Excessive tax

If Labour were not lecturing the rest of us that we need to pay more tax people might have more sympathy  with the Defence Secretary who decided paying standard Council tax was dear enough without having to pay  double  for a second home. Some might even think the former Housing Secretary was right that Stamp Duty is now way over the top and damaging the homes market, but not when  she had told the Chancellor to hike taxes more on people like her with more than one home and a six figure income.

Ministers should learn from their own wish to pay less tax that many now feel the state is stealing too much and delivering too little  with all the cash it takes. People feel squeezed because they have to pay so much tax on everyday living out of income already taxed heavily before they get what is left.

 

Lets take the case of someone whose average Income tax and NI rate on their Income is 40%.

If they buy petrol, taxed at 50%, their effective tax rate on the income needed for the purchase is 70%.

If they buy standard goods taxed at 20% VAT the rate is 52%

If they pay their Council tax it is 100%

If they pay any other tax or government licence fee it is 100%

If they buy a new car at 20% VAT with say 10% first year VED it is 58%

If they save the 60% they will be liable for at least 40% tax on any income they make on the savings.

No wonder we feel so badly off. If your Council tax, VED, congestion charge, government licences are expensive relative to your income the high effective tax rate is especially damaging to your standard of living.

People who work hard, take risks, set up businesses want some benefits from their efforts. Current taxes are now collectively too high leading too many to emigrate or to do less.

 

 

 

Growth

Eighteen months ago  a new  government was elected. They swept in to office full of the joys of growth. Growth is all you need, they sang.The  new government won by telling everyone they were going to go for faster growth. If they could grow faster there would be more jobs and better paid jobs. Many more people would be better off. Many more would come to like them  and want to vote for them. It was a great big idea.
How stupid the last government had been, they said. They had gone for  austerity, depressing growth. They had not paid people enough leading  to strikes and too little improvement in living standards. How easy it would  be. Just spend some more and more people  could be better off. If people were paid more they would spend more. If they spent more companies would have more business. They would create more jobs . Growth is all you need.
 It feels like years ago  as the government  soon managed to double inflation, get unemployment up with  public borrowing costs through the roof.  The government won  a huge majority because voters were very fed up with the old government they replaced. It was always a  loveless win, with the government sweeping the board but only getting a third of the votes. After a year their poll ratings had halved.   People wanted all that growth and happiness they had  been promised. Instead they were lectured on how they had voted the wrong way on Brexit, had too much money which they should give to the state, and should understand it was all the fault of the last government and of the rich.
They were warned that they could  not simply spend lots more. They told the jeremiahs that was old thinking. Of course they could spend more, as their friends in the Treasury and Bank would fix it for them. All that lovely extra public spending would magic the health waiting lists away, let workers spend more in the shops, and  give us a boost from wonderful public investments. The rich would have to pay a little bit more  tax in carefully set out ways, but that was only fair.
There were some nasty fiscal rules left over from the age of austerity. They would fix those. And so they did. The officials obligingly said they could get away with a bit more spending and borrowing, as long as the spending was for investments.  The bond dealers would not like it if they simply borrowed more for day to day bills.
The government busied itself with finding investments it could make. They wanted to be builders, not blockers. They proposed loads of new social homes, carbon capture and storage projects and plenty of renewable energy. They decided to press on with the huge public investment they inherited for a new railway line from London to Birmingham which had become a by word for waste and incompetence. They decided to take on all the losses of the Scunthorpe steel industry, speed up the compensation for the badly run Post office and to complete the nationalisation of  the railways. Spending the money was the easy bit. Other people’s money would fix it. Growth was all you need.
As they had promised to settle all the strikes in the public sector they made big pay awards. They thought these would buy them peace with their friends in the Unions. Instead the Unions came back for more. Ministers had forgotten to ask for any improvements in working practices and quality for all the extra pay. The Unions were in no mood to help them grow or to modernise.
So when they got into office they told people everything was broken and needed to be changed. They told everyone it was worse than they thought so it would cost more to fix than they had said.  They would   tax the rich and spend some more so all  could be transformed.
They spent weeks trying out all sorts of ways of taxing people more. Instead of them becoming more popular and growing faster, people were afraid. Businesses stopped investing and  hiring. People saved more.Growth  stopped and confidence was low.
In the run up to their first budget they set out a whole range of possible tax rises,. They realised early if they wanted to spend more even with their laxer rules they would need more tax revenue. They promised this would be a one and done set of tax rises. They said it would not break their popular Manifesto promise not to put up Income Tax, VAT and National Insurance, the three taxes that raise most of the money.  Unfortunately all the talk of tax rises to come over a long run up to a late budget hit the economy. Savers saved more. Businesses cancelled or delayed investments and new jobs. People put off buying new homes and cars. The economy sank. Instead of their bold investment led plans leading to confidence and growth the economy fell into a stupor of fear.
The budget itself was worse than people expected. The tax on working farms led to big protests and to people withdrawing from growing food. Food prices were rising too fast and less food was going to be available. Businesses stopped creating new jobs and let their workforces decline as people left, as they could not  afford the big rise in the tax on jobs. The big rise in National Insurance to be paid for by employers looked like a break in the promise, and was for the self employed who had to pay more anyway. Small businesses were clobbered. Private schools were hit with VAT leading to 50 closing.
After the budget unemployment went on rising month after month. Job vacancies plunged and businesses held off investing. Some companies announced they were cancelling their investment plans and going elsewhere with their money. Richer people left the country in large numbers to go an live with a government elsewhere who would let them keep more of their own money. It is leading directly to a second  Groundhog budget.
It is not possible to tax your way to growth and prosperity. The public sector is not productive enough and lets the country down with the gross mismanagement of HS2, the Post Office and many others. If another budget shifts more money from private to public sectors, it will continue the transfer from more productive to less productive with a negative impact on real incomes and jobs.

