Clegg: property taxes should replace the 50p rate

Deputy Prime Minister says 50p rate will be scrapped once low and middle incomes are “breathing more

If George Osborne's hint in last week's Budget wasn't enough, we now know for certain that the 50p tax rate will be scrapped at some point during this parliament. In an interview with the Financial Times, Nick Clegg suggests that the tax will be abolished once those on low and middle incomes are "breathing more easily" and will be replaced with a range of new property taxes.

As Clegg points out, Osborne won't want to scrap the 50p rate until he's certain that he can offer relief elsewhere. Polls show that the tax is relatively popular with voters and Labour would seize any opportunity to portray the Chancellor as a friend of the rich. It's notable that while the progressive 50p rate is "temporary", the regressive VAT increase is "permanent".

Senior Lib Dems, most notably Vince Cable, have long spoken of their desire to divert taxation away from income and towards property. In his recent New Statesman essay on reclaiming Keynes for the coalition, the Business Secretary wrote of the need to shift taxation "away from profitable, productive investment (as opposed to unproductive asset accumulation, as with property)".

Before this, in his speech at last year's Lib Dem conference, Cable also argued for higher taxes on land as well as property (the subject of a recent NScover story by Jason Cowley).

He said:

It will be said that in a world of internationally mobile capital and people it is counterproductive to tax personal income and corporate profit to uncompetitive levels. That is right. But a progressive alternative is to shift the tax base to property, and land, which cannot run away, [and] represents in Britain an extreme concentration of wealth.

Over the weekend, Cable returned to this theme in several interviews and spoke of the need to "shift from high marginal rates of tax on income which are undesirable, to taxation of wealth, including property". Asked if he was considering a so-called "mansion tax", he said: "I'm sure that's one of the things we're going to have to look at."

Clegg's FT interview is short on detail, although, unlike Cable, he rules out a version of the "mansion tax" proposed by the Lib Dems at the last election and supported by David Miliband during the Labour leadership contest. Instead, he suggests the coalition will "look at the way the council tax system is structured; the way stamp duty is structured".

Another option, as Jason suggested in his piece, would be to introduce capital gains tax on the profits made from the sale of first homes.

On taxation at least, the Lib Dems can now claim to be exerting serious influence on the Tories. Osborne has embraced their plan to raise the personal income-tax allowance to £10,000 by the end of this parliament and is now set to restructure the taxation of top earners along liberal lines.

Labour must hope that the 50p rate raises some significant revenue. If not, the party could be left on the wrong side of the tax debate.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.