What do we already know about today's Budget?

Today's Budget is one of the most leaky ever. Here is a breakdown of the measures already trailed.

You would be forgiven for thinking that George Osborne's Budget speech today is simply a formality, given the amount of material that has already been leaked. Here is a summary of what has already been trailed, in what must be one of the most leaked Budgets ever.

50p tax

It looks nearly certain that the Chancellor will scrap the top rate of tax, which applies to those earning over £150,000. Rather than abolishing it outright, it will be reduced from 50p in the pound to 45p. This lays the groundwork for getting rid of it entirely next year, and reverting to 40p as the highest rate of tax.

Tax avoidance clampdown

To offset this tax cut for the rich, Osborne has promised to "come down like a ton of bricks" on those who avoid stamp duty. The annual charge on non-domiciled residents will also be upped from £30,000 to £50,000. It's worth noting that the higher rate was floated last year but did not materialise. In today's FT, Martin Taylor says we should not expect this tax clampdown to work.

Stamp duty

In a small victory for the Lib Dems, who have long been lobbying for some form of property tax, stamp duty is to be raised from 5 per cent to 7 per cent on properties worth more than £2m. This measure should raise £2.2bn to help fund the increase in the income tax threshold.

Raising the income tax threshold

Osborne will accelerate plans to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000. This move, heavily touted by the Liberal Democrats, will apply to all 23 million basic tax-rate payers and many higher earners, too. Osborne is likely to announce a large short-term increase, with plans to reach the £10,000 mark by April 2014, long before it was scheduled.

Regional pay deals

Public sector workers in poorer areas of the country will be paid lower salaries - in some cases, as early as next month. Osborne will argue that the public sector should be more like the private sector and reflect local economies, but critics say it will accentuate the economic divide between north and south. It was unclear whether the new rates would apply only to new staff or to existing staff as well. The Treasury insisted that no current employee would suffer a pay cut - rather, rates would be adjusted over time.

Sunday trading hours

The Chancellor will force through emergency legislation lifting the six-hour limit on opening hours for larger stores, in a bid to boost the economy. The restrictions will be lifted on eight weekends over the summer, to coincide with the Olympics and Paralympics. This could open the door for the restrictions to be scrapped altogether.

Tax transparency

Taxpayers will be given a breakdown of where their tax money is going, from the NHS, to defence, to unemployment benefits.

TV tax breaks

The government will launch a consultation on tax breaks for high-budget British television dramas, such as the wildly successful Downton Abbey.

Royal Mail privatisation

In a radical move, the government will take on all the assets and liabilities of the Royal Mail's pension fund, taking responsibility for paying postal workers' pensions for decades to come. This will open the door for the privatisation of the postal service: the pension fund, which has a shortfall of £9.5m, would make it impossible to attract a private sector buyer.

Planning laws to be relaxed

Osborne has said he is "deeply frustrated" with the slowness of the planning process, and will announce new legislation to make it easier to build in the countryside. This will clear the way for more homes and infrastructure to be built - but it may further undermine the coalition's claim to be "the greenest government ever". Regulations protecting wildlife are expected to be scrapped as part of this drive.

International aid

It looks as if the commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP on international aid will be maintained.

 

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Brexit is teaching the UK that it needs immigrants

Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past.

Why did the UK vote to leave the EU? For conservatives, Brexit was about regaining parliamentary sovereignty. For socialists it was about escaping the single market. For still more it was a chance to punish David Cameron and George Osborne. But supreme among the causes was the desire to reduce immigration.

For years, as the government repeatedly missed its target to limit net migration to "tens of thousands", the EU provided a convenient scapegoat. The free movement of people allegedly made this ambition unachievable (even as non-European migration oustripped that from the continent). When Cameron, the author of the target, was later forced to argue that the price of leaving the EU was nevertheless too great, voters were unsurprisingly unconvinced.

But though the Leave campaign vowed to gain "control" of immigration, it was careful never to set a formal target. As many of its senior figures knew, reducing net migration to "tens of thousands" a year would come at an economic price (immigrants make a net fiscal contribution of £7bn a year). An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent. For the UK, with its poor productivity and sub-par infrastructure, immigration has long been an economic boon. 

When Theresa May became Prime Minister, some cabinet members hoped that she would abolish the net migration target in a "Nixon goes to China" moment. But rather than retreating, the former Home Secretary doubled down. She regards the target as essential on both political and policy grounds (and has rejected pleas to exempt foreign students). But though the same goal endures, Brexit is forcing ministers to reveal a rarely spoken truth: Britain needs immigrants.

Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. On last night's Question Time, Brexit secretary David Davis conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall following Brexit. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants."

Though Davis insisted that the government would eventually meet its "tens of thousands" target (while sounding rather unconvinced), he added: "The simple truth is that we have to manage this problem. You’ve got industry dependent on migrants. You’ve got social welfare, the national health service. You have to make sure they continue to work."

As my colleague Julia Rampen has charted, Davis's colleagues have inserted similar caveats. Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, who warned during the referendum that EU immigration could “overwhelm” Britain, has told farmers that she recognises “how important seasonal labour from the EU is to the everyday running of your businesses”. Others, such as the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, have issued similar guarantees to employers. Brexit is fuelling immigration nimbyism: “Fewer migrants, please, but not in my sector.”

The UK’s vote to leave the EU – and May’s decision to pursue a "hard Brexit" – has deprived the government of a convenient alibi for high immigration. Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past. Brexit may have been caused by the supposed costs of immigration but it is becoming an education in its benefits.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.