Author: johnredwood

Let us suppose  that someone’s spending over recent years was as follows:

Date   of spend                          Total          Total day to day spending

2009-10    (last Labour year)            £6693                      £6009

2010-11                                                  £6944                     £ 6328

2011-12                                                   £6936                    £6438

2012-13                                                  £6737                     £6572

2013-14                                                  £7200                    £6679

2014-15                                                  £7371                     £6717

I don’t think anyone would say that person had experienced “colossal cuts” . Some would write in and say this person had done better than they had, as their day to day  spending had gone up each year. Others would point out that inflation meant not much of a real increase, though in practice it is a small real increase in day to day to spending.  A fair commentator would conclude that the person had done all right considering the overall background, where others  had suffered actual falls in income and spending. It had been tight but was  not a case of a massive cuts.

If you multiply that person’s spending by 100 million you have the government figures for its total spending (including capital) and its total current spending. So why when we have the big figures for the government do some go on about massive cuts?

Some say in real terms it was a cut. The OBR now tell us not even that is true. Now they say it is a cut as a percentage of GDP. Yes, that’s true, because GDP is going up faster than public spending. However, that does not make it an actual overall cut. Today the government is delivering more school places, more doctors appointments, more operations in hospitals, more subsidised rail services and more success in controlling crime than five years ago.

If we are to have a sensible debate about public spending we first need to start with an honest factual base of what has been spent and what planned spending looks like. Over the next five years on current plans public spending rises by a further £42bn a year. That’s tight, but it only becomes a real cut if public sector costs escalate and if the public sector is unable to deliver say 2% per annum productivity and efficiency gains which are the bare minimum in much of the private sector.

The biggest lie of all is the one which says we are going back to 1930s levels of spending by 2010. This country is many times richer now than in the 1930s, so we will be spending many times the real level of the 1930s by 2010.

I reproduce below my case to abolish the slab approach to Stamp duty and to offer us all a cut in the amount of this transaction tax. I first wrote this in August 2013, and renewed my proposal in a debate in the Commons this year.I would like to have seen a more generous reform, but the one the Chancellor has proposed does mean some reductions in Stamp Duty for all homes under £940,000 in value, which is good news.The interesting question will be what impact the new 12% rate has on high priced homes, especially in central London where most of them are concentrated. As the Chancellor needs the continuing revenue from these dear properties he will need to watch carefully what impact this tax has on transactions volume.

Stamp duty – make it a progressive tax

By johnredwood | Published: August 26, 2013

I do not like Stamp Duty. Houses are dear enough, without imposing an extra tax on people trying to buy a home.

I am also a realist. This Coalition government, and any likely successor, will need revenue from taxing property transactions. They are not about to abolish the tax and give up the money. We need to find a fairer way of charging the tax, and set rates which are more affordable so there can be more transactions. That way homes can be cheaper, and the taxman can still raise substantial sums of money in a more buoyant economy.

One of the worst features of the current Stamp Duty is the cliff edge approach to the rising tax rates. Buy a home for £125,000 and you pay no tax. But a home for £125,001 and you pay £1250 of tax.

The increases in tax at threshold points become very high as the price of the property rises. Pay £1 over £250,000 and your Stamp Duty bill shoots up from £2,500 to £7,500, a 200% increase, or an extra £5,000 on your purchase. Pay £1 over £500,000 and your Stamp Duty bill surges from £15,000 to £20,000, another £5,000 increase, though a smaller percentage.

Pay £1 over £1million and your Stamp Duty bill is a hefty £10,000 more, rising from £40,000 to £50,000. That’s £50,000 tax to buy a one bed flat in central London, for example. Be in the fortunate enough position to be able to buy a 2 or 3 bed flat in the best parts of London and you would have to pay £100,000 of Stamp Duty at £2m. Pay £1 more and the tax bill climbs to a giddy £140,000, a £40,000 increase. Just the increase in the Stamp duty is considerably higher than average annual earnings.

The £1250 tax rise at £125,000 and the £5,000 tax rise at £250,000 are particularly onerous on many people trying to buy a family home in many parts of the country. It can be the last straw, that stops people buying the home they need and want.

The cliff edge thresholds of course distort the market. Homes for sale cluster just below the threshold points. There are large tracts of pricing territory but sparsely populated with homes for sale. £250,000-£260,000, £500,000 to £525,000, £1m to £1.1 million are not popular. The tax intervention creates a lumpy and jumpy market, where there are gaps in price availability, with vendors either holding down the price or leapfrogging it upwards, clear of the danger zone.

So my main recommendation for reform would be to make the Stamp Duty levy progressive like Income Tax. A home priced at £300,000 should pay no Stamp duty on the first £125,000, 1% on the next £125,000, and 3% on the last £50,000 of the price. Total Stamp Duty under this system would be £2,750 on a £300,000 house, instead of £9,000 today.

This would make homes more affordable. Could there be a loss in revenue? There may not be. Transactions would increase. The loss of revenue at the top end, where much of the duty is raised, would be very slight. The London market with its £10m plus transactions at the top end would still see such buyers paying nearly £700000 as today on a £10m purchase. The higher the price, the lower the loss of revenue as a proportion of the tax from the system I have described.

Given the political dislike of rich people and high property prices in modern UK, the government could introduce a hybrid system, where anything over £2m still had to pay 7% on the lot.

In 2010 I pointed out that public spending was going up every year of this Parliament in cash terms. I also forecast that this government would control the costs of public spending better than the previous government, so real current public spending would also rise. Most commentators, politicians and journalists thought this wrong and talked about the real terms cuts to come.

The OBR now confirms that real public consumption rose 2010-2013 inclusive at a rate of 1% per annum. They state ” Real government consumption continues to contribute positively to GDP growth despite ongoing restraint in nominal spending. “(restraint here means modest increases). (pp 79-80 of the OBR book)

The OBR also says that in the next Parliament the plans in yesterday’s statement should mean continued control over the costs of public services, which limits the impact of the future restraint on cash public spending on its real level. Indeed they expect the costs of provision to fall, as they assume productivity and technology gains in delivery of services. What is odd is that we did enjoy such gains in the previous decade.

It is curious that no-one else seems to read this section or use it in the debates on what has happened and what might happen to public spending, presumably because it stands in the way of the austerity and cuts stories. Whilst it is obviously true that some budgets have been reduced and some may be reduced in the next Parliament, the overall position is now confirmed that both cash and real public consumption has risen. Capital spending, which was cut sharply by the outgoing Labour government, remained cut at the beginning of this government but has now benefitted from substantial increases from the new lower base.

The Autumn Statement plans for the next five years are very like the 2010 Coalition plans to eliminate the deficit. They rely on modest cash increases in total public spending and large increases in tax revenue, mainly coming from economic growth. The approach so far has succeeded in controlling spending within the totals set out, but tax revenue as we have seen has fallen well short.

The Green Book provides a full five year profile of spending and taxing. It shows public spending continuing to rise in cash terms, by £42.8bn or 5.8% over the period to 2019-20. Revenue is forecast to rise by £140.8 bn or 23% with the big gains coming from Income Tax, VAT and National Insurance.
This enables the government to forecast the end of the deficit by 2019-20, with the current deficit disappearing in 2017-18.

The original plan to bring down the deficit was explained as relying mainly on spending cuts. This was calculated by looking at inherited planned increases in public spending and in real terms. In practical terms the government planned to increase public spending, but to increase tax revenue at a much faster rate, mainly by economic growth, to eliminate the deficit. For the next Parliament the plans assume tight control of public spending, with only modest increases in the cash spending amounts. Once again the main method of cutting the deficit in cash terms is an anticipated substantial increase in tax revenues from economic growth.

There is little leeway in the figures for any new government to spend more without having to borrow more. Hitting the tax forecasts will require a long period of good growth, and setting tax rates that remain internationally competitive. Many of the individual taxes have fallen short of expected receipts over the last four years. The latest forecasts show the impact of lower oil prices on falling oil tax revenues, and assume some increase in revenue from the anti avoidance measures and new corporate taxes set out in this Statement.

The CGT receipts have been well below the peak levels prior to the 2008-9 Crash, illustrating that lower rates raise more revenue. The self assessment and top end income tax receipts have fallen well short, suggesting the 50% rate reduced receipts. VAT has been buoyant, with the higher rate bringing in more revenue as planned and a bit more on top. This government’s experience shows that you have to judge carefully which taxes will bring in more if you raise the rate. The Stamp Duty changes will have a substantial impact on the property market and it will be interesting to see what happens to revenues there.

The Coalition came together to cut the deficit. So far they have kept their spending increases within plans, but have experienced a shortfall on receipts, so the task is half done.

The Autumn Statement provides a suitable opportunity for all main parties to set out their intentions for the next five years. Would any wish to go further and faster in curbing spending? Do any want to go faster with tax rises? Do any have a way to boost tax revenues with lower or similar rates, through promoting growth?

The UK economy needs to develop higher productivity, which in turn can lead to higher pay. The efforts going in to strengthen education and training, to improve the science base, to bolster manufacturing and to make it more worthwhile to work are all policies designed to foster more and better paid jobs, which are the key to economic improvement and to lower welfare and benefit spending.

The main policies revealed by Labour and Liberal Democrats reveal nothing of substance about how they wish to tackle the deficit. Labour’s cuts are tiny, and their tax rises all absorbed by spending pledges. In addition Labour wrongly think increasing the top rate of Income Tax to 50% would increase revenue, when history shows it would cut receipts. The Lib Dem’s Mansion Tax will not make a lot of difference to total revenue.

The Conservatives have got furthest in talking about the magnitude of public spending reductions they will need to eliminate the deficit in the next Parliament. The OBR figures today will show us where the government thinks it has reached on the long road to balanced books.