Axing the 50p rate is no more than the Tories looking after Tories

22nd March, 2012 3:15 pm

The truth about whether to cut the current 50p top rate of tax, is that no one actually knows whether it has affected the behaviour of the top 1% of income taxpayers in a substantial long term way. Even the government’s claim that it has raised less revenue is weak, because it has only one year’s worth of data. Many of those people may have brought their incomes forward to pay under the old rate meaning that this year’s sum will be lower than expected, or alternatively they may be legally avoiding paying by holding off or deferring their income until after the change.

In addition, if there is less tax coming from the top rate of tax last year than expected, there will be numerous possible reasons for this – from a flagging economy last year, a rise in inflation or VAT. Will the government bring back the 50p rate if after one year the 45p rate brings in less money?

The issue of taxing the rich is ultimately horse-trading. The government are asking the high earners to pay more income tax to them than legally avoid doing so, by an arrange of methods from converting their income to only paying capital gains tax, or increasing their pension contributions instead or using companies (whereby they pay themselves in dividends, loans or bonuses0.

There is a legitimate argument from those on the right that taxable income elasticity – the behavioural effect of tax changes – during the 1980s suggests that we won’t raise any more money above the 40% top rate of tax. And there is also a legitimate argument from those on the right that we take in more money in taxes from the top 1% (almost three times as much) now than in 1979, since the top rate was reduced.

However, sadly the data used to support such arguments doesn’t accurately go back to periods of very high marginal rates when the economy was booming, such as during the so called “Golden Age of Capitalism”. Instead data only goes back as far as the mid 1970s when the UK economy was stagnating.

The government will likely use or even quote evidence like a report by the IFS published in 2009 responding to the then planned rise in the top rate, which pointed out that there was a legitimate case that only raising the top rate to 45p for the top 1% of earners would raise more money than the 50p tax rate. However, they also made the case that you could raise the top rate and lower the top rate threshold and raise even more.

By using Treasury figures that put current taxable income elasticity actually at a higher rate around 54% (not including indirect taxes or national insurance) for top income earners over £150,000 a year and 59% for those earning between £100,000 and £150,000; the IFS make the point that you could raise the rate between £100,000 – £150,000 to around 60% and raise more money than under the current 50% rate on income over £150,000.

It is right to say that this only raises a very small amount in total tax revenue, and we are all focusing on one very small measure in comparison to other revenue raising measures. However, when yesterday we heard an additional £2 billion in spending cuts on top of billions more already cut to those on considerably more humble incomes, the top rate of tax seems pretty fair.

Ultimately, the debate over the top tax rate is a bit of a misnomer. Are we honestly meant to believe that a small reduction in marginal tax rates at the top and not wider economic factors in the economy encourages productivity and growth but also helps raise tax revenue from top earners? During the 1980s and 1990s was it only the top rate of tax of 40% that increased the income of the top 1%?

There are those who argued that bankers were fleeing London for Zurich last year as a result of the 50p tax rate, an argument shattered by evidence that hardly any bankers have left. But this argument was always another misnomer, as even if there was a jump in British based bankers moving to Switzerland, we would not have known how many bankers came to the UK to replace them. Or alternatively how many other high earners from other sectors also did so during that time period (as we don’t record this information).

It is just a simple fact that regardless of the tax rate there will be people who move around from country to country to reduce their tax liability. But equally there will be just as many (if not more) who move to countries regardless of the tax rate.

To drop something such as the 50p rate without stronger evidence, suggests this could be just the first excuse possible to protect incomes of the richest by a party of the richest.

  • LesThompson

    i agree there is not the evidens of wether the tax works but i would say that if you can  get payd vas incoms lick 150 .000 a year then you shoud pay untill tims inproov 50 p reat now that sed then futball players and clubs that have lods of money shoyld pay theresher to futey one hundred coponis with vast reservs should be told if it in the bank your getin taxst on it siver buleon and gold shud not be orded ternd in to money ans spent on infostrucher green enogey and this is the mane pint if it sithing in the volt of a bank it.is not working ernig or not the thing is thay gambeld to get wear we are now thay need to risk a bit to get the ship moving ..les
     

    • AnotherOldBoy

      Who can argue with that?

