Gransnet forums

News & politics

Making tax fairer

(25 Posts)
growstuff Tue 26-Oct-21 17:25:40

Wednesday’s budget will not be a big revenue raiser. Rishi Sunak has already raised £40bn in tax this year.

A combination of freezing the income tax thresholds while inflation is roaring, and expanding national insurance contributions, mean that he has raised tax as a share of the economy to the highest level in British history. However, if the chancellor wants to go down in history as a great reformer, rather than merely a revenue raiser, there are some big tax changes he could make.

Top of that list is fixing the taxation of capital gains. This is money received from the sale of assets for more than they were bought. While people often imagine this is the sale of second homes or shares, most of the value of capital gains comes from selling small businesses.

red Ferrari luxury automobile and a black Rolls Royce car stand parked outside properties on Eaton Place in the Kensington district
Treasury could raise £16bn a year if shares and property were taxed like salaries
Read more
Capital gains have skyrocketed in recent years. They almost trebled, from £22bn to £63bn, between 2012-13 and 2019-20 (pre-pandemic), while average incomes remained broadly flat. Almost all these gains went to a tiny minority: 92% of taxable gains went to people with more than £100,000 in gains.

The rise in total gains has gone hand-in-hand with the growth of “super gainers”: individuals receiving more than £1m in gains in a single year.

More than half of these “super gains” come from the sale of small businesses which the person works for. The money they receive is essentially the compensation for working. But, while ordinary workers pay income tax and national insurance – costing 32% of income for someone on the basic rate, and 47% for those at the very top – capital gains tax rates are only 10% up to £1m for these small business sales, and 20% thereafter.

Fixing this doesn’t require radical innovation or out-of-the-box thinking. The chancellor merely needs to look to his political hero, Nigel Lawson. In 1988 Lawson, recognising “there is little economic difference between income and capital gains”, equalised the rates at which these were taxed.

The chancellor should embrace this history, and – with some tweaks – return us to that system. A move in this direction was also recommended last year by the Office of Tax Simplification.

This would have three major benefits. First, it would make the system fairer. In 2017, almost a quarter of people taking home £1m paid the headline tax rate, while one in 10 paid a lower effective tax rate than someone earning just £15,000. The differences, both between rich and poor, and among the rich, are striking.

Second, it makes the economy more efficient. The current system rewards being a mediocre business owner rather than a highly productive employee. Someone taking home £1m could save almost £370,000 in tax if it can be classed as capital gains rather than income.

Third, it would raise substantial revenue. In 2019-20, the static tax revenue raised from taxing capital gains like income would be almost £16bn. Going beyond Lawson to remove peculiarities such as “death uplift” – whereby the tax is wiped out on death – and reducing the very large amount of gains that can be received without any tax, would make the system fairer and raise more.

The chancellor may well say that he has raised enough already, so reform is unnecessary. But this is to confuse revenue-raising with reform. In our new, higher-tax state, an important question is who should pay. The current system is full of inequities, including taxing income from work at much higher levels than income from wealth. Reforming the taxation of gains would be a first step towards fixing that.

Three ways to make tax fairer
1. Reform the taxation of capital gains

By value, most capital gains come from activities that are otherwise taxed as income. But by structuring that income as capital gains, individuals can benefit from much lower tax rates. Someone taking home £1m could save almost £370,000 in tax if it can be classed as capital gains rather than income. This could be fixed by returning to 1988, when gains were taxed at the same rate as income.

2. Extend national insurance contributions

National insurance contributions are an additional tax on income from work. Landlords and investors do not pay them. Nor do those over state pension age, even if they keep working. They are also charged at a higher rate on lower incomes: 12% between about £10,000 and £50,000, but only 2% thereafter. A simple extension of national insurance to cover all income equally would raise £31.4bn.

3. Fix inheritance tax

Most households will not pay inheritance tax: currently about 4% of estates are valuable enough to pay it. But the tax looms large in the minds of many. One objection to the current system is the presence of large reliefs, that mean the wealthiest pay less than the “merely well-off”: an estate worth £2-3m pays about 20% tax on average, while an estate worth more than £10m pays only 10%. Removing or capping some of these reliefs could fund a reduction in the 40% headline rate to just 25%.

(Arun Advani is assistant professor of economics at the University of Warwick’s CAGE research centre and a research fellow specialising in tax at the Institute for Fiscal Studies)

Copied and pasted from the Guardian 26/10/2021

PippaZ Tue 26-Oct-21 17:38:08

Thank you growstuff. That puts flesh on the bones of some of the equalising of tax discussed on GN previously. I think there are several of us who will agree with this.

growstuff Tue 26-Oct-21 18:04:33

I thought there might be.

Comments from anybody who disagrees would be interesting.

