A great temptation of having a blog is to use it to air the kinds of ideas one used to propound in pubs, just before closing time. In the days, of course, when there were still proper pubs. And closing time.
I almost always resist this temptation, but tonight I feel I cannot – the U. of K. is just about to be witness to an emergency budget, as the new coalition government aims to clear up the legacy of mess and waste left by the last lot. There is of course a great deal of talk about how heavily the cuts will have to fall, especially in the pampered public sector (not that the public sector workforce will see it like that), and the interesting thing is not that the last lot would disagree with the scale of the cuts, only about their timing.
Cuts, cuts, cuts. That’s what everyone’s talking about, and cuts will go hand in hand with rises in taxation, in the same way that Jason goes with Kylie, or, perhaps more appositely, Fannie goes with Freddie. Now, I am doubtless to an economist as is a lentil is to a whale, but I think people are missing something. Yes, cuts need to be made in spending, but also in taxation. If we want to trim spending and get the economy out of the drabs, we should cut taxation, not raise it. This would inject more money into the real economy straight away, which the government would more than recoup through income tax as the economy surges into growth.
But first, let’s identify a couple of cuts that could and should be made immediately.
We should secede from the European Union. Much, if not most, of our legislation is decreed from the EU. There is nothing wrong with that in principle. The reality is, however, that the EU is far from a representative body. Perhaps more serious, however, is its long-standing financial incompetence. Things have gotten a bit better recently, but one wonders why, in such straitened times, we should be throwing good money after bad. A counter-argument is that the EU is our major trading partner. That’s a red herring – China isn’t a member of the EU, either, and does very well, thank you, regulating itself. (Interesting aside – the recent decision by the People’s Bank of China to let the yuan float free from the dollar – at least a little – could be the most welcome news for western economies for a long time).
We should stop fighting other peoples’ wars. Any historian will tell you that wars in Afghanistan are unwinnable. That was as true in the Good Old Days of Empire as it is now. We should pull out now.
Now to the main theme – taxation. If one is (as one should) to restrict welfare payments to the genuinely needy rather than using them to subsidize entire families on council estates who will never, ever do any work, one has to nurture an economy in which there are jobs to go to. The best way to do this, I think, is to make it as attractive as possible for people to go to work and stay there, and for businesses to keep employing them, to thrive, and be competitive. Here, then, are a few modest measures that could be introduced to this end.
A Flat Rate of Income Tax, around 25%. This would apply to all people, rich or poor. Some might think this is unfair, but it’s not – most people fail to understand percentages, not realizing that 25% of a million pounds is a lot more than 25% of ten thousand pounds. Rich people will pay more than poor ones, though not disproportionately more (I regard the current disprorportion as a disincentive to aspiration and success). A flat tax would greatly simplify the currently very complicated system in which there are several tax bands, and in which many people pay tax and then claim money back in various forms of tax credit. It would be simpler to pay less tax to start with, dispense with the unnecessary bureaucracy, and let people keep more of the money they earn to spend on what they like – stimulating the economy with real money rather than increased indebtedness.
Slashing taxation and regulation for business. Many years ago when the world was young I had a small limited company. It was only worth the extra administrative hassle because company directors on a higher tax band could claim dividends at a lower one. Mr Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, plugged that loophole, presumably as a sop to his socialist colleagues whose addled minds were filled with champagne-swilling, frock-coated mill-owners out of Dickens. But for a bottom-feeder like me, it made all the difference between having a company and not having a company, so I wound it up.
I could go on – there are so many taxes and regulations that could and should be scrapped entirely. Death duties (kept, again, only as a sop to those whose minds haven’t gotten into the twentieth century. let alone the twenty-first). Stamp duty (introduced in the Napoleonic Wars, I think, as a temporary measure). Large swathes of capital gains tax and corporation tax. And, of course, National Insurance, which is another income tax in all but name, except that it hits employers as well as those they employ.
The general effect of all this might be be massive and palpable leading to a marked upturn in our economy, freeing up businesses to do what they do best; attracting inward investment; creating jobs; injecting real money (rather than more debt) into the economy, and creating wealth for everyone.
