This is going to be a long one, for which apologies in advance. However, the following system is designed to:
- Simplify and clarify tax arrangements
- Remove the vast majority of tax loopholes (as it turns out, a Jimmy Car-style arrangement is impossible under this system)
- Reward and encourage work at all levels
- Remove the Benefits Trap
- Encourage growth
- Avoid losers through the change as much as possible
Impossible? Maybe. Let's give it a go:
1 - National Insurance is abolished. Both for Employers and Employees. However, most of this is loaded onto the relevant income taxes for clarity. Thus corporation tax becomes 35% (from 24% today; the small business rate is also abolished but the Flat-rate VAT system for companies with small turnoveris retained and lowered from 12-15% to 10% to balance this) and income tax also becomes 35% (from 20%/40%/45% today). The flattening of the tax bands is not a highly regressive step - they are in effect 20+12; 40+2, 45+2 (so 32/42/47) today. The higher rate at the bottom end is more than balanced by the next step; the lower rate at the top end by the third step ...
2 - The tax-free allowance is also scrapped. So are Tax Credits. So is JSA, Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (however, DLA, Carers Allowance and Incapacity Benefit are retained). These are all replaced by a Citizens Basic Income payable to every citizen in the UK at the following rates:
0-17: £40/week (payable to parents)
18-21: £75/week
22-64: £100/week
65+: £140/week
All income is taxed, with the exception of dividends from shares in companies which pay all their corporation tax in the UK (as in effect they have already been taxed at 35%). The IR35 unit in the Inland Revenue is abolished as there are no loopholes left for people to use here anymore. Note that income from loans is also taxed at 35% - however loan repayments garner tax deductible status which is used to directly reduce the repayments.
3 - Council Tax, Land Duty Stamp tax and Inheritance Tax are scrapped. they are replaced by a Land Value Tax on residential properties charged at 1.2% of value annually with the first £80,000 exempted. The average value of this is slightly above the average value for Council Tax but is far more progressive. Pensioners may elect to have their contributions "rolled up" and taken out of the estate on death - effectively trading an exemption from the equivalent of Council Tax for an optional Inheritance Tax.
4 - There will be a major social housing building programme - today we have approximately 750 million people on the waiting list for social housing (and, incidentally, about 2 million people who are in social housing who earn too much to be eligible for Housing Benefit). The average tenancy length is c. 30 years. To remove the disincentive to move out once on ones feet, social rents are to be charged at 20% of gross incomes. For those at the bottom, this is lower; for those better off, it starts to approximate rents in the private sector. The Government will also pay 75% of all moving fees for someone moving out of social housing. I'm allocating £10bn per year to this programme; this should build approximately 100,000 units per year and provide a decent stimulus to the economy as well as help to moderate overall house prices.
5 - ISAs, TESSAs, PEPs are abolished - these mainly benefit upper-middle-class savers only, who should be happy enough at the lower tax rates in any case. Most tax credit schemes for companies (eg R&D Tax Credits) will be scrapped; if there is any need for subsidies, they will be explicit subsidies.
6 - There are two main classes of losers from the tax'n'benefit changes (well, three if you count those employing tax avoidance schemes who'll see virtually all loopholes vanish in simplicity): Wealthier pensioners and young single mothers. The former may lose out because private pensions never attracted NI before - this will be offset to a large extent by the fact that the Citizens Basic Income at age 65 is significantly larger than the pension, so the effects aren't very noticeable. We're talking small numbers losing small amounts and this is more than balanced by the poorer pensioners being significantly better off. Young single mothers will be provided for by a series of well-equipped and plush mother-and-baby homes, provided to all single mothers with babies up to the age of 3 years old. These are to be well run, well outfitted and well supported (£150
million per year to be made available for them). All education up to
A-level and apprenticeship level to be encouraged and supported; free
childcare for any young mother working or in education or training in
these establishments. Staff will be well paid and equipment well sourced; I'm putting £250 million per year aside for these facilities.
7 - During the transitional period until sufficient social housing is available for those who need it (before enough who don't need it move out and more is constructed), Housing Benefit is payable to those in the private sector as before. I'm allocating £5bn per year for this.
