Skip to main content

Tax is always taxing

There has been a minor explosion of outrage in the knee-jerk political twitter/Facebooksphere telling us that David Cameron's advisor has suggested getting rid of income tax and putting VAT up to 33%. Most of this response seems to be to red top tabloid articles, which we should know better than to rely on, rather than the original blog post from Paul Kirby, so it's worth reading that (rather long and tedious though it is) first.

One thing that is worth emphasising, as the headlines got it wrong, is that Kirby is not 'Cameron's advisor', he is Cameron's former advisor - and to be honest, if he still was an advisor I imagine he'd be given the push for this, as it's political suicide and I am sure Cameron wouldn't touch it with the proverbial bargepole.

Let's see what Kirby's arguments are first. Yes, I know we can immediately see what's wrong with the idea - but the thing I've learned with looking at green issues is that you mustn't have a knee-jerk reaction to keywords, you have to check the substance first, and the same goes for all politics.

Kirby suggests that if we kept all our salaries then we would be in control, deciding what to spend, what to do with it. This is true as far as it goes. Getting rid of income tax with no other change in taxation would be a good thing for us all, if there was some magic way to fund necessary spending without it coming out of our pockets. Cloud cuckoo stuff, yes, but it's an acceptable point. After all, one great thing the Liberal Democrats have done in the coalition is to push through the increase in the point at which income tax cuts in to £10,000. (I know it's fashionable to criticise the LibDems for not doing everything in their election pledges, but that is ridiculously naive. You can't do everything you want in a coalition, and I think the LibDems have done reasonably well under the circumstances.) Not paying income tax is actually a good thing, but you have to go about it the right way. In fact I think we should go a step further and introduce negative income tax for the first chunk of earnings - so the government pays you for every pound you earn up to a certain point - but that's a different debate.

Kirby then suggest replacing the lost revenue by removing all VAT exemptions and putting the VAT rate up to 33%. I have to take his figures as correct that this would balance out the loss from income tax. But does it make sense?

He says that it would encourage people to save more, and would give them more choice over what they did with their money. He does also acknowledge that it would hit those on lower incomes harder (something the second hand reports tend not to carry), and says that to compensate we would have to increase benefits.

But look what the implications are. By removing exemptions there would be just as heavy taxation on essentials as on non-essentials. You can argue that the current exemption system is far too complicated - it is - and has all those silly loopholes - like the 'is a jaffa cake a cake or a biscuit?' argument - it does. But there are very good reasons for having exemptions and Kirby makes no attempt to counter those arguments. A more sensible version of his scheme would keep the exemptions but push up the VAT on luxuries even more.

What he doesn't do, though, is consider the impact on UK business. There's a good reason that businesses are uniformly in favour of reducing (or even getting rid of) VAT, rather than income tax. VAT turns businesses into tax collectors, adding significantly to their administration costs, and it makes their goods less attractive. Ramp up VAT significantly and, yes, people will save more. But they will also stop buying things. And lots of businesses will go bust. Meaning more unemployment. And more benefit payments. Doesn't seem awfully sensible to me.

Also, of course, he fails to address the elephant in the room, the point we all saw at the start. The lower your income, the harder this will hit you. If you earn £10,000 a year you get no positives but your outgoings shoot up by a vast percentage. It simply doesn't work to say that you can give people on low earnings more benefits to compensate, both because of the way Kirby's brand of politics stigmatises benefits (and would immediately be crying for them to be taken away again) and also because benefits are a poor answer that totally corrupt Kirby's argument that people should be able to do what they want with the money they earn, because benefits aren't earned. We should be trying to minimise the need for benefits, not putting in a system that hugely increases dependence on them. It is absolutely bonkers.

However, I still think we should actually thank Paul Kirby for making us think (those of us who are thinking, rather than knee-jerking about this), because there is no doubt that the current system isn't good enough. He's right - we need more opportunity to decide on what we do with our money. Why not, for instance, cut all income tax for the first £20,000 and rebalance the books further up the earnings scale (or even better by getting a decent cut of tax from all company income)? That would mean we all had a good chunk of money to decide exactly how we spent. There's no doubt the tax system can be improved... if we could ever get a government that had the guts to do it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou