed to be rare to non-existent, and everyone is out for themselves, basically. But when it comes to accepting money from business to do research, suddenly the tune changes. Is that a logically consistent stance? I don’t think so.
Do you tihnk research funded by a Trade Union can therefore also never be truly objective?
Of course not
But I never claim to be objective
No human is
But I am honest about it
I wonder if you would be better served if you read the report before criticizing.
A lot of what you have written appears to be either negligent or deliberate misinformation.
I would also suggest you look up the contributors to both volumes – hardly junior academics, mainly professors from non-PolyU converted unis.
I have read almost all the report _ have commented extensively on it over time on this blog
And also the 70 are mainly junior academics (read the specs)
Not all are, of course though
But let’s be clear: unless you’re neoliberal you wouldn’t a) get a job in a UK university on tax and b) have been invited onto this report team
It’s one reason why UK academic tax is so lame and such a poor investment for the UK
And you are the answer to this problem?
An academic is supposed to draw conclusions from the facts and the law. You tend to start with the conclusion and manufacture the facts and misinterpret the law to justify the conclusions.
And as for the neoliberal nonsense – have you forgotten that we live in a democracy?
Oh stop being really very silly
Academics are human beings and bring their personal prejudices with them
The claim of objectivity is just a political construct that people like you peddle