VAT rise: shifting money from the poorest to the richest

July 15, 2010 2:06 pm

VAT bombshellBy Jon Trickett MP

The finance debate this week has highlighted the wholly regressive nature of the coalition government’s budget and interventions from various Labour MPs have exposed their plans as a failure to reduce the government deficit.

The House of Commons library itself has confirmed how regressive and therefore unfair an increase to VAT can be. As a percentage of household income, VAT accounts for 19% of the poorest 10% of the country’s income, in comparison to only 9% of the richest. Indeed, as I pointed out in the house this week, both parties that make up the coalition now have made this point in the past. The Prime Minister himself argued in May of last year that VAT is:

“very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest …VAT is a more regressive tax than income tax or council tax”

(despite protestations that the Budget was ‘progressive’) and only last month, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats said:

“I hope we don’t have a VAT increase because it is the most regressive form of tax, it penalises the poor at the same rate as the rich.”

How Liberal Democrat members in particular, after campaigning so vigorously against a VAT rise can vote for this measure is beyond hypocrisy.

Not only this, but the government knows as well as I do that the rise will not bring down the deficit, which they maintain is its primary purpose. Partly because the money they expect to raise will be used to fund the reduction in other taxes but also because hitting the pockets of the poor is a sure-fire way to stunt economic growth.

Any increase in VAT will automatically produce an increase in inflation, which most economists agree will be come to about two per cent. This in turn will lead to pressure for interest rate rises, which will begin to squeeze out recovery and could result in a double dip recession. The British Retail Consortium has pointed out that there will be job losses, company bankruptcies and unemployment as a direct result of the inflation caused by the VAT rise. Moreover, the simple fact that aggregate demand of up to £13.5 billion will be taken out of the economy because of the rise has had some economists predicting that between 180,000 and 220,000 jobs will be lost.

If the measure was being used to take money out of the economy to help the deficit, one could understand the coalition’s train of thought, even if it is incorrect, but the same budget hands out money in tax cuts in the form of reductions in corporation tax and in small business profits tax, an increase in employers’ national insurance contribution threshold, increases in personal allowances for income tax, adjustments for basic rate and upper earnings limits and a council tax freeze. All those tax give-aways amount to £12.37 billion-almost the same amount as will be raised through the VAT rise.

The truth is that the measure is not in any way about reducing the deficit; it is about tax give-aways to the Tories’ friends. The VAT rise is exposed for what it is: a regressive tax, taking money from the whole economy to bolster the Tories’ friends in business and the 22 millionaires who sit around the Cabinet table. No doubt many people on the wealthier side of the divide in this country are rubbing their hands in glee.

Related posts:

  1. Will Osborne pledge to limit his own pay rise?
  2. Are the web plates shifting?
  3. On the Tories, web wars and shifting goalposts
  4. In praise of Ellie Gellard – and the real story behind her rise
  5. Scrapping the NHS IT system in the PBR would be a waste of money – and potentially lives

Comments are closed

Latest

  • Comment Why I went from Blue to Red

    Why I went from Blue to Red

    Saturday May 15th 2010 is a day which will stay in my mind for some time. It is the day I joined the Labour Party. You might not think there is anything special in that, but for the previous 6 years I had been a member of the Conservatives. I should have joined Labour much sooner, growing up in a working class household and benefiting as I did from so many of their policies: EMA enabled me to go to [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour needs a prawn cocktail offensive for all businesses, not just small firms

    Labour needs a prawn cocktail offensive for all businesses, not just small firms

    Both Jacqui Smith and Dermot Finch have written in recent days about the need for Labour to embark on a new “prawn cocktail offensive” to charm the business community. I agree with Jacqui and Dermot and I’m optimistic about the reception Labour is likely to receive from the business community, provided we have the courage to engage with all businesses – small firms, mid-caps and large corporates. This doesn’t mean deviating from the responsible capitalism agenda. If business wants more [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Local Government Why we’re raising council tax

    Why we’re raising council tax

    Nobody wants to pay more tax and I am not a high tax and spend politician, so my administration’s proposed rejection of the government’s council tax funding has not been based on ideological dogma, but a reasoned decision based on financial prudence. I led my group to win control of City of York Council in May 2011. We inherited from the previous Liberal Democrat administration a budget with £21m of in year cuts to make, a number of previously unexposed [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News Boris and the 2 billion pound “clerical error”

    Boris and the 2 billion pound “clerical error”

    Earlier today on BBC’s London Politics Show, it was revealed that billions of pounds were inaccurately added to Boris Johnson’s official budget document – a mistake that a spokesperson for the Tory Mayor attempted to dismiss as a “clerical error”. At over £2 billion – that’s some clerical error… A spokesperson for Ken Livingstone said: “Boris Johnson claims anyone arguing for lower fares for Londoners doesn’t understand the transport finances, but now it turns out it’s Boris Johnson’s transport figures [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The sad truth behind Andrew Lansley’s eyes

    The sad truth behind Andrew Lansley’s eyes

    “Michael,” said the Prime Minister, without looking up from his desk, “I thought you said this would be easy?” “Easy? That what would be easy?” replied the Education Secretary, whose face had occupied a near-permanent state of mild bafflement, which was slowly becoming the kind of ever-present British institution that decades from now will be ruined by ill-thought out reforms, or having a roof built over it in case it rains. “This NHS business. You said it would be easy.” [...]

    Read more →