Miliband calls it right: tax income less and wealth more

As the NS has long argued, Labour should fund tax cuts for low and middle earners by finding new ways of taxing static assets, such as mansions and land.

It was a good speech from Ed Miliband today. He’s clearly been reading the New Statesman, which endorsed his bid for the leadership in 2010, just one of the many things we’ve got right over recent years – such as our forecast long ago that premature fiscal consolidation would result in a double dip recession, predicting a hung parliament (when no one else did) and calling for UK withdrawal from Afghanistan and talks with Taliban (now a mainstream position).

We’ve consistently argued that Labour should seek to reduce the tax burden for low and middle income earners and, because capital is so mobile and the very rich are so adept at avoiding income tax, find new ways of taxing unearned income and static assets, such as mansions and land. This is not a left/right issue: Vince Cable, Martin Wolf, of the Financial Times, and Tim Montgomerie, of the excellent ConservativeHome website, are all in favour of the introduction of new wealth taxes.

The UK needs a more resilient tax base and Labour, if it is to have any chance of winning again, must abandon unreconstructed statism and its old, failed tax and transfer redistributive model (we consider National Insurance to be a form of income tax, and Gordon Brown certainly used it as such with his devious manoeuvres). That’s why we support greater emphasis on “predistribution” (awful word but good concept). 

In last week’s magazine we supported, as George says, the admirable Conservative MP for Harlow (my old home town in Essex) Robert Halfon’s call for the restoration of the 10p tax band for earnings between the personal allowance, which will rise to £9,440 in April, and £12,000, a measure worth £256 to basic-rate taxpayers. Now Ed Miliband is saying that Labour would reintroduce the 10p rate. That is smart politics, and just the kind of distinctive policy it will need as it seeks to remake itself as the party of social justice, entrepreneurial initiative and the competent state in the run-up to the 2015 election. Above all, Labour needs to show that it has learned the lessons of the Blair/Brown years, when asset bubbles were allowed to inflate dangerously, the party became carless and arrogant in power and far too nonchalant about rising inequality. Game on.   

The 12-bedroom mansion in Kensington Palace Gardens bought by steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal for $128.3m in 2004. Photograph: Getty Images.

Jason Cowley is editor of the New Statesman. He has been the editor of Granta, a senior editor at the Observer and a staff writer at the Times.

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496