70 per cent of the cost of cutting the personal allowance goes to the richest half of society

Income tax is quite progressive; better to cut VAT or council tax.

Tomorrow is the beginning of the 2013/2014 tax year, and one of the changes that's going through is the latest rise in the Personal Allowance, which is increasing from £8,105 to £9,440. The Tories are making a big thing of it, launching this poster campaign:

That's going to sting for the Liberal Democrats, who are desperate to claim the increased personal allowance as their legacy from this government. But the phrasing is interesting, and worth examining.

For this poster, the Conservatives have dropped their favourite claim of "2.7 million taken out of tax altogether". That's good, because as the FT's Chris Cook explains, it's not exactly true:

The poorest families are paying a lot more in indirect tax (VAT, fuel duty, booze taxes) than in direct tax (income tax, NICs, council tax). In fact, direct taxes only overtake indirect taxes in size when you hit the fifth decile.

If you look at the second decile of households by income, just over 10 per cent of the taxes they pay are income tax. The other 90 per cent of their tax burden – still over £4,000 a year – comes from various other taxes, principally council tax and VAT. Between them, those two taxes account for almost half the tax burden on that decile.

But while it might not be the case that the tax cut takes workers "out of tax", it certainly is a tax cut for 24 million people. But rather than being a positive, this is actually the biggest flaw in the policy. This chart, prepared by the Resolution Foundation (pdf), shows the distribution of that tax cut amongst houses of different incomes:

As the chart clearly shows, the families with the biggest cash gain are the third richest tenth in the country, who get £210 each; and the families with the biggest proportional gain are the fifth richest tenth, gaining an extra 0.61 per cent of their income.

Meanwhile, the poorest families barely benefit from the rise at all. That's unsurprising; you need to be earning at least £8,105 a year for the rise to help you in any way, and at least £9,440 to gain the full benefit. And in a household, that needs to be true of both earners – otherwise half the allowance is wasted.

The chart also lets us get an idea of the distribution of the costs of the rise. Almost exactly 70 per cent of the revenue being forfeit for the increase in the allowance comes from the richest half of the nation. Less than 1 per cent of the money actually goest to the poorest ten per cent in the country.

The truth is that income tax in Britain is already one of the most progressive taxes we've got. The poorest in the nation pay little, while the richest pay most of their tax in income tax. As a result, if you want to cut taxes to help the poor, you would be better off returning VAT to its old rate of 17.5 per cent or increasing – rather than reducing – the number of people exempt from council tax. If you want to cut taxes to help the rich, going after income tax is the right way to do it.

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

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.