8 - Planning Gains to be paid to the relevant Local Authority rather than
central government. This will encourage the granting of planning
permission (overriding NIMBYism) without causing untrammelled and
uncontrolled development by ensuring that the appropriate incentive goes
to the appropriate body (as the Local Authority will have to deal with
any increase in local costs and requirements by a development, it is
appropriate that they should receive the planning gains).
Overall effect is closely cost neutral (I make it zero change +/- £3bn dependant on assumptions; this may be unduly pessimistic as most tax avoidance schemes become impossible and the collection rate should increase significantly). The small shift away from corporation and income tax onto LVT is pro-growth to the tune of c. 0.2% per year of GDP; the construction boost is a larger stimulus and I expect the supply-side reforms of the incentive changes to those formerly in the Benefits Trap (for many, a marginal effective rate of 95.5% from tax, NI, Tax Credit withdrawal, HB withdrawal and CTB withdrawal will convert to 35-55%. To put it another way, the least beneficial will be a ten-fold retention in marginal earned income for the poorest in the Benefits Trap).
I am more than a little bit worried about the fate of single mothers under this system. Perhaps we could compensate for this with a Nordic / German-style programme of state-subsidised childcare.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, I'm somewhat cautious RE the large-scale provision of social housing. This is something where I think a market-based solution to deliver lower rents and prices might help considerably - and certainly the planning reforms you've laid out are a good start.
I'd like to see your calculations laid out on this as well.
DeleteHey, people are commenting!
DeleteRight, here goes:
Expenditure for DWP on benefits and pensions for 2010-11: £153bn. Plus £10bn administration. Total £163 bn
HMRC pays out £12bn on Child Benefit and Child Trust fund, plus £27bn in Child Tax Credits (plus £1bn administration of the latter).
Value of the zero-rated allowance for Income Tax: £60bn
Value of the zero rated allowance for NI: £40bn.
Total value of main allowances, benefits, pensions and tax credits: £305bn per annum. These were uprated by 5.1% in the 2012 Budget; thus allow c. £320bn for current "Benefits" bill (when encompassing all benefits, pensions, income/NI tax breaks etc).
If we can make the taxation income closely unchanged, then we can allocate the "benefits" thusly. The population pyramid has:
0-17: 13 mill
18-21: 3.5 mill
22-64: 35.5 mill
65+: 10 mill
(source: ONS)
Gives (at 40/75/100/140) £27bn, £14.5bn, £184.5bn, £73bn; total £299 bn.
Thus £21bn for transitional arrangements and differences - assuming I keep tax receipts steady, which is the trick ...
Receipts: Currently Income Tax is £150bn, NI is £100bn, Corporation Tax £43bn. The abolition of NI is not a real delta; half (employers) goes straight onto corporation tax (23% + (1-(1/1.128)) = 23%+11.34% = 34.34%) which is what it effectively is in terms of incidence and impact in any case, the other half has to be picked up by the Income Tax receipts. Changing the zero rating level is a wash - the amount increased by removing it cancels with the notional benefits cost above. So instead we've go an increase of 15% in the lower band and a decrease of 5% in the upper band (and 10% in the "top" band). The HMRC ready reckoner gives +£60bn, -£3.15bn, -£0.3bn; a net +£56.82bn. So we should be up by at least £6-7bn - more when the slight increase from corp tax+Employers NI is taken into account.
Council tax receipts currently c. £26bn. IHT c £3bn; SDLT c£6bn. A rate of 1.2% on properties (average value £227k today) with first £80k exempted raises £35.2 bn. Level (and removes the disincentives to mobility that stamp duty provides).
So assuming I'm level (ish), I've got £21-30 bn to play with (assume the lower end).
£10bn for house building. £0.25bn for mother-and-baby homes (Gives 1000 mother and baby homes with quarter of a million pounds per annum budgets). £5bn for transitional HB arrangements. Leaves over £5bn for administration of a vastly simplified system.
Oh, and I've just noticed another £3bn from the ISA and R&D tax credit abolition to play with. We can funnel that to the single parents if we need to.
(these are pessimistic figures - as per the calcs above, we could easily end up with up to £10bn more in savings).
The deltas up and down the scale can be easily calculated - would you like those as well? Suffice it to say that you've identified one of the only sets of "losers" under the proposal - single parents. For whom we should put in genuine help rather than throw money and trap them in the Poverty Trap - state-subsidised childcare is a damn good way of approaching it. Would £3bn (given that the young new single parents have full childcare facilities in mother and baby homes available) hack it? It's about £2000 per single parent per annum (given scale savings, might do the trick)? I'd be well amenable to venturing some more cash, given the pessimism of my overall calculations.
I am going to come out and say this - we CANNOT stiff single mothers. It is political suicide, but mostly it's just an awful idea. There are a lot of single mothers who aren't working - and we're not going to get all of them back to work just by changing incentives. I really can't see how you can support yourself and a child on £140/week. Has anyone got any further ideas on how we could soften this aspect of the system?
DeleteRE: childcare, do we have any numbers on how much it costs countries like Germany and Sweden?
Are we increasing Capital Gains Tax to 35%, then?
You say National Insurance employer contributions would be transferred to Corporation Tax - but what about firms which don't pay CT in the UK? I'm not sure how widespread of a problem this is, but I can think of a few major anecdotal examples off the top of my head.
It would be nice if someone - I might take a stab at it if no-one else fancies it - would take a few 'typical' households and calculate how much better or worse off they'd be under the current system.
Of the 1.9 million single parents in the UK, approximately 57% are in work already. maybe 10-15% are 21 or below (and thus covered by mother-and-baby homes (which is an initiative strongly pushed by someone I know who was a single mother at 16).
DeleteThus the majority of single parents would be significantly better off already. Of the less-than-a-third who are left, that £3bn should help out significantly (bear in mind that the benefit-and-tax-credit entitlement of a single mother with one child today is £160/week plus housing benefit (and I'm retaining a Housing Benefit transition component until all in need can be housed socially). If they move in with someone else (either sharing with another single parent or co-habit), the overall benefits are lower; under this system they are higher.
I have run some "typical" household calculations but the post was long enough already(!) I'll dig them back up and post them - the biggest winners are families exiting benefits.
All profits made in the UK have to have Corp tax paid in the UK.
(Got to go - wife is irritated at the time I'm spending on this)
Edit - make that £155/week plus HB and CTB currently - sorry, was doing calx to quick.
DeleteFurther to my previous - I'm undecided on Cap Gains Tax - setting it at 35% would seem to finish closing off many loopholes, but I'm told that there are good reasons for low CGT. I'm not convinced yet and would prefer 35% CGT.
DeleteAs it happens, I believe all of the tax avoidance scams published this last week would be impossible under the above system.
Back to single parents: considering that 57% work under our current disincentive system, I reckon a lot more would work under this one (I've had considerable personal experience of such electing not to work). Four hours work per week on minimum wage would see them better off than presently. Sharing a house with another single parent or cohabiting would see them better off than presently. If we also set up a social childcare scheme (collocated at nurseries probably to get economies of existing scale), there's even more help.
Further to all the above - I wrote the initial reply at high speed whilst under some domestic pressure ... and wondered why I had so much dosh left over when my calculations hadn't left quite so much (so I merrily doubled the house building for a start and then waved off the other £10bn or so with "I'm being pessimistic"): We're paying c. £15bn per annum on Disability Living Allowance/Carers Allowance/Incapacity Benefit, which I'm planning on leaving untouched. So the house building goes to £5bn as per the original post and the extra £10bn or so gets consumed by that. Which makes more sense now.
DeleteRE Capital Gains:
DeleteThere are very good reasons to have low CGT. However, there are also real costs to tax avoidance. Seeing as the main rate is 28% already, I don't think we've got much to lose by raising it.
I'm still a little iffy on the massive housebuilding thing. Isn't it going to force up private-sector prices? Also the gross-income-dependent rent thing might create the same kind of perverse incentives that we're trying to eliminate. I'd like to see some more thought about the options here.
On the housebuilding - it'll drive private house prices down rather than up.
DeleteMore social housing means those in HB in the private sector will get preferentially housed in social housing (that's the point of it). This will free up houses in the private sector - increasing supply (more houses in the private sector) whilst demand drops (fewer social tenants in the rivate sector hopefully tending towards zero). Eventually, once the social housing capacity is enough to house all who need housing support, we can push the Right To Buy again under strict conditions: councils can sell houses off only when they are replaced by the social housing building programme.
I'm not completely happy with the gross-income-dependent rent - although the marginal benefit of work is still ten times greater than the incentives we're aiming to eliminate. Any suggestions welcome: we've got to take in some money whilst removing the incentive to hang about in social housing when you don't really need it any more whilst minimizing the disincentive towards work.
(By the way, I'm also trying to come up with a mechanism such that extra LVT taken in due to house price increases automatically gets transferred across to house price building - thus creating an automatic stabiliser for house prices (prices rise --> more money to house price construction --> more house price supply --> downward pressure on house prices))
"It would be nice if someone - I might take a stab at it if no-one else fancies it - would take a few 'typical' households and calculate how much better or worse off they'd be under the current system."
DeleteTo simplify matters, note that all on benefits simplifies down as Income support ranges from £56.25/we to £71/we for singlies (under 25 and over 25) and from £56.25/we-£71/we - £111/we for couples dependant on the age profile. As the CBI ranges from £80/we for under 22's to £100/we for 22+ for singlies and £160/we - £200/we for couples dependant on age profile, and the withdrawal rate is far lower, then only HB (covered in transition to full social housing provision) and Tax Credits can make people better off under the current system.
(Child Benefit at £20.70/we for 1st child and £13.40/we for subsequent children does not make up for the £40/week for every child under the current system).
I've had a run at the taxed/tax creditted numbers and I'll post them later.
It also implies that the Housing Benefit is the ONLY area where single parents can end up losing out under the new system. Provide sufficient council housing by a major house-building programme and there will be no losers.
I've been looking at the Tax Credit potentialities and I have to say: Jesus wept! I mean, it's hard to credit that a more arcane and involved system could ever be created by Mankind - especially when its integrated with the general tax and NI system and the Benefits system!
DeleteThere are more potential categories than you could possibly imagine, depending on who's living where, how many hours are or are not worked, where you live and probably whether the Moon is in Sagittarius and if it's waxing gibbous or waning crescent ...
Anyway, I've trawled through almost all categories - eventually. Any single adult w/o kids, couple w/o kids, couple with kids (whether working, not working, part-time working, if one is over 25 and the other is 18-24, whether one is under 18 and the other is over 25, whether childcare is paid for or not) is better off under the new system.
Single parents (excluding HB) are better off except for part-time workers on minimum wage. These are worse off, dependant on how low their income is (there's a pocket between household incomes of between £5000 and £14000). I propose that a "transition rule" is set up for 5 years that all recipients will receive either their entitlement under the new rules or their entitlement under tax credits. This gives people plenty of time to adjust their living arrangements (going in together makes things far easier and makes people significantly better off)
(NB - overheard conversations in Cowley estate, Oxford that make me realise that the claimants there have a FAR better grasp of the system than most of HMRC. And they certainly do respond to the incentives)
How did we create a revenue-neutral benefits system that leaves everyone better off? Surely we ended up with higher marginal tax rates SOMEWHERE compared to the current system.
Delete- Single parent part-time workers (as described). Behavioural changes can overcome that.
Delete- Rich pensioners.
There is a reduction in administration, so admin costs genuinely fall (detailed analysis of household incomes is no longer required; the correct way of reducing admin is not to "salami slice" people but to reduce the scope).
- Overall tax take from better off people in the South-East increases, I believe, although marginal rates are lower (LVT impacts). However, relative cost of living issues should change over time.
Reducing distortion effects and closing avoidance possibilities will be beneficial as well.
I knew we had a Social Housing problem but a waiting list of 750,000,000?
ReplyDelete;)
(Also my name seems to have broken the bullet point system).
:D
DeleteOkay, make that 750 thousand then ...
Winston Smith here :) I definitely think that we should lower indirect taxation, such as VAT. Is inheritance taxation something worth looking into?
ReplyDeleteI think we have to accept that VAT is a necessary source of revenue.
DeleteAndy's Land Value Tax would replace inheritance tax, which I think is an excellent idea.