It's time to be honest about who gains from tax cuts

Raising the personal allowance won’t give anything to the lowest-earning five million workers.

The news that George Osborne is likely to match the flagship Liberal Democrat commitment to raise the personal tax allowance to £12.5k in the next parliament is further proof of what became apparent during the conference season: the government’s economic message is jerking awkwardly between painting a bleak account of the years of austerity still to come and sunny promises of major tax cuts just around the corner.

It also clarifies that raising the personal tax allowance (PTA) will remain the tax cut of choice for both sides of the coalition. Which means that it is worth going back over some of the claims made in support of it – not least as some of them are a bit wide of the mark. This is not to say there is no case to be made for having a higher PTA: a tax-free stretch of income has always been an important part of our tax system and raising it clearly has beneficial effects (for instance, it simplifies, improves work incentives for some, and encourages dual-earning). It’s just that sometimes the key arguments made in support of it are often unbalanced or misleading, or both.

It is regularly, for instance, billed as a tax cut targeted at the lowest earners. And, to state the obvious, someone on say £12k – who would benefit - is clearly on a low wage. Yet it’s important to realise that the proposed hike in the PTA from £10k to £12.5k won’t give anything to the lowest-earning 5 million workers in the UK, all of whom will earn less than the £10k threshold come 2015.

More specifically, it’s said that the specific rationale for a further hike in the PTA is to help those on the minimum wage which has fallen sharply in real terms over recent years. Trouble is, more than 60% of those paid the minimum wage – predominantly women - work part-time. Again, they don’t gain. So rooting the whole argument for going to £12.5k in terms of those toiling on the minimum wage is a bit of a stretch.

Another, related, claim is that the point of a larger personal allowance is that it ‘lifts people out of tax’. And self-evidently this is right – in relation to income tax (several million people will have been lifted out of income tax by 2015 due to coalition policy choices). But that’s only part of the story. The coalition has not raised the threshold for National Insurance in the same way (it’s been uprated with inflation for the last 3 three years). It seems to be acceptable that someone on £8k should pay NICs but unacceptable that someone on £12k pays income tax. It’s hard to think of a sensible rationale for this. If tax cuts are the order of the day then raising the NICs threshold would be a far better priority.

At other moments it is argued that the whole point of the tax cut is to help low-income households or families. Again, this is shaky ground. The bulk of the gains from increasing the PTA flow to the top half of the household income distribution. This observation sometimes raises eyebrows but there is no great mystery about it – it simply reflects the fact that there are large numbers in the bottom half of the distribution who don’t work, and there are large numbers who do work but pay no or little income tax. Meanwhile, in the top half of the income distribution there is a much greater preponderance of dual-earning households who gain twice-over from tax cuts.

Indeed, to understand how households, particularly families with children, will benefit from a higher PTA in the next Parliament we need to consider how it will interact with Universal Credit (due to start in 2017). At the moment a tax cut would benefit someone by the same amount regardless of whether or not they are eligible for tax credits. It doesn’t affect their claim. Under Universal Credit this changes. The gains from the tax cut will in large part be offset by a reduction in entitlement to Universal Credit. And this is no small point: millions of families with dependent age children will be on UC. Tax cuts are going to lose much of their potency for a large swath of low to middle income families, it’s just no one has told them. It would be possible to amend Universal Credit to deal with this problem but so far no party has said they will – it costs money.

So raising the tax allowance is not a policy for the very lowest earners. Nor is it a policy for a far smaller number of very highest earners (people on more than roughly £120k, about 0.5 million, get any gains taxed away). But it is a tax cut for the overwhelming majority in between. Some of these will be on low (but not the very lowest) earnings, some in the middle and some near the top: it spreads the gains around which, depending on your point of view, could be a good thing or a bad thing. To put it another way, only a small part of the cost involved in the proposed increase in the PTA – around 10% - comes from lifting those on between £10k and £12.5k out of income tax: it’s expensive mostly because it also gives a tax cut to everyone earning from £12.5k to roughly £120k.

It’s also important to emphasise that how big the gains will really be, and how much it costs the exchequer, will depend crucially on the detail. A policy to raise the personal tax allowance ‘during the next Parliament’ – meaning by 2020 - to the level of the salary of a full-time minimum wage worker in 2015 (c. £12.5k), is a very different thing to committing to move straight to a £12.5k allowance in 2015. And it’s also very different to committing to raise the allowance by 2020 to whatever a minimum wage salary will be at that time.

Finally, it’s worth noting that, as with many policy commitments, there are likely to be unintended consequences. This is because the government has decided to make earning more than the tax allowance an eligibility criteria for some crucial policies – such as to access more generous childcare support, or auto-enrolment into employer pension schemes. This linkage is a truly asinine bit of policy-making. Raise the threshold while sticking to this approach and ever more low-paid part-timers will miss out on vital forms of economic security.

So, yes, let’s debate tax cuts. Given the squeeze on incomes there will inevitably be pressure on all parties to help ease the pressure on households through the tax system. But let’s discuss this in the knowledge of the fiscal hole that still needs to be filled (which will most likely mean tax rises too). And, crucially, let’s be candid about who really gains from these proposals.

Gavin Kelly is chief executive of The Resolution Foundation

George Osborne arrives at Number 10 Downing Street with his special adviser Rupert Harrison on 7 October 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

Gavin Kelly is a former Downing Street adviser to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. He tweets @GavinJKelly1.

Daily Mail
Show Hide image

Who "speaks for England" - and for that matter, what is "England"?

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones.

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones. It trotted out Leo Amery’s House of Commons call from September 1939, “Speak for England”, for the headline on a deranged leader that filled a picture-free front page on David Cameron’s “deal” to keep Britain in the EU.

Demands that somebody or other speak for England have followed thick and fast ever since Amery addressed his call to Labour’s Arthur Greenwood when Neville Chamberlain was still dithering over war with Hitler. Tory MPs shouted, “Speak for England!” when Michael Foot, the then Labour leader, rose in the Commons in 1982 after Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands. The Mail columnist Andrew Alexander called on Clare Short to “speak for England” over the Iraq War in 2003. “Can [Ed] Miliband speak for England?” Anthony Barnett asked in this very magazine in 2013. (Judging by the 2015 election result, one would say not.) “I speak for England,” claimed John Redwood last year. “Labour must speak for England,” countered Frank Field soon afterwards.

The Mail’s invocation of Amery was misconceived for two reasons. First, Amery wanted us to wage war in Europe in support of Hitler’s victims in Poland and elsewhere and in alliance with France, not to isolate ourselves from the continent. Second, “speak for England” in recent years has been used in support of “English votes for English laws”, following proposals for further devolution to Scotland. As the Mail was among the most adamant in demanding that Scots keep their noses out of English affairs, it’s a bit rich of it now to state “of course, by ‘England’. . . we mean the whole of the United Kingdom”.

 

EU immemorial

The Mail is also wrong in arguing that “we are at a crossroads in our island history”. The suggestion that the choice is between “submitting to a statist, unelected bureaucracy in Brussels” and reclaiming our ancient island liberties is pure nonsense. In the long run, withdrawing from the EU will make little difference. Levels of immigration will be determined, as they always have been, mainly by employers’ demands for labour and the difficulties of policing the borders of a country that has become a leading international transport hub. The terms on which we continue to trade with EU members will be determined largely by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels after discussions with unelected bureaucrats in London.

The British are bored by the EU and the interminable Westminster arguments. If voters support Brexit, it will probably be because they then expect to hear no more on the subject. They will be sadly mistaken. The withdrawal negotiations will take years, with the Farages and Duncan Smiths still foaming at the mouth, Cameron still claiming phoney victories and Angela Merkel, François Hollande and the dreaded Jean-Claude Juncker playing a bigger part in our lives than ever.

 

An empty cabinet

Meanwhile, one wonders what has become of Jeremy Corbyn or, indeed, the rest of the shadow cabinet. The Mail’s “speak for England” leader excoriated him for not mentioning “the Number One subject of the hour” at PM’s Questions but instead asking about a shortage of therapeutic radiographers in the NHS. In fact, the NHS’s problems – almost wholly caused by Tory “reforms” and spending cuts – would concern more people than does our future in the EU. But radiographers are hardly headline news, and Corbyn and his team seem unable to get anything into the nation’s “any other business”, never mind to the top of its agenda.

Public services deteriorate by the day, George Osborne’s fiscal plans look increasingly awry, and attempts to wring tax receipts out of big corporations appear hopelessly inadequate. Yet since Christmas I have hardly seen a shadow minister featured in the papers or spotted one on TV, except to say something about Trident, another subject that most voters don’t care about.

 

Incurable prose

According to the Guardian’s admirable but (let’s be honest) rather tedious series celeb­rating the NHS, a US health-care firm has advised investors that “privatisation of the UK marketplace . . . should create organic and de novo opportunities”. I have no idea what this means, though it sounds ominous. But I am quite certain I don’t want my local hospital or GP practice run by people who write prose like that.

 

Fashionable Foxes

My home-town football team, Leicester City, are normally so unfashionable that they’re not even fashionable in Leicester, where the smart set mostly watch the rugby union team Leicester Tigers. Even when they installed themselves near the top of the Premier League before Christmas, newspapers scarcely noticed them.

Now, with the Foxes five points clear at the top and 7-4 favourites for their first title, that mistake is corrected and the sports pages are running out of superlatives, a comparison with Barcelona being the most improbable. Even I, not a football enthusiast, have watched a few matches. If more football were played as Leicester play it – moving at speed towards their opponents’ goal rather than aimlessly weaving pretty patterns in midfield – I would watch the game more.

Nevertheless, I recall 1963, when Leicester headed the old First Division with five games to play. They picked up only one more point and finished fourth, nine points adrift of the league winners, Everton.

 

Gum unstuck

No, I don’t chew toothpaste to stop me smoking, as the last week’s column strangely suggested. I chew Nicorette gum, a reference written at some stage but somehow lost (probably by me) before it reached print.

Editor: The chief sub apologises for this mistake, which was hers

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle