Osborne's dynamic plan

How a technical change in Treasury forecasting could help scrap the 45p tax rate.

At the Treasury Select Committee yesterday, in between being quizzed by MPs angry at the extent of the pre-budget leaks, George Osborne revealed that he was planning to enable the OBR to make greater use of so-called "dynamic scoring" when they prepare their economic forecasts – but only when examining tax plans. It may not sound it, but if he made that change, it would be a huge coup for the right.

Dynamic scoring is the practice of including behavioural changes in economic forecasts. Without it, in a static model, changes to revenue after something like a tax hike are facile to calculate. If VAT at 17.5 per cent takes in (say) £175bn, then VAT at 20 per cent will take in £200bn. Similarly, if you are trying to calculate the effects on government revenues of spending £100m buying new trains for the east coast main line, then you can conclude that it will cost £100m – you buy the new trains, everyone carries on riding the line, and nothing changes.

What a static model says is that people are blind to the effect that government actions have when they are choosing what to do. Clearly, that is untrue. But it is also very easy to calculate, which is why it has stuck around for so long.

Dynamic models include all these changes of behaviour. So when looking at a dynamic model for rail investment, you can take into account the fact that nicer trains will make people more likely to travel, boosting ticket revenue; and when looking at a dynamic model for VAT rises, you bear in mind the fact that as prices rise, people buy fewer things, so that an 11 per cent rise in VAT won't lead to an 11 per cent rise in VAT revenue.

The problem for economists is that dynamic models are a lot harder to calculate. Not only are there far more variables to take into account, but you open yourself up to more avenues of attack from political opponents. The combined effect of all the assumptions you must make means that your conclusions can be deeply flawed if you get too many wrong, and, as the IFS says (pdf), can "[open] the door to large controversies if these guesses are made – or perceived to be made – in a politically biased way." While static models contain assumptions that are obviously false, dynamic models still contain assumptions, which can still be just as false. And unlike static models, we can't know which ones these are until it is too late.

So why does George Osborne want to introduce dynamic scoring into OBR models? Does he believe that the government's economists have uncovered a breakthrough understanding in behavioural responses to government intervention?

A clue can be found in HMRC's report into the 50p tax rate, which found that dropping the rate down to 45p would cost far less than expected, because of expected behavioural changes. Indeed, this sort of dynamic thinking is the cornerstone of the Laffer curve, the economic theory that, past a certain point, increasing tax rates reduces revenues.

What Osborne will be hoping is that allowing the OBR to make its models more dynamic still will strengthen the rationale for scrapping the 45p rate entirely, as well as for cutting corporation tax all the way down to 20p by the end of parliament.

Yet while the OBR will be "informed" by these new dynamic models when it comes to tax policy, they won't be taking account of the same information when examining the justification for government investment, where, far from strengthening Osborne's preferred policy, it would weaken it. If dynamic scoring is indeed implemented in this narrow fashion, Osborne will have scored a stealth victory for future Tory policy.

Money on the mind: A 19th century phrenology chart. Credit: Getty

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts

The TUC general secretary responds to the Taylor Review. 

Unions have been criticised over the past week for our lukewarm response to the Taylor Review. According to the report’s author we were wrong to expect “quick fixes”, when “gradual change” is the order of the day. “Why aren’t you celebrating the new ‘flexibility’ the gig economy has unleashed?” others have complained.

Our response to these arguments is clear. Unions are not Luddites, and we recognise that the world of work is changing. But to understand these changes, we need to recognise that we’ve seen shifts in the balance of power in the workplace that go well beyond the replacement of a paper schedule with an app.

Years of attacks on trade unions have reduced workers’ bargaining power. This is key to understanding today’s world of work. Economic theory says that the near full employment rates should enable workers to ask for higher pay – but we’re still in the middle of the longest pay squeeze for 150 years.

And while fears of mass unemployment didn’t materialise after the economic crisis, we saw working people increasingly forced to accept jobs with less security, be it zero-hours contracts, agency work, or low-paid self-employment.

The key test for us is not whether new laws respond to new technology. It’s whether they harness it to make the world of work better, and give working people the confidence they need to negotiate better rights.

Don’t get me wrong. Matthew Taylor’s review is not without merit. We support his call for the abolishment of the Swedish Derogation – a loophole that has allowed employers to get away with paying agency workers less, even when they are doing the same job as their permanent colleagues.

Guaranteeing all workers the right to sick pay would make a real difference, as would asking employers to pay a higher rate for non-contracted hours. Payment for when shifts are cancelled at the last minute, as is now increasingly the case in the United States, was a key ask in our submission to the review.

But where the report falls short is not taking power seriously. 

The proposed new "dependent contractor status" carries real risks of downgrading people’s ability to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Here new technology isn’t creating new risks – it’s exacerbating old ones that we have fought to eradicate.

It’s no surprise that we are nervous about the return of "piece rates" or payment for tasks completed, rather than hours worked. Our experience of these has been in sectors like contract cleaning and hotels, where they’re used to set unreasonable targets, and drive down pay. Forgive us for being sceptical about Uber’s record of following the letter of the law.

Taylor’s proposals on zero-hours contracts also miss the point. Those on zero hours contracts – working in low paid sectors like hospitality, caring, and retail - are dependent on their boss for the hours they need to pay their bills. A "right to request" guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Those in insecure jobs are in constant fear of having their hours cut if they speak up at work. Will the "right to request" really change this?

Tilting the balance of power back towards workers is what the trade union movement exists for. But it’s also vital to delivering the better productivity and growth Britain so sorely needs.

There is plenty of evidence from across the UK and the wider world that workplaces with good terms and conditions, pay and worker voice are more productive. That’s why the OECD (hardly a left-wing mouth piece) has called for a new debate about how collective bargaining can deliver more equality, more inclusion and better jobs all round.

We know as a union movement that we have to up our game. And part of that thinking must include how trade unions can take advantage of new technologies to organise workers.

We are ready for this challenge. Our role isn’t to stop changes in technology. It’s to make sure technology is used to make working people’s lives better, and to make sure any gains are fairly shared.

Frances O'Grady is the General Secretary of the TUC.