The FT carries a headline this morning that says:
Rightly, the article says that calls for a review of the spends is overdue.
I agree. It is one reason why I have proposed an Office for Tax Responsibility and a separate ministry responsible for taxation so that proper account can be created for such spends.
But what bemuses me about the article is the fact that when Jeremy Corbyn called for such a review it was condemned. When anyone else does it is prudent thinking.
What we actually need is a thorough review of such spending, the Treasury and how tax is managed and like it or not the only people saying they will address issues in that way right now are Labour. Others need to join in, rapidly, given the scale of the issue.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Ño discussion of the economy, apart from a cursory mention, this morning with Nick Robinson. The media want to talk about splits, and Trident. Labour needs to change the subject, and talk about taxes and growth through investment.
Agreed
No room given to discuss the positives
It is interesting that the morality (or rather lack) of not tackling the tax allowances and avoidances is no longer one that even the FT can avoid. The Tories have chosen to cut welfare back to the bone and cause misery and suffering to millions of the most vulnerable people who bear no responsibility for any political, financial or economic mishaps.
Even their own loyal supporters must be realising by now that the gross failure of such an inhumane strategy will be that the retribution they will face on their own tax perks and secret offshore stashes will be both severe and wholly justified when that time inevitably comes.
For every unjust action there is an equal or greater reaction in the name of moral justice!
Hi Richard, which of these in particular do you think should be stopped? Do you think the research tax breaks should be replaced with direct research grants?
I think many need review
R & D does
So do many on property
I wrote quite a bit on this in The Joy of Tax
But do their loyal supporters care enough about all sections of society. The more money you have the more successful and admired you are in their eyes. That consummate politition Mrs T with her ardent followers is still revered by many, I cannot see a chink in that adulation and market worship. Moral justice may come with a strong, effective opposition, they have not reached that yet. The divisions are real and damaging in the Labour Party and they have to be big enough to take the flak.
Richard-can you help me clarify some linguistic usages in the article:
When ‘we’ say ” tax expenditure” do we simply mean the obverse of “tax not collected” thus leaving more funds in the non-government sector. Does this mean that every-time there is a series of tax changes that, in aggregate, amount to less tax being paid-it is an increase in tax expenditure?
OR
Is “tax expenditure” equated with loss of “Government spending”.
OR
the ‘opportunity cost’ of taxation being somewhere else ( if you see what I’m getting at!-excuse my muddled attempts at trying to be clear).
Or does it simply mean that that money could have been transferred and (better)spent somewhere else if collected?(although that confuses me as I thought taxes were not ‘revenue’ as such and could not be ‘transfered’).
Maybe I need to read your book again! (I think I get muddled due to MMT frameworks interfering with ‘conventional’ linguistic uses).
Tax expenditure means revenue foregone due to allowances and reliefs being given
If the public knew the true extent and recipients of these ‘tax breaks’, there would be much more pressure for change. The whole system is so one-sided. The cost of pension tax relief alone (which goes to the richest pensioners), would sort out many of our financial difficulties.
Instead they bash the poorest families, as Squeeze helpfully pointed out yesterday!
£38 billion for pensions