If the likes of Philip Green's family desire the rights that come with UK citizenship, they should be required to make fair tax contributions. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Labour should make itself the party of tax cuts and bold tax reform

If the party was radical rather than obsessed with process and presentation, it would be setting out proposals to overhaul our tax system.

Our tax system is just about the most unfair and inefficient imaginable. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the UK has “an opaque jumble of different effective rates [of tax] as a result of tapered allowances and a separate National Insurance system”. The system urgently needs reform but which politician has the stamina and originality of thought to achieve it?

However, some change might be coming. It has been reported that George Osborne is considering merging National Insurance (NI) and income tax into a single tax. Such a move would, it has been suggested, have advantages for a Conservative chancellor. It would further weaken the contributory principle that was the foundation of the welfare state but that has long since been eroded; it would also raise the headline rate of taxation, and thus increase a desire for tax cuts because people would have a clearer sense of how much of their income they were paying to the state.

Yet, in spite of these objections, we would support the merging of NI and income tax in the interests of greater transparency but also because we believe low- and middle-income earners in Britain already pay too much tax, especially when fuel duty, VAT, council tax and stagnant real wages are taken into account. Ed Miliband complains about a “cost-of-living crisis”. Perhaps, in response, he should consider cutting the average earner’s tax burden.

Our income-tax system is opaque. Governments delight in obfuscation and complication. At present, the marginal income-tax rate on a single earner on the median salary of £26,500 is officially 20 per cent; in fact, when you take NI into account, it is 32 per cent. The coalition government likes to boast that, by raising the personal tax allowance to £10,000, it has taken low earners out of income tax altogether. It has done nothing of the kind.

If the Labour Party was radical rather than obsessed with process and presentation, and if it wanted to win a popular mandate rather than merely limp over the line in coalition with whatever might be left of the Liberal Democrats at Westminster after the general election in 2015, it would be setting out proposals to overhaul our tax system.

Indeed, it would aspire to become a party of tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners and seek to switch some of the burden of taxation from income and consumption to static assets such as property and land, as well as environmental bads. It would reform inheritance tax so that the rich become less able to avoid it. It would introduce land value taxes, at least for business and agricultural land but also potentially for property. The rebanding of council tax, which is based on valuations more than 20 years old, would also be an essential part of any wide-ranging programme of reform.

Such policies would ensure that those who have benefited most from the house-price inflation of the past decade or so were making a fair contribution to the national burden: property, unlike capital, cannot be hidden in offshore accounts.

Creating the political space for such a course of action, however, would require the Labour Party to make a more persuasive case for progressive taxation. For too long, paying your fair share in taxes has been framed as an unfortunate burden, rather than part of what it means to live as a responsible citizen in a free and open society.

A first, bold step towards achieving a more equitable and transparent tax system would be to change the rules concerning those ultra-rich British citizens who reside abroad for tax reasons. If those such as the family of Philip Green – the billionaire chief executive of the Arcadia retail group (and adviser on public spending to the Conservative Party) whose wife is resident in Monaco – desire the rights and security that come with British citizenship, they should be required to make a fair contribution in taxation to the British state.

If an American wishes to retain US citizenship, he is liable for federal taxes no matter where he lives in the world. It is a convention that dates back to 1861 and the American civil war. Surely it is time for all those Britons who hide their money tax-free in overseas accounts or in tax havens to pay up, as Americans are obliged to do – or renounce the right to be British. Here is one policy that, if it were adopted by the Labour Party, would have genuine popular appeal. What’s there not to like about it? 

This article first appeared in the 02 July 2014 issue of the New Statesman, After God Again

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What is the New Hampshire primary, and why does it matter?

Although the contest has proved less influential in recent years, the New Hampshire primary is still a crucial event.

While the Iowa caucuses are the first electoral event in the US’s presidential process, the New Hampshire primary is the candidates' most important early test before the action explodes across the rest of the country.

The stakes are high. If the nominations aren’t decided soon, the campaigns will be damned to a marathon of costly state primaries and caucuses; New Hampshire is their first best chance to avoid that fate. But it didn’t always work this way.