      • Chilbaldi

        nurse!

  • GuyM

    10 million voted Tory in 2010…. are there 10 million paying 50% tax rates.

    An inane heading really, are we too extrapolate and say when Labour increase taxes to boost welfare spending it’s Labour looking after Labour?

    And anyway why shouldn’t Tories look after Tories? Is everyone obligated to always do whatever Labour tells them to?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Graeme-Hancocks/1156294498 Graeme Hancocks

      An inane heading? More tlike an inane posting! “Why shouldnt tories look after tories?”. Whatever happened to “we are all in in together”?  Should not governments at least try to govern for all its citizens?

      • GuyM

        I can’t say I’ve ever felt a Labour government ever did anything major for me.

        In return I never viewed a Labour government as my government, no Labour PM ever as my PM and no Labour voter as a fellow countryman.

        • Dave

          Hillarious

  • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

    But Labour were in power for 13 years and only introduced it the month before we lost the election. So were we only looking after Tories for that whole 13 years by not introducing it?

    I really don’t know where this sudden ideological fetish for the 50p tax has come from.
     

    • Winston_from_the_Ministry

       It’s called opportunism.

    • robertcp

      Some of us thought that Labour should have increased the top rate in 1997 and this should be the policy in 2015.   A billion pounds of extra revenue every year will be useful.

      Incidentally, I was never keen on top rates of more than 80% but a top rate of 50% seems reasonable to me.

  • trotters1957

    The best argument and evidence for not reducing the 50p band is given by Richard Murphy at Taxresearch.com.

    He’s a chartered accountant and has forgotten more about tax than Osborne knows.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Graeme-Hancocks/1156294498 Graeme Hancocks

    Good article.

Latest

  • Comment We have the money to make Labour a movement – we can’t lose this moment

    We have the money to make Labour a movement – we can’t lose this moment

    Jessie J may have tried to argue it’s not about the money, money, money, but anyone facing a well-funded opposition at an election knows all too well the difference it makes. One aspect of the leadership contest yet to be fully discussed is the cash that it has generated for Labour. The combination of the volume of people paying the supporters rate, the increase in membership and the levy paid by leadership candidates means a serious amount of money will […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Leadership matters

    Leadership matters

    This week has really shown up the petty squabbling in the Labour leadership contest for what it is – inward looking and small. Because when it matters, the Labour Party has united around the issue of giving much needed asylum to refugees. Our differences may seem big – and sometimes they are . They do matter. But the gulf of difference between the way the whole of the Labour Party has reacted to what is needed and the nasty, small […]

    Read more →
  • News Unite make clear they do not support de-selecting MPs

    Unite make clear they do not support de-selecting MPs

    This evening Channel 4 have run a story stating that a Unite member is claiming that the “far-left” is preparing to try and de-select Labour MPs if Jeremy Corbyn wins. Unite have stressed that this is not their policy, while leadership contender Corbyn does not have any part in this. The unnamed Unite member is reported to have named a number of MPs he would wish to de-select. However, this is in no way supported by Unite and the union […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Will Chuka Umunna be the next Shadow Chancellor?

    Will Chuka Umunna be the next Shadow Chancellor?

    From being touted as leader of the resistance against Jeremy Corbyn, Chuka Umunna is now being tipped as being the left winger’s number two. With the betting markets still convinced that victory for Jeremy Corbyn is assured, Umunna’s odds for becoming the next Shadow Chancellor tumbled this morning. He is now second favourite for the role, just behind Andy Burnham, at 5/1. Umunna appears to have publicly softened his position on leadership frontrunner Corbyn. It is no great secret that Campaign Group […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Dissolution Dishonour: it’s time to abolish the House of Lords

    Dissolution Dishonour: it’s time to abolish the House of Lords

    The Prime Minister’s behaviour since his unexpected election victory shames our democracy. His dodgy dissolution honours list is only the latest and most egregious example of his contempt for all constitutional and political propriety. As always his actions are extremely partisan in the Tory party cause. His utter failure to ensure that the electoral register contains the up to seven million missing voters who are far less likely to be Tories, his decision to cut the number of seats in […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit