Plan B: Reduce NI contributions
By David Blanchflower Published 18 October 2011
Dear Chancellor,
I was very pleased to hear in your speech to the Tory party conference that you are planning to start credit easing, as I suggested that you do in my NS column of 9 September. My good friend Adam Posen of the Monetary Policy Committee has also set out the case for doing so.
It is of grave concern that small firms are struggling to obtain credit and that Project Merlin (the agreement between banks and the government) has clearly not delivered, but it should be said that it never seemed likely it would. It didn't help that there were no penalties for failure, as there should have been. The research evidence is that credit constraints have a severe impact on a small firm's ability to grow, and reducing them can have substantial positive effects. The concern, however, is that you do not appear to have worked out how to do this yet and we are going to have to wait until November to find out what your plans are. Sadly, you really did mean you had no Plan B.
Unfortunately, all of this may be too little, too late, because there is a long time lag between the announcement of a plan and it taking effect. The revisions to growth announced by the Office for National Statistics in the first week of this month have changed everything. It is now clear that the recession was considerably deeper than previously thought: output fell by 7.2 per cent (revised down from 6.6 per cent). It seems it was a major mistake to impose austerity with no plan for growth, in the depths of what Mervyn King called "the most serious financial crisis . . . since the 1930s, if not ever". Up to this point, only about a third of lost output has been restored and none for the past three quarters. It is time to slow the spending cuts.
It hasn't helped that you described the economy as "bankrupt" when clearly it was not, and also compared the British economy with that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which are locked in monetary union, do not have their own central bank and cannot depreciate their currency or engage in credit easing. With such unpatriotic talk, you and other coalition leaders have caused business and consumer confidence, and thus consumer spending, to collapse. They are at frighteningly low levels and I suspect they will fall a lot further unless you act quickly.
My first piece of advice is to stop drawing false comparisons. It is time to talk the economy up rather than talk it into recession as you have been doing. Keynes was right: animal spirits matter, and you have lowered them. Stop it.
It certainly appears that increasing VAT from 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent was a big mistake - it increased measured Consumer Prices Index inflation by 1.5 percentage points and hit ordinary working people's living standards. It made the MPC's job a lot harder, and I suspect without it the committee would have moved to QE much sooner. It is time to reverse that VAT increase.
My final and most important piece of advice concerns the young, who need help - and soon. The number of unemployed young people under the age of 25 is about to break through the million mark and there is a growing danger that they will become a lost generation.
So I suggest you increase the number of university places by 100,000 at once - the universities have the capacity. You could even insist that the extra places be primarily in science and engineering, which would help future growth. Second, give a tax holiday for two years on employer and employee National Insurance contributions for anyone under the age of 25. This would stimulate the economy and price young people into work, and probably pay for itself.
You must loosen fiscal policy and slow the pace of public spending cuts or you will push the UK economy over the precipice. The Bank of England cannot take the strain on its own.
David Blanchflower is Bruce V Rauner Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College , New Hampshire and the NS's economics editor. He served on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee from 2006 to 2009
Previous: Agree financial inclusion tax, says Jeffrey Sachs
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


4 comments
Indu...
You seem to be missing the big bit where VAT reduces domestic demand... it doesn't just selectively reduce imports.
It's also a tax that hits the poorest hardest according to the Treasury's own calculations.
You're also making a major mistake about ends and means.
- Having a good standard of living for people in the UK is an end.
- Having a "competitive" economy is a means to achieve that end.
You seem to be getting these two reversed... seeing reduced living standards as a means to achieve the end of competitiveness! I.e. Yay, everyone's now poor, what a wonderful economy we have.
@danny
Reducing NI for the under 25 years is a fabluous idea. Even Indu supports it.
Pushing kids into science and engineering - I must have died and gone to heaven reading this. I've done private support around this for disadvantaged kids.
But we do have a difference of opinion.
Inflation of 5.2% and wages of 1.8% means 3.4% improvement in relative competitiveness of UK labor. I value this more to the national interest than the 3.4% decline in living standards. I dont mind the reduction in disposable income as it will predominantly be a saving to imports.
Inflation means sterling denominated imports are more expensive (especially given that a cause of the inflation is the low exchange rate) so generally consumers will reduce their consumption of them. Reducing imports is a stimulus. So high VAT means long term stimulus. Think Denmark.
We need Plan B
- more QE (the full £100Bn is fine by me) to maintain general price inflation at 5% and to devalue the currency. The subdued labor market will improve the relative competitiveness of UK workers and create jobs.
- VAT @22.5%. As we saw with the last 2.5% rise it will impove the UK's competitiveness. VAT is a tax on imports not exports so helps reduce the trade deficit. Increasing VAT also improves the fiscal multiplier (less stimulus leaks out to China through imports)
- the money raised from VAT @22.5% could fund a your reduction in employers NI. Making people cheaper to employ will create jobs
- the VAT rise could also reduce the corportation tax rate so that more companies bring their profits to the UK to be taxed.
Not sure about your enthusiasm for QE, Indu Pendent, but the rest of your post is absolutely spot on.
@Roger D
No I dont agree with you.
First, VAT is progressive - it penalises consumption. It would need support for the least well off such as adjusting state benefits. The best help we can give to poeple is to create jobs. Also, the NI cut would mitigate the VAT rise for a large slice of the least well off.
Secondly, "Having a good standard of living for people in the UK is an end". Absolutely not. Could not disagree more. Correctly it should be ""Having a sustainatble good standard of living for people in the UK is an end"". These two statements are vastly different. A competitiveness is the Alpha to Omega of a sustainable lifestyle for an economy like the UK with limited economical natural resources. The competivieness comes first or there is no lifestyle -- the UK is finding this out the hard way.
Re: "VAT reduces domestic demand". I dont accept this. The VAT raised is redistribute via NI and Corp Tax. It will shift demand away from greedy consumers and give the money to reward entreprenuers and businesses for profits and employing young people. Its doing all the right things that we need. These people are more likely to use the money to grow their businesses and so create more jobs.
Taking money away from UK consumers via VAT and giving it to businesses will also increase the fiscal multiplier (because of the high level of marginal discretionary income the UK consumers spend on imports). This will cause growth in the economy (because stimulus will get recylced more). I agree that it will shift demand towards resources , expenditure and assets employed on export activities. Yes it will disadvantage businesses that do not export -- but that will cause the long term migration of resources to businesses that do export.