What could possibly be wrong with that?




Henry – why do you feel you need to resist the temptation? Let's have more closing time rants, please.I'm inclined to argue a bit about income tax – I can't really see the benefit of your proposal. I assume you are still allowing a tax-free allowance? You don't mention this, but it's important for low earners.I can see the point of simplifying income tax, but I can't see any harm in having two or three bands with increasing percentages. I know 25% of a million is more than 25% of 10,000… but 20% of 100,000 plus 50% of 900,000 (say) is considerably more than 20% of 1,000,000. I can't see any disadvantage of having bands, it brings in more revenue, but if set right doesn't discourage people from earning more money. If I were earning £1M a year I would be delighted to pay 50% on everything above, say £100,000.Perhaps the answer would be to make sure you set the band(s) so it/they only come into force at a level where you are likely to have an accountant…
Hi Brian – thanks for joining in. I thought that this was one of those rants that people would leave well alone. Yes, of course there should be tax free allowances- the LibDem idea of 10k is very attractive. But as for bands, I humbly suggest that any extra revenue they might generate is offset by increased bureaucracy, plus the argument above which is based on political philosophy in which you and I would differ. I could have discussed a lot more things of the if-I-were-PM variety, but I wanted to try and stick to the point about taxation.
Hi Henry, there is only one thing in your post I would wholeheartedly agree with, and it is "We should stop fighting other peoples' wars". It is expensive, in lives and money, and doesn't seem to make the Afghans much better to be honest. Seceding from the EU I completely disagree with, but then I'm a cheese-eating surrender monkey so that's to be expected. You used the expression "throw good money after bad", I'd say "throw the baby out with the bath water". Yes the EU is an unwielding bureaucratic monster, but it is also one that you can influence if you're in the club, not so much if you're outside. It has also kept peace in Europe for an unprecedented amount of time, and acts as a carrot for other improvements (Turkey–>human rights; Eastern Europe–>fraud), and kept some companies on the straight and narrow when they tried to abuse their position (Microsoft, Intel, …). About the flat income rate, I can understand the simplification benefits but I'm not sure they will cover the loss of income entailed. Like you I would be in favour of a greatly simplified system (disclaimer: I currently claim both Child Tax Credit and Child Benefits, and that's just nuts!), but like Brian with a couple or three bands at most, and a generous tax-free allowance as proposed by the Lib-Dems. The problem with a very simplified system is that some of the bureaucracy goes, but that means people losing jobs, thus becoming reliant on benefits! Would they get an equivalent job? Also, what will all those expensive accountants do? Finally, about taxation and regulation of businesses. I see on Wikipedia and HMRC that the UK isn't particularly highly taxed when compared with other OECD countries, with flat rates of 22% for small companies and 28% for large ones. I am not an accountant so don't know where the cut-off between the two is, or how high the allowance is, but these figures seem reasonable to me. Again, I am all in favour of simplifying, but not at the cost of oversight. I remember how Brown actually cut the number of tax inspectors by thousands, with a simplification I'd like to see that number go up, and that they go after big fish rather than self-employed persons or tiny companies.You didn't touch on VAT in this post, I'd be interested in your views on this. I see it as an unfair tax, that ideally should be scraped, but it is unclear to me where the revenues would come from…Nico(aka Geekus)
Thanks for joining in, Nico. All well said! I think that in the end what I deplore is regulation simply for the sake of it. I am glad you mentioned VAT. I have a feeling that it came into the UK along with EU membership in the early 1970s. I have to say I have never thought about it, but if you were to ask me to give a snap verdict, I'd say I was against it. You might say it is a tax on the poor, I don't know… But more seriously it is a tax on business and enterprise. And the admin of vat is, I hear, Byzantine.
Also, what will all those expensive accountants do?I hear McDonald's is always hiring
Hey Henry, apparently they listened to you: "England announces a new tax on banks to finance it's deficit", today in the news, Ha.