Which taxes should go up?

Ed Bowsher
by Lovemoney Staff Ed Bowsher on 15 September 2009  |  Comments 14 comments

Nobody likes tax rises. But the rotten state of the government's finances mean that rises are almost inevitable. I thought I'd run through some of the obvious tax-raising options for the next government.

The UK government's public spending deficit is forecast to reach £175 billion this year. That's a very chunky number given that total public spending will be £661 billion.

Just about everyone agrees that we can't carry on with such a big deficit forever. The only question is whether we start trying to cut that deficit now or wait a couple of years.

My view is that we should wait. If we increase taxes now - or cut spending - we risk choking off our nascent economic recovery. And a struggling economy will produce less tax revenue for the government.

But there's a good chance that we'll be in full recovery mode by 2011. That economic recovery will automatically go some way towards reducing the deficit as tax revenue rises and the government's social security bill falls.

But the growth dividend won't be enough. Our next government will have to go further. It will either have to raise taxes or cut spending. I reckon the government will need to find at least £25 billion a year. Probably more.

So what it should do?

Well, I've been reading an interesting report by accountants BDO Stoy Hayward called Time to break the silence? 

The report highlights a range of options for tax increases and also estimates how much revenue these tax hikes might raise. I thought I'd go through some of these rises and give my view.

1.       Do not increase income tax allowances in line with inflation

This is a classic 'steath tax.' The headlines say that the basic rate of income tax is staying at 20%, but once you take rising prices into account, you're paying more tax.

BDO Stoy Hayward reckons it would raise £5 billion a year although that would depend on the level of inflation at the time.

Politicians are always drawn to this one thanks to its stealth element. I dislike it for the same reason. Another minus point is that it hits lower earners especially hard. In the current tax year, the personal allowance is £6,475. If you're only earning £12,000 a year, and inflation is at 5%, no increase in the personal allowance would make a big difference to your spending power.

2.       Increase alcohol and tobacco duties by 12% above inflation

Chancellors love to push up the price of cigarettes but surprisingly this one would only raise £1 billion. But I'd do it nonetheless. These are taxes that people can avoid if they wish. I'm also a killjoy.

3.       Abolish all higher rate income tax relief on pension contributions

This would raise £6 billion. It's a tempting one to go for as it doesn't hit the poor. On the other hand, it's really important that we all save for our pensions, and it's also important that the pensions system is simple.

The government's recent move to reduce pensions tax relief for people earning over £150,000 has already complicated matters for some taxpayers. Let's not make things confusing for a larger section of the population.

4.       Increase VAT on domestic fuel

In other words, increase VAT on gas and electricity from 5% to 17.5%. This would raise £3 billion.

This particularly appeals to me as I'm a bit of a green.

The downside is that this will hit some pensioners hard, but the government could always increase the winter fuel allowance as compensation. That, of course, would partially reduce the tax gain. Let's increase the winter fuel allowance by £1 billion and get a net gain of £2 billion from increasing VAT on domestic fuel.

5.       Increase VAT to 20%

This would raise around £12 billion.

There's a sound economic case for this rise. The theory is that it's better to raise revenue by increasing VAT rather than by raising income tax. That's because higher income tax discourages enterprise and hard work whereas higher VAT discourages consumption. And discouraging consumption is often a good thing - especially if the economy is doing well.

But if I were Chancellor, I wouldn't do this. I've already increased VAT on fuel. To push up general VAT as well would be too harsh.

6.       Increase basic rate of income tax to 22p

Yes, an increase in income tax is a disincentive for work.

But there's also a simple honesty about increasing the basic rate. What's more, although it's a tax rise that will hit most of the population, those on the lowest incomes won't suffer as much. That's because a big chunk of their earnings aren't subject to income tax thanks to the personal allowance.

Using Treasury figures, this should raise about £7.5 billion a year.

So I've gone for 3 tax rises:

-          Increase income tax basic rate to 22% (£7.5 billion)

-          Increase VAT on gas and electricity to 17.5%, but also raise winter fuel allowance (£2 billion)

-          Increase duties on cigarettes and alcohol by 12% more than inflation. (£1 billion)

Altogether this will raise £10.5 billion. That's not enough. So I'm going to have to cut expenditure too. I'll write another blog this week that will look at some of the options for cuts.

Do you disagree with my views? Write a comment below and let me know what you think.

Check out more of my blog posts

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (14)

  • famelessfish
    Love rating 1
    famelessfish said

    Do you have even the remotest idea of the British beer industry? With dozens of pubs closing PER DAY because of current legislative iniquities, you are essentially condemning any small brewer or individual licensee to extinction by an absurd suggestion. It may not be British manufacturing in the accepted state of the phrase, but nonetheless unless you distinguish between industries that add to the UK coffers and those that don't, blanket measures like your suggestion could do far more harm than good.

    Report on 17 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • SiGl26
    Love rating 26
    SiGl26 said

    VAT at 25% or 30% on non-essentials; zero-rate food, domestic fuel and essential clothing.  Then a fair flat-tax system; increase personal allowance to take minimum-wage employees and pensioners out of the tax net, single tax rate of ~40-50% on all other personal income. Clear, fair, simple; let's people decide for themselves how much tax they pay...

    Report on 17 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Curly
    Love rating 0
    Curly said

    Raising VAT on fuel costs seems very short- sighted, especially as the fuel companies have barely reduced their prices, despite falling costs. Giving them an excuse to raise prices cost make things much worse.

    How about hitting those fuel companies with a corporation supertax above a certain amount of profit, thus either generating extra income or encouraging them reduce their prices

    Report on 17 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Trevor D
    Love rating 9
    Trevor D said

    Under the pensions contribution relief section it was stated that limiting he relief to 20% didn't hit the "poor". The poor voted Labour and they are largely responsible for the mess we are in, so I feel very strongly that the "poor" should carry at least their share of the cost. I always voted against the Labour party because every time they have been in power, there has been financial chaos, high taxes, and the currency has been devalued. this is the same old story, Why should I have to pay to get us out of somebody else's mess!

    Report on 17 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    We pay far too much tax. It funds the workshy and unmarried mothers. Also unnecessary government jobs. All designed to maximise the Labour vote.

    We need to wake up as a nation. We also get screwed with house prices. The Brits must be the easiest bunch of cretins that get manipulated by government.

    If tax were cut, and house prices slashed, we'd have far mor funds circulating that would allow more investment and jobs.

    Don't try and apply logic to anything the Labour party does. They are driven purely by political ideals to maximise their stay in governmnet. Drill down a layer or two into their proposals, and it's all reeally about them. Horrible bunch. I honestly believe the Tories have more integrity, but even they are not totally transparent.

    Report on 17 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    We pay far too much tax. It funds the workshy and unmarried mothers. Also unnecessary government jobs. All designed to maximise the Labour vote.

    We need to wake up as a nation. We also get screwed with house prices. The Brits must be the easiest bunch of cretins that get manipulated by government.

    If tax were cut, and house prices slashed, we'd have far mor funds circulating that would allow more investment and jobs.

    Don't try and apply logic to anything the Labour party does. They are driven purely by political ideals to maximise their stay in governmnet. Drill down a layer or two into their proposals, and it's all reeally about them. Horrible bunch. I honestly believe the Tories have more integrity, but even they are not totally transparent.

    Report on 17 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • foolishsceptic
    Love rating 7
    foolishsceptic said

    Take anyone earning below £15K pa out of direct (income) tax but encourage them to save 15% of income into savings/pension via tax credits/incentives. Reducing number of income tax payers reduces number of govt bureaucrats needed to process their tax returns in HMCE. Increase indirect taxation to make up the deficit by increasing VAT, fuel duty, tax on ciggies, car purchase tax on cars with high emissions, stamp duty on houses up to at least 7% (in line with rest of Europe who are not so obsessed with house prices as the Brits). Then becomes a choice for the consumer - if you want to move to an expensive house, smoke lots (which in turn costs the NHS lots), drive a gas guzzling car its your choice but you pay the price for it in taxes. Reward the behaviour you want (healthy lifestyle, green cars, affordable energy efficient houses etc) and penalise the behaviour you do not want but let people still have the choice to go down that route if they are prepared to pay (a lot extra) for it.

    Report on 17 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • gordonbanks42
    Love rating 11
    gordonbanks42 said

    I favour fiscal measures that help to prevent a recurrence of the present mess as well as rebalancing the books.

    That means coming down harder on consumption rather than saving or investment (i.e. increasing VAT rather than income tax).

    It might not be too hard to use the tax system to favour on-sales rather than off-sales, on the basis that on-sales are more labour-intensive and would generate UK jobs. But that only makes sense if those who are already living here and unemployed can be induced to do the jobs created thereby - at a competitive wage. 

    I'd also favour taxing house price inflation. Take away SDLT and bring in a form of CGT, even on Principal Place of Residence. Policitical suicide? Of course.

    There's only a "green" rationale for increasing taxes on fuel where there is significant elasticity of demand. I doubt whether domestic fuel really fits that bill, as people don't swap out their boilers and other CH kit at the drop of a hat.

    Encouraging people to save for their retirements has to include making things fairer than they seem at present. The public sector's pension arrangements are too cushy. Presumably that's on the list for the next article - cuts.

    Report on 17 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LastChip
    Love rating 92
    LastChip said

    "1.      Do not increase income tax allowances in line with inflation.........

    no increase in the personal allowance would make a big difference to your take-home pay."

    Come on Ed, you can do better than this; that's absolute rubbish. It will make no difference whatsoever to a persons take home pay.

    Inflation may have an effect on spending power, but that's an entirely different matter.

    "2.      Increase alcohol and tobacco duties by 12% above inflation"

    Yes!

    "3.      Abolish all higher rate income tax relief on pension contributions"

    Yes. I've never understood why the better off in society get a significantly better boost to their pensions, compared to the less affluent. Better still, stop this pension nonsense altogether and find a better alternative.

    "4.      Increase VAT on domestic fuel"

    Absolutely not! Plenty of people are really struggling already to pay the outrageous charges we suffer in the UK; not an option.

    "5.      Increase VAT to 20%"

    Yes, providing all essential goods are zero rated. In other words, the 20% is truely an optional purchase.

    "6.      Increase basic rate of income tax to 22p"

    No! There are already far too many people not willing to work, because successive governments have only been able to provide low paid jobs, which are effectively a disincentive. Raising tax at the lower level, will only exacerbate the problem.

    Report on 17 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Klawman
    Love rating 17
    Klawman said

    I recall reading somewhere that the Income Tax and Benefits "Handbook" is some 30,000 pages long (whereas the New Zealand equivalent is less than 100 pages). Even if I'm out by a factor of 10, that's still way, way too long and way, way too complicated - and requires a veritable army of public employees just to try to administer and make sense of. It's so vast and complciated that hardly anybody has more than a superficial grasp of the totality.

    It's also utterly self-defeating - as one example, it means that clever accountants can find endless handy loopholes for the very rich.

    As another example: most means-tested benefits cost more to administer that the value of the benefits. It would cheaper overall not to means test - which would also put more money into people's pockets and hence boost the economy.

    The obvious and rational thing to do is to overhaul the system from the ground up and dramatically simplify it. It would save hundreds of billions of pounds, albeit at the cost of the loss of thousands of public service jobs.

    Report on 18 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LastChip
    Love rating 92
    LastChip said

    "and so say all of us" Klawman.

    I quite agree.

    Report on 19 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Ed Bowsher
    Love rating 79
    Ed Bowsher said

    Hello Lastchip,

    Come on Ed, you can do better than this; that's absolute rubbish. It will make no difference whatsoever to a persons take home pay.

    Inflation may have an effect on spending power, but that's an entirely different matter.

    Yes, you're quite right, Lastchip, that was a bad mistake on my part. I'm really surprised I wrote that. :)

    Ed

    Report on 23 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Ed Bowsher
    Love rating 79
    Ed Bowsher said

    Hi Lastchip,

    Thinking about it, that's such a bad mistake, I'm going to cheat and change the text to what you suggest.

    Thanks for pointing out my mistake,

    Ed

    Report on 23 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LastChip
    Love rating 92
    LastChip said

    All credit to you Ed for your frankness.

    "A person who has never made a mistake, hasn't lived"; I forget who's credited with saying that, but it's very true, and I've made plenty!

    Report on 23 September 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name Credit rate (AER)
Based on £1
Overdraft
rate

Based on £1
Apply
now

Santander 123 Current Account

0.0% 0% plus £1.00 per day usage fee Apply

Barclays Bank Account

N/A Up to £200 – 0% interest pa (variable). Over £200 and up to £5,000 – 19.3% interest pa (variable) Apply

first direct 1st Account

N/A 0% Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3