Goldman Sachs avoiding the 50p rate proves the folly of cutting it too soon

The 45p rate gets an artificial boost while 50p is made worse in comparison.

Goldman Sachs is considering whether to defer bonuses for its employees into the new tax year, starting 6 April, in order to avoid the 50p tax rate.

The Guardian's Jill Treanor reports:

A number of banks are known to have considered whether to make the move, which would save their top employees thousands of pounds. But City sources believe many of them have rejected the idea to avoid any negative publicity in the wake of the row surrounding corporation tax paid by Starbucks in the UK.

The Wall Street firm – which publishes its full year results on Wednesday and tells staff their bonuses for 2012 shortly afterwards – is not thought to be considering changing the way the bonuses for 2012 are handed out. The proposal being considered would benefit parts of bonuses deferred from the years 2009, 2010 and 2011, which are due to be handed to staff this year in the form of shares.

The move underlines the lack of evidence available that the 50p rate actually hurt revenues. HMRC's analysis in March last year determined that the optimal tax rate was 48 per cent, a figure which 1) didn't justify cutting the rate to 45 per cent and 2) was only derived due to a specific statistic – TIE, taxable income elasticity – being given a value of 0.45. Given studies cited by HMRC for TIE showed it being anywhere from -0.6 to 2.75, there's rather a lot of uncertainty in that analysis.

But the bigger problem for evidence of the tax cut's effects is that, in cutting the 50p rate so rapidly, the Chancellor destroyed the possibility that we might actually get some useful data. The most effective way to avoid the tax is to shift income forward or backward. As a result, the first year it was in operation revealed that £6.6bn of taxable income had been shifted forward by a year; and we now know that this year, the last it will be in operation, a significant chink of income will be shifted back to the 2013/14 tax year.

Add in the fact that even HMRC assumed that some income in 2011/12 will have been declared in 2009/10, and some more will have been coincidentally forestalled to 2012/13 (when it could be forestalled further to 2013/14), and it is clear: there has not been a single year when a "normal" amount of tax was paid at the 50p rate. Every year it was in operation will have resulted in an artificially depressed take.

Similarly, the 45p rate will, for the first few years of its operation, have an artificially boosted take. It will look far more effective at discouraging tax avoidance than it actually is.

Consider this a warning, then: 2014 will see a lot of attempts to misuse data to prove a point. Don't take it at face value.

Photograph: Getty Images

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
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.