Is Osborne really about to give people on £100k a tax cut?

The coalition’s travails over child benefit mean Osborne may revisit his decision to raise the perso

As we close in on the Budget, most eyes are still fixed on the fate of the 50p tax rate. Ignore for a moment some of the squeals from Labour on this issue (more in excited anticipation that it will be axed than horror) and spare a thought for the dwindling band of true Tory modernisers. Their two central ambitions over recent years have been to demonstrate an unswerving commitment to the National Health Service, and to show that they could govern the economy – and tax policy in particular – in the interests of the broad majority rather than the affluent elite. They are struggling to believe that, having watched the coalition conspicuously squander the first of these strategic objectives, it could be planning to deliver the last rites to the second, too.

Yet whatever the decision on the 50p tax rate, the heated debate over it risks obscuring another more nuanced, but still highly revealing choice facing Goerge Osborne. Who should benefit from the widely expected and costly increase in personal tax allowances: the vast majority of all taxpayers, including individuals to over £100,000 a year (and indeed households on £200,000), or just basic-rate taxpayers? It's an important issue in its own right – and one that has been given fresh impetus by the coalition's travails over child benefit.

To understand why this is the case, turn the clock back to 2010 when the personal allowance was first increased and the decision taken to limit the gains to basic-rate taxpayers. This was achieved by lowering the income threshold at which the 40p rate starts in order to cancel out the gains for higher-rate taxpayers – leaving them no better or worse off. Creating more 40p tax-rate payers has obvious political downsides. However, it makes the personal allowances policy both less regressive and significantly less costly. The savings could be used to help reverse this year's cuts to tax credits.

One of the main reasons why there was such a hostile reaction from many quarters to the initial decision to target the gains from the personal allowance in 2010 was the disastrous way it got caught up with Osborne's proposal to abolish child benefit for households with a higher-rate taxpayer. It meant those basic-rate taxpayers who found themselves shunted into the 40p rate not only faced a higher marginal tax rate but were also set to lose £1,750 of child benefit if they had two children.

This was pure political poison. Consequently, when a further increase in the personal allowance was announced in 2011, a different approach was adopted and the gains went to higher-rate taxpayers, too.

Which brings us to next week's Budget and how the decision that is set to be made on revising the policy on child benefit could also affect the one on personal allowances.

To date, the coalition's argument on child benefit has been that, given the scale of the deficit, the state can no longer afford to pay it to households with someone earning above £42,500; indeed, it is also argued that it is morally unfair to ask low-income families to contribute towards higher earners' child benefit. In which case you might well ask why we can afford tax cuts for individuals earning £100,000 (and households with a joint income over £200,000), regardless of whether they have children. You might also ask why it is fair to ask the same low-income family to contribute towards the cost of these tax cuts for the affluent.

I don't know how the coalition proposes to answer this. But as things stand they'll need to do so next Wednesday. Pity the poor soul in the Treasury being tasked with drafting the "lines to take" for ministers.

There is, however, a potential get-out clause for them. The approach now being touted as the likely change to Osborne's child benefit policy is to means-test the benefit at a higher level of income – say, £50,000 rather than £42,500. Whatever other problems this creates (and there are many), it will make it possible to restrict gains from an increased personal allowance to basic-rate taxpayers without creating the toxic side effect of stripping child benefit from those who get tipped into the 40p tax band. The coalition could, if it so wished, show that its priority really is basic-rate taxpayers (and in doing so save money).

We'll know soon enough. My tentative hunch is that the government won't opt to restrict the gains from increased allowances to 20p tax-rate payers – even though it is clearly more progressive and cheaper. I doubt the Chancellor will be willing to incur the price of creating more 40p taxpayers. If this is the case, the coalition will have some explaining to do, not least to its own backbench rebels on child benefit, about why a family on £50,000 should lose cash support while individuals without kids earning double that amount should get a tax cut.

And all this, of course, is before we get to the decision on whether to abolish the 50p tax rate . . .

Gavin Kelly is a former adviser to Downing Street and the Treasury. He tweets @GavinJKelly1.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.