PippaZ Tue 26-Oct-21 18:17:34

It would certainly be good to understand any criticism of the ideas put forward.

growstuff Tue 26-Oct-21 18:33:01

I'm not holding my breath. I've mentioned capital gains tax, inheritance tax and NICs before and have usually managed to kill the thread stone dead.

PS. I'd add tax relief for pension contributions to the list, so those earning the most don't receive a higher subsidy from the Treasury than the rest.

PippaZ Tue 26-Oct-21 18:43:28

Yes, absolutely on the pension tax relief. They really need to get a grip or we will continue to have a very discontented society (well some of society) and before long they will realise it's the Conservatives who are to blame and have been for some time. I don't think people will like feeling they have been bamboozled.

growstuff Tue 26-Oct-21 19:10:31

My bet is they'll use "levelling up" rhetoric to tinker around the edges and give a few sweeteners to gain votes, but nothing radical will happen. The people who have been bamboozled won't have a voice. I don't think even Corbyn had a sound enough grasp of economics to understand what's really wrong with the UK economy.

growstuff Tue 26-Oct-21 20:15:41

It's illegal to copy and paste this article from the FT:

www.ft.com/content/1ec4a6c3-b5db-4e9b-ab48-573541b9676b?utm_source=pocket_mylist&fbclid=IwAR0QJ_zNj8nd7Sn1wKelD8btwPUeT8YCWN3BlnzVK6HzlXexzpV9xvFH3bE

I hope people can read it.

Once section really hit me:


"...there are two key shortcomings that need to be corrected if economics is to stay relevant to the biggest challenges facing society today, from climate change and biodiversity collapse to the excessive power of big corporations.

One is the absence of ethics. It is not that economists are less or more ethical than any other profession. Rather, that many think of the values and ethics of decisions as separate from ‘positive’ economic analysis. "

(My bold)

Economics shouldn't be all about money, profits and spreadsheets. It should be about enhancing well-being for the maximum number of people. I would say the same for politics.

MaizieD Tue 26-Oct-21 21:36:14

My criticism is the one that I think you will expect from me growstuff. That the focus of this article is raising revenue by taxation when in point of fact taxation doesn't fund spending!

There's a little video here which explains what I am yet again saying:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHxloLkMXeU

What hasn't been 'leaked' about this budget, but has been noted over the past few months is that Sunak is cutting budgets for most public services. That won't feature on anyone's radar when the budget's entrails are being picked over.

It will also be worth remembering that any public sector wage increases will mostly be absorbed by increased taxation and that wages have been frozen for many years, so have declined in real terms. A few percentage points increase won't bring them back to where they were before the wages were frozen.

I agree that taxation should be used to enable greater fairness. It is shameful that the poorest people in the UK have the largest percentage of their income taken in taxation.

I think that National Insurance should be abolished altogether as it is a completely meaningless concept. It isn't 'insurance' of any kind and probably doesn't pay for all the benefits paid out on the strength of it. It's a fiction. And once again, it weighs heaviest on the poorest paid. Just replace it with a higher rate of taxation for everyone that is truly progressive.

growstuff Tue 26-Oct-21 21:46:49

Maizie You don't need to explain yet again. However, you're ignoring one of the most important roles of taxation, which is to redistribute wealth. Richard Murphy has written extensively on the topic.

As far as tax relief on pension contributions is concerned, the current system subsidises those who already have the most, which is what capital gains tax and the other taxes do. They're currently responsible for creating inequality. This has little to do with QE and increasing revenue - it's about redistributing wealth.

MaizieD Tue 26-Oct-21 21:59:20

Maizie You don't need to explain yet again. However, you're ignoring one of the most important roles of taxation, which is to redistribute wealth. Richard Murphy has written extensively on the topic.

I beg your pardon!

What did I say in my post?

I agree that taxation should be used to enable greater fairness.

Perhaps I didn't express it too well.

But, the main assumption made in the article is that taxation is a source of revenue. Which I will always take issue with.

I'd be really pleased if other people watched the little video. We really need to change the way we think about the national budget.

growstuff Tue 26-Oct-21 22:21:09

I object to being reminded that taxation doesn't fund spending.

growstuff Tue 26-Oct-21 22:24:09

believe it or not, quite a lot of people understand that taxation doesn't fund spending.

The point of that article is that taxation is currently creating inequality. If those with most paid more, those with least would pay less. It would be a way of redistributing wealth and wouldn't necessarily increase the overall tax take.

Doodledog Tue 26-Oct-21 22:24:09

I couldn't agree more about the capital gains, would be happy to see inheritance tax equalised between the wealthy and the 'well off', but I would like to see the introduction of a genuine insurance scheme that is levied on individuals rather than households, and pays out in the same way.

I am not an economist, or clever enough to work out the finer detail, and as this is hypothetical there would be no point anyway, but I would like to see a progressive NI scheme with the same level of benefits for all contributors (ie regardless of income), but with contributions dependent on income (earned or unearned), so that higher earners paid more than lower earners, and everyone was taxed on things like share dividends, rent on property etc - all sources of income, basically.

Benefits from the scheme would not be means-tested, as the contributions would have been already, and would be payable at a flat rate to those who had contributed, and claimed as individuals - regardless of the income of their partner or spouse, and regardless of savings.

The scheme would not cover health or education, which would continue to be funded by taxation and be available to all, but it would cover unemployment benefit, pensions and social care when needed.

Contributions would be paid by the state to those who are unable to work because of disability, ill-health or who have responsibilities for looking after sick relatives or pre-school children for as long as those circumstances continued, but not indefinitely.

Those without enough contributions who fell on hard times would be covered by a basic scheme which probably would be means-tested - this would come under 'finer detail', but the point would be that nobody would starve or do without basics, but neither would those who could afford not to work be subsidised by those who had no choice - a particular bugbear of mine.

It would be a contract between the government and citizens, so that people could plan their retirement, make purchases such as buying a house knowing that it would not be snatched away because of shifts in policy or circumstances beyond the individual's control, and those who wanted to save and had the means to do so could do it without fear of having that snatched away either - it would be a genuine safety net for all who paid in a percentage of their income, whether that amounted to a large or small sum in terms of actual money.

I'm not saying that this is likely to come to pass, or even that it makes sense economically, although it might. It's just one of those things I think about when it's 3.00am and I can't sleep grin. IMO it would be a fairer system than the one we have now though, as it would redistribute wealth a bit, help people with caring responsibilities, give people choices over how they spent their money, and reduce inequality in old age and in areas of high unemployment.

growstuff Tue 26-Oct-21 22:31:58

Doodledog I get where you're coming from with health insurance and have been thinking for a while that maybe we should move to something like the German system. In Germany, the health insurance companies are private, but are backed by the state and are highly regulated. They're not like the mega profit-earning organisations in the US. I don't know the exact details, but I do know that everybody (including pensioners) has to pay, related to income (including unearned income), although there are some special arrangements for those who genuinely can't pay because they are disabled or on very low incomes. There's no means testing for treatment.

I don't believe the system in the UK can continue as it is now. No amount of tinkering at the edges or raising contributions by a percent or two will solve the problems. I really think some radical change is needed.

MaizieD Wed 27-Oct-21 08:04:32

growstuff

believe it or not, quite a lot of people understand that taxation doesn't fund spending.

The point of that article is that taxation is currently creating inequality. If those with most paid more, those with least would pay less. It would be a way of redistributing wealth and wouldn't necessarily increase the overall tax take.

Well, I don't believe it because I see people posting as if taxation did fund spending time and time again. Not only on this forum but on social media and in the press. As this isn't a private conversation between you and me, growstuff I feel perfectly at liberty to point it out for others to read.

And lo and behold, there is a subsequent exchange between you and Dd based on just that 'taxation funds spending' premise.

I've followed Richard Murphy for years and I know, and have taken in, just what he says on the functions of taxation.

Urmstongran Wed 27-Oct-21 08:56:03

I will watch your video later today MaizieD. Much of this conversation is beyond my level of understanding.

growstuff Wed 27-Oct-21 09:12:36

MaizieD

growstuff

believe it or not, quite a lot of people understand that taxation doesn't fund spending.

The point of that article is that taxation is currently creating inequality. If those with most paid more, those with least would pay less. It would be a way of redistributing wealth and wouldn't necessarily increase the overall tax take.

Well, I don't believe it because I see people posting as if taxation did fund spending time and time again. Not only on this forum but on social media and in the press. As this isn't a private conversation between you and me, growstuff I feel perfectly at liberty to point it out for others to read.

And lo and behold, there is a subsequent exchange between you and Dd based on just that 'taxation funds spending' premise.

I've followed Richard Murphy for years and I know, and have taken in, just what he says on the functions of taxation.

In that case, don't address me when you're reminding people about MMT.

Doodledog Wed 27-Oct-21 09:58:20

I thought my suggestion, which I carefully pointed out was not based on a detailed knowledge of economics, was about redistribution and fairness.

