I have this morning published the latest note within the Taxing Wealth Report 2024.
Unusually, and for the first time, this note suggests a change to the UK tax system that reduces the amount of tax collected. I have proposed the withdrawal of student loan charges, which are by any other name a student tax.
That is partly because of the total ineffectiveness of these charges as a mechanism for supposedly recovering the cost of student education but also because of the inequity that they create within the UK tax system, which is considerable. It would not be possible for the other changes promoted within the Taxing Wealth Report to be fair if this charge were to remain in existence and it does, therefore, need to go to create an overall system of tax justice.
With this note having been published, there are just two more to be published before the report moves to its final production stage. The first of these two final reports will, hopefully, follow quite shortly. It will propose further changes to the tax system that will reduce the overall tax yield but which will make the proposals included in the TWR part of an overall fair tax system contributing, as a whole, significantly more revenue to HM Treasury.
The final note, which has taken a lot more work than most of the others, relates to the administration of HMRC and the changes within it since it was created in 2005. The data it uses has had been compiled from primary sources because HMRC do not make it readily available. I hope that this will be finished within the next couple of weeks, at most.
I will then be:
- Tidying the website.
- Completing introductions to each section of the report, as they relate to particular taxes, explaining the proposed changes in an overall context.
- Finalising the overall introduction to the report, as this will be the only part most people might read.
- Writing my suggested course of further work if more radical reform of the tax system was required.
- Putting the whole thing together as a single document for publication.
That means there is quite a lot of work to do, although most of the introductory sections already now exist in draft.
This project has turned out to be a much bigger one than I expected when I started on it last summer. It makes substantially larger suggestions as to tax revenues that might be raised than I ever expected even whilst sticking strictly within the self-imposed remit that all reforms proposed should be adjustments to existing taxes that make them fair in the sense that horizontal and vertical tax equity are enhanced. The glossary explains both these terms.
My hope is that after all this effort, someone might take a little notice so that what has been written might change thinking on this issue. When it is so obvious that public services need better funding, the climate crisis demands greater investment by the government, and there is massive inequality that can only be tackled by redistribution of income and wealth. I would hope that might be the case.
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:
Your Tax Report work is innovatory. Contrast with today’s mindless comment in today’s Guardian:-
“UK government borrowing falls to £7.8bn in December, boosting Jeremy Hunt’s tax cut hopes – business live”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/jan/23/uk-government-borrowing-falls-tax-cuts-jeremy-hunt-tata-steel-port-talbot-business-live
If Jeremy Hunt does cut tax as a result of less borrowing in December, will it be a cut in VAT or income tax? It is doubtful that a 1% cut in either will meet the “fiscal rules” making Hunt’s Davos statement mere pre-election votr catching posturing with no substance.
Income tax – 1%
Plus frozen car fuel tax, I suspect
Cost = £13 billion
If you’re worried about ‘inequality’, why do you keep proposing taxes that affect private sector workers but not equivalent public sector workers?
I don’t.
Full stop.
You clearly know nothing about tax.
Aren’t you proposing changing the rules for tax relief on pension contributions but not the contribution rate for public sector employees nor the benefits they receive.
In order words, private sector individuals would have to contribute more to get the same pension (which is already much lower than public sector employees) but public sector employees would be unaffected.
How is that equitable?
Any private sector employer can offer the same terms
The question is why do they fail their employees?
Might you like to answer that. You will note the question is why do markets fail people, just to spell it out.
And note, this has nothing whatsoever to do with tax. You made that up.
I love your typos but last para “public” maybe needs its l?
Thank you!
Done
‘And note, this has nothing whatsoever to do with tax. You made that up.’
Changing the rate of tax relief has nothing to do with tax?
That’s priceless Richard, that really is.
The rate of tax relief is the same for everyone on the same tax rate
You really aren’t very good at this are you?
You’re now in the spam box
Clare Brand (Clare?) Does not seem to be sure how to spell her own name.
She, if she she was, made several more attempts displaying the same uncertainty that never appeared.
Great work Richard. Thank you. And I agree that charges should be taken off student loans.
I have noted several guests on Politics Live expounding on the inequality of our taxation system and offering remedies to fix it without resorting to the classic ‘wealth tax’ fig leaf. It is becoming increasingly apparent that you are gaining followers who are prepared to challenge the neoliberal demands for the ‘holy grail’ balanced budget at the expense of impoverishing the most needy while bribing the wealthy with tax breaks. I feel certain that your message is getting through Richard so keep up the good work.
Thanks
I hope so
I am still working on it….