Primaries only became the key element of the nomination process relatively recently. Until the postwar era, presidential candidates were chosen at the national conventions in the summer: in the run-up to the 1960 election, future president John F Kennedy famously entered only one primary (West Virginia’s) to prove that a Roman Catholic could win a Protestant state.

It was only after the turmoil of the 1968 nomination, widely perceived as an establishment fix, that the McGovern-Fraser Commission changed the Democratic party’s rules to end the power of the “smoke-filled room” over the nominating process, prompting many states to adopt meaningful primaries for both parties' nominations.

First in the nation

Unlike caucuses, which generally are used in smaller states that would rather not pay for full-scale ballots, primaries are secret-ballot elections that allow voters to choose who will be their preferred nominee. But not all primaries are the same.

The parties sometimes hold their votes on the same day, as they do in New Hampshire, or on different ones. A primary may be open (allowing any voter to register a preference) or closed (allowing only pre-registered party supporters to vote). New Hampshire has a mixed system which allows voters to register in a primary on the day before voting without declaring a party affiliation.

That means that while all voters registered with a party must vote in that party’s ballot, the New Hampshire result often hinges on these unaffiliated voters. Because they can vote in whichever ballot they like and can register so close to primary day, the state is notoriously difficult to poll.

New Hampshire has cemented its first-in-the-nation status by passing a law that requires its lawmakers to move the state’s primary to pre-empt any other state’s, no matter how early. That means it’s traditionally been not just an important indicator of how candidates are faring, but a way of winnowing the field and generating or killing funding. Candidates who perform poorly generally find their access to money suddenly dries up.

The arguments against New Hampshire’s outsize role are many. Like Iowa, it’s hardly representative of the US as a whole, being a small state with an overwhelmingly white population. And while (unlike Iowa) it has no powerful evangelical Christian element, it retains a very distinctive tradition of small-town New England politics that demand a particular kind of face-to-face, low-to-the-ground campaigning.

But this time around, other factors have cut into New Hampshire’s significance.

On the Republican side, the primary’s winnowing role was in large part pre-empted when the TV networks holding debates allowed only the higher-polling candidates on stage, effectively creating a two-tier system that tarred lower-polling candidates as also-rans long before voting began. Meanwhile, the financial calculations have been transformed by campaign finance reforms that allow for almost unlimited outside fundraising – allowing candidates to build up the reserves they need to withstand a humiliating defeat.

Nonetheless, a truly surprising New Hampshire result could still change everything.

Shuffling the deck

New Hampshire hasn’t always chosen the winner in either the nomination contests or the general election. But it has provided more than its share of political upsets and key turning points, from persuading Lyndon Johnson not to stand again in 1968 to resurrecting the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008.

The incremental campaigns for the nominations are all about the perception of momentum, and a notional front-runner can be dislodged or destabilised by a poor performance early on. That’s especially true in this year’s cycle, in which both major parties are grappling with huge surges of support for outsider, anti-establishment candidates.

Mainstream Republicans have spent months trying to end Donald Trump’s noisy domination of their crowded field. Trump was indeed defeated in Iowa, but not by a moderating force: instead, it was radical conservative Ted Cruz who overturned him.

Cruz is loathed by the party establishment, and he stands little chance of appealing to mainstream voters. Marco Rubio’s strong showing in Iowa briefly made him something of a standard-bearer for the party’s moderates, but a disastrous turn at the last debate before New Hampshire has thrown the future of his candidacy into doubt.

The primary will also reveal who, if any, of the more moderate Republican candidates – among them Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie – will survive. While Bush has a massive funding advantage (albeit with precious little to show for it), Kasich and Christie both need a strong showing in New Hampshire to reinvigorate their financial reserves.

On the Democratic side, the key question is whether Bernie Sanders can make good on the surprising energy of his populist, grassroots challenge to Hillary Clinton. He is currently the heavy favourite in New Hampshire: even if Clinton somehow pulls off a miracle win there as she did in 2008, the closeness of the race is already stimulating both campaigns' national organisation and spending. And with what could be a long race between them heating up, the two’s growing mutual acrimony may yet start to undermine the Democrats' national appeal.

Gillian Peele Associate Professor in Politics and Tutorial Fellow at the University of Oxford.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.