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

March 22, 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

  • News Eddie Izzard commits to running for “Parliament or Mayor” by 2020

    Eddie Izzard commits to running for “Parliament or Mayor” by 2020

    Comic and actor Eddie Izzard has reaffirmed his longstanding commitment to entering electoral politics by 2020, by going for a Labour parliamentary selection or London Mayor. Izzard is a lifelong Labour supporter (and Londoner) and has spoken in the past of his desire to become London Mayor. However, the recent announcement that Boris Johnson does not intend to stand for a third term has raised the chances of Labour winning the mayoralty in 2016, and thus there being a Labour incumbent in […]

    Read more →
  • News Jowell takes on new London-based role before potential mayoral bid

    Jowell takes on new London-based role before potential mayoral bid

    Tessa Jowell has taken on a new role lecturing at the London School of Economics (LSE), which should give her the time to concentrate on a likely campaign to be Labour’s candidate for London Mayor. Jowell, who is standing down as an MP next year, has started her post as Professor of Practice with the LSE Cities and in the Department of Government part-time. Jowell is currently considered one of the front-runners in the race for Labour’s candidacy, but all […]

    Read more →
  • Comment What Scotland requires from Labour right now is energy and clarity

    What Scotland requires from Labour right now is energy and clarity

    There are just over two weeks left until a decision that will alter Scotland – and Britain – irrevocably and immensely. Many voters have already completed their postal votes, and the campaign is as intense as any Scotland has known. The impact of a yes vote in the independence referendum would reverberate through the entire nation like an earthquake. Our nation as we currently understand it would cease to exist, a constitutional crisis the likes of which hasn’t been seen […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Labour suspends party members over Rotherham abuse investigation

    Labour suspends party members over Rotherham abuse investigation

    It’s reported this morning that Labour Party have suspended four members in relation to the findings found by the investigation into child abuse in Rotherham, which were released last week. The party have said that the four individuals in question – Jahangir Akhtar, Councillor Shaukat Ali, Councillor Gwendoline Ann Russell and Councillor Roger Stone - have been suspended pending investigation.   Alongside these four suspensions, the party have said that two former members – Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright and former councillor Maurice Kirk – […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Chris Kelly standing down is as significant as Douglas Carswell defecting

    Chris Kelly standing down is as significant as Douglas Carswell defecting

    Defections from one political party to another don’t happen very often, and they make great political theatre, so they are rightly big news.But in the week when Douglas Carswell switched from Tory to UKIP and made the blow doubly hard by doing the honourable thing and calling a by-election to get a public mandate for his decision, the media are wrong to have overlooked another, potentially even more significant announcement by a Tory MP, the obscure Chris Kelly. Carswell’s decision […]

    Read more →