Unless something untoward happens, it is my intention to start publishing The Taxing Wealth Report 2024 on this site from tomorrow onwards.
I will leave the details of the report and discussion of what it is trying to achieve to the launch comments, but I thought that a number of background explanations might be of use for readers of the blog because publications related to this report will be noted here quite regularly over the next few weeks.
There were several reasons for starting this work. One was that Colin Hines and I, working together as Finance for the Future, have been looking at how to fund the Green New Deal that the UK requires over many years. In the course of that work, we have looked quite extensively at the use of money creation, quantitative easing and reform to the tax reliefs available for saving in the UK, but we had not addressed reform to the tax system itself in anything like the level of detail that we thought justified. This report is, in part, meant to address that omission by showing how additional funding for that green transition could be raised if that was necessary to control the risk of inflation arising as a consequence of additional government expenditure.
Other current political developments have also suggested that work on this issue might be appropriate. Whilst I had looked at some potential UK tax reforms during the Covid era, it has become increasingly apparent during the course of 2022 and 2023 that the UK faces numerous crises of epic proportions. Most of these suggest the need for substantial additional government expenditure. The reaction of politicians has, however, been alarming, with most claiming that whatever the need might be, the funding to address problems is not available. It seemed very important to demonstrate that this is not true if a proper debate on the decisions facing this country is to be facilitated, and that provided another reason for this report.
The work also extends that which I have doing in an academic environment over some time on tax gaps and tax spillovers, both of which issues will be touched upon quite often in the various notes that will make up the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 when it is complete.
There are at present approximately thirty recommendations that will be included in that report. The number may, however, change over time, with an increase being most likely. I have, however, been prudent: I did not want to begin publishing until most of the notes currently planned are in an advanced state of completion. At least 27 have now reached that stage, which has been an exercise that has occupied me for the most part over the last two or three months.
Providing proper access to all this information is something that has concerned me. Some of these notes are quite long. A few exceed 5,000 words or more than 20 pages of A4. Many are of 2,000 words. The ideal blog is around 800 words. That means that there is an obvious conflict resulting from the length of these notes. As a result, I have decided to add a brief summary to every note explaining the key themes within it, and these summaries will in turn become the basis for a blog on each note as it is published. I am not keen on overwhelming readers here with too much information, but as a matter of fact, every single note will be made available in PDF form as it is published.
To make sure that the collection as a whole is accessible a new website has been developed. This will have the address taxingwealth.uk. Unfortunately, I thought about this just a little too late to coincide with the launch, but it will be available soon and will provide access to all the recommendations as they are published, organised by tax. All the background notes will also be accessible from there and it will also have a news section that will replicate the blogs that will be published here on this issue so that they will also be available in one place.
In addition to the blogs that I will be writing on each proposal, I also expect to write Twitter threads on many of them, and those will be published here. The aim of these threads will be to highlight to a wider audience that there is money available to address the problems that this country has and which its politicians are currently denying can be tackled.
After some years outside the tax arena, I admit that it has been fun to return to it when writing this work. My hope is that what I will be publishing will revive debate on tax reform. If it does, then it will have succeeded. To help this I do hope that this report will come out in some sort of book form in due course. An ebook is most likely.
I will, as usual, be pleased to receive comments on all the proposals that I make, but those who make repetitive or tediously right-wing comments that do not add to understanding will be deleted. I will explain why I think the tax relief is a taxpayer subsidy once, and once only, and will not be interested in further discussion of the issue after that.
Similarly, I will explain why I think income from all sources, whether from work, rents, investments, gains, or even gifts, is equivalent for taxation purposes and should ultimately be taxed on that basis. Again, I will not be entering into that discussion many times during the course of the series precisely because I'm interested in a positive debate, not a negative one.
Finally, while some of these notes will be quite long and quite technical, I would encourage any reader to download them and read them, understanding that this issue is now, I think, central to political debate in this country. That is why I have spent so much time on this exercise.
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:
Brilliant work Richard. I love the neologism: ‘thorty’ – between thirty and forty. Also the Freudian slip of ‘Twitter threats’. Keep them in. 😉
This one was weird – I had actually corrected these but not posted the corrected version – and so you confused me! Anyway, I hope better now.
I’m sure that this will be very interesting.
But it all comes down to/is underlined by something very simple.
If you take the funding away from something and that makes people’s lives worse then surely if you are a political party claiming to want to put this right, all you need to do is put this funding back?
In time perhaps a publication like Money for Nothing and my Tweets for Free?
Yes, I suspect so…
But I will get it out first
There couldnt be a bigger contrast between your concern to delve deeply into every aspect of taxation, and Labour’s downright refusal to engage with even the word ‘tax’ as though it were original sin.
It would be very good if you could summarise the whole analysis in a way which would give people an idea of the gist of what you are saying.
Keynes’ ‘Anything we can actually do we can afford’ – seems a good example.
Thanks
What’s just as worrying is Starmer choosing Liz Kendall to be shadow secretary for work and pensions, who wanted to reduce benefits and supported austerity measures.
No chance that labour will support financing the future properly.
I think I might be printing off the pdfs to read through with my grandson
Richard, I am looking guests to the ebook as I’m just finishing reading the Courageous State
I look at this as tax redistribution not tax increase, closing/removing loopholes, making existing tax laws leaner and easier to implement
Fir example VAT was initially meant for luxury goods but now applied to neatly everything. Reapply it as was and the poor would get the benefit and the rich would pay more, and it’s collected at source and more enforceable – but have never understood why VAT is more enforceable compared to other taxes, all taxes should be equal
It sounds good and impressive, but if it very long, most people won’t read it… Unless you bullet point a summary indicating what’s in for people and the country (in that order). That may encourage people to dig a little deeper.
Many of us of a certain generation are used to long reads, a bottom-up approach (like the broadsheets), which is why the more popular format is top-down (like red-top newspapers). Both can contain the same information, but the latter is more easily digested.
Very one will have that brief summary – and they will be the focus of the blog
Brilliant and necessary. I hope you will directly address the following;
(1)we are repeatedly told that we have the highest level of tax action since WWII, if this is true I can only think it is because taxation is regressive and indirect, is this in fact the case?
(2) if the tax is higher is it (again as we are told) because of an ageing population and growth in demand that means there isn’t enough money or is something else going on like massive debt/interest as a drain?
I suspect the I know the answers but i also think it needs spelling out in words of one syllable to get the case across. Keep up the good work.
Might you look at this morning’s report on the capacity to raise tax?
Richard
I look forward to reading your proposals. I think it would be helpful if, where necessary, there was a discussion of how people should be helped to transition to any new tax arrangement. An example would be a land value tax where asset rich cash poor individuals may have difficulty paying the new tax.
I will not be proposing a land value tax.
I do not think it a viable proposal and I will only suggest things that are.
My point about helping people transition remains.
I also think when discussing positions on the wealth distribution curve it helps if actual figures are used rather than percentages. Most people underestimate their position on the wealth distribution curve. To fall in to the top 10% requires wealth of around £200k.
Noted