I appreciate your frustration at our collective failure to take ‘your’ model on board, Maisie, but unless we are allowed to make our own suggestions, which obviously you can argue with, these threads will die on their feet. In many ways they are often less about economic theory and more about political principles anyway.

growstuff Wed 27-Oct-21 11:08:43

I agree that your suggestions were about redistribution and fairness Doodledog. Even though tax doesn't need to be raised to pay for specific projects, there is also the major question of social justice. The UK is becoming a more unequal society. We're heading back to pre-WW2 levels of inequality, which disadvantages the country as a whole by damaging social cohesion and limiting opportunities for individual advancement. Taxation is a tool for redistributing wealth - not so that everybody has the same, but at the moment some people, who could well afford to pay, are contributing less proportionately than others who struggle.

Katie59 Wed 27-Oct-21 11:55:01

The suggestions made by the OP are just tinkering around the edges, the big tax earners are Income Tax, NI and VAT. According to the OBR CGT raised £10bn in year 19/20 if you double Capital Gains Tax it is a very small part of the £800bn tax collected each year.
The 10% rate for business assets which only applies to sole traders and partnerships was intended to encourage entrepreneurs to invest and take a risk with their own businesses. The intention was for it to be a long term incentive, those that did start an enterprise would be pretty disappointed to see it removed.
It helps to balance the lower taxation that a company structure in the same business would benefit from, indeed Corporation Tax collected is quite low only £50bn, compared with Income Tax at £200bn

We will see!

Lincslass Wed 27-Oct-21 11:57:09

growstuff

Doodledog I get where you're coming from with health insurance and have been thinking for a while that maybe we should move to something like the German system. In Germany, the health insurance companies are private, but are backed by the state and are highly regulated. They're not like the mega profit-earning organisations in the US. I don't know the exact details, but I do know that everybody (including pensioners) has to pay, related to income (including unearned income), although there are some special arrangements for those who genuinely can't pay because they are disabled or on very low incomes. There's no means testing for treatment.

I don't believe the system in the UK can continue as it is now. No amount of tinkering at the edges or raising contributions by a percent or two will solve the problems. I really think some radical change is needed.

Very well stated. Family in Germany are always shocked when treatment they can get easily there is denied in the UK, or that you have to jump through hoops to get it. Varicose vein surgery for instance. Their system allows for easier access to GP, Consultants, MRI etc. Then the state pays more per head towards cost, than ours and as you say is better regulated.

Ramblingrose22 Wed 27-Oct-21 12:21:11

I am going to risk being very unpopular here with my suggestions.

1. Tax dividends at the same rates as income tax. Many business owners who would pay 40 per cent do not pay themselves a salary but pay themselves dividends instead which have a higher rate lower than 40 per cent. I expect this also allows them to escape paying National Insurance.

2. If they are not already taxed, tax bonuses paid for simply working for a bank or other company in the financial sector.

2. As others have said, if those eligible for state pension choose to work beyond their state pension age they should pay National Insurance. This would help the NHS,

3. To also help the NHS, prescription exemptions before state pension age should apply to the exempt item only, not to all the other items prescribed for that person. Those who pay 40 per cent income tax should have to pay for their prescriptions even if they are eligible to receive a state pension.

4. Although not part of the Budget (more likely part of the Queen's Speech) the Government should legislate for a revaluation of all residential property so that there are additional council tax bands for higher value residential property.

This may sound harsh but if people are asset rich and tax poor they have the option of moving and the revaluation would take a while so they wouldn't have to move straight away.

The extra income in council tax could be pooled centrally and redistributed as part of the levelling up agenda to help poorer councils who have the lowest property values in their areas.

5. There must be loopholes for inheritance tax as the Duke of Westminster who is a massive landowner in the UK paid none. How can this be right?

Doodledog Wed 27-Oct-21 12:48:36

Most of your ideas seem fair enough, Ramblingrose22, but remember that if someone has a chronic illness they are often more susceptible to becoming very ill if they get other ailments, which is why, say, diabetics get antibiotics free.

I agree that the prescription issue needs looking at, though - asthmatics have to pay for all prescriptions, which gets expensive when they are on more than one inhaler and need steroids etc. Similar to other groups, they/we are more likely to get very ill if we get a chest infection, and can find it more difficult to shake off other health problems, so IMO asthma should be on the list of people who get prescriptions free.

Actually, I think everyone should get them free, but that everyone should be taxed more to pay for them, whether or not they work.

Higher earners and those with high income from other sources should pay more, but everyone should contribute, and nobody should be means-tested out of affording things. It is not, IMO, up to others to decide what individuals 'can afford' to buy with their own money, and there would be no need for that to happen if we had fairer taxation in the first place.

Katie59 Wed 27-Oct-21 14:20:09

Enthusiastic big spending to create a global technology superpower, with a high skilled better paid population. Sounds like pie in the sky to me, at present we have very little high tech production capacity, everything is imported.
Few significant tax changes, other than NI which we knew about, reduction of Champagne tax we will all welcome, 3p off a pint of draft beer won’t be noticed.

Disappointed