Government fixing prices makes things worse

Prices going up is usually a bad thing. If food, rents and energy prices go up too much living standards fall and people on lower incomes are particularly badly affected as they spend a big proportion of their incomes on basics.Better off people are made to spend very big proportions of their income on a wide array of taxes. When they go up people rein in spending or leave   the country.

Governments facing an inflation often intervene to control prices. They offer to stop rents or food prices or energy going up. This is popular when they start to do it, holding out hope of relief from ever rising and increasingly unaffordable bills. It becomes unpopular when people find out it cannot work in the longer term, as it stifles supply and investment in more capacity. It will lead to higher prices as we see in UK energy.

The current government presided  over a near doubling of inflation in its first 16 months. It has increased the number of areas subject to price control and has exercised existing powers to control prices.

Despite or because of price controls energy has got dearer, with  increases in managed prices. The government’s big interventions in  favour of more renewables has hiked energy costs.

Rail fares have gone up, with a large government pay settlement for train drivers adding to cost pressures.

Water bills have shot up  with government deciding to require or allow the industry  to invest much more in new pipes  and water works.They need to catch up with the big increase in population brought about by government migration policy.

Food bills have gone up,with domestic farmers growing  less thanks to higher taxes and withdrawal of subsidies.

Rents have  shot up thanks to extensive new controls and taxes on landlords. Many smaller landlords are exiting the market. Government contractors have been bidding  up rents to give priority to recently arrived migrants.

Wherever price  controls have been tried it leads to less supply. To get prices under control you need more supply. Dear energy created by overriding markets is now leading  to many industrial closures, driving home supply down further and adding to inflationary pressures.

 

 

Taxing banks. Is this an easy option?

Banks may not  escape the rush to find new taxes. I set out the options and the dangers, as I strongly urge the Chancellor to cut the deficit by spending less, not  by taxing more.
Banks currently pay  two special taxes on top of Corporation Tax.
They pay  a Corporation tax surcharge of 3% on profits above £100 m, so a combined rate of 28%. This surcharge was at 8% when CT was lower. This raised £1 bn last  year.
They pay  a levy on balance sheets, 0.1% of short term liabilities and 0.05% of long term liabilities. This raises £1.3 bn.
They deposit money with the Bank of England to finance the Bank’s bond portfolio, currently at £554 bn. They get the 4% base rate on these reserve deposits, an income of £22 bn, around the size of the black hole.
Government options
  1. Remove all interest from reserves, cutting Bank of England losses by £22 bn
  2. Remove interest from minimum reserves  needed as the ECB does. Bank said they need minimum reserves of £325 bn (low end of range). So that saves them 4% on £229 bn or £9 bn.
  3. Pay a lower rate on reserves to give Bank a spread between its lending  and borrowing rates. E.g 0.5% less or £2.75 bn
  4. Double Bank levy raising £1.3 bn
  5. Return Corporation Tax surcharges  to 8% raising around £2 bn
Removing all interest raises big money.The  Bank should argue this would damage money policy as removing £22 bn of income from banks  will greatly restrict their ability to lend and could  tighten policy into recession. Limiting interest to surplus reserves saves substantial money and would be the compromise the Bank would probably agree and  defend. It  would   still be a substantial tightening with recession risk lowering other tax receipts substantially

from the APF

Combination bar and line chart showing the forecast of cumulative flows to and from the APF.

This is the OBR March 2025 table about Bank of England losses. They forecast the Treasury paying the Bank £17.9 bn this year, £23.1 bn 2026/7, £22.3 bn 2027/8, £24.2 bn 2028/9, and £21.2 bn  2029/30 to pay for the losses.
Chart 6.6: Projection of cumulative flows to and from the APF
Combination bar and line chart showing the forecast of cumulative flows to and from the APF.
The losses are both losses on the capital value of bonds on sale or repayment and interest losses. The capital losses are dominant, running from £17.6 bn next year  to £22.5 bn in  2028/9. The capital losses are biggest on selling longer dated bonds in the market. The Bank does not have to do this and no other Central Bank does it. It could hold them to repayment when the losses will be much lower as current prices are well below repayment value.
Since the March forecast the Bank has announced some reduction  of sales especially of long dated bonds where the  losses are biggest which will reduce these loss figures a bit.
I have long been recommending no market sales of bonds which lock in these losses.I do not propose new  or extra bank taxes given how sluggish the economy is.

I do not believe the Home Secretary will sort out migration

The Home Secretary had more than a year as Justice Secretary. She let out a lot of prisoners early, watched as wrongful releases rose in numbers, allowed a weakening of  control over the prisons and was promoted to leave Mr Lammy with a difficult inheritance where he blamed his predecessors.

She now tells us she is carrying out the biggest ever changes to our immigration system. I doubt that. The biggest changes have been made by the European Court of Human Rights endlessly extending the grounds to allow more and more people to come and stay against the wishes of many voters and past  Ministers. Big changes were made during our period in the EU when we had to have open borders. Brexit has stopped the flows of EU nationals, only to see many more coming from non EU countries as government,  the public sector employers  and business have welcomed more and more in to take lower paid jobs and then to be joined by dependents.

The present package of measures can help a bit,  but does not go far enough to stop the boats and smash the gangs, nor to relieve the pressures of legal migration on homes, infrastructure and benefits.

When will she produce draft legislation and when will it pass the Commons? Why the delay?

How can she limit the jurisdiction of the European Court of human rights  over migration cases when the government is firm that it wishes to abide by international law and the Convention? She will need to negotiate and agree changes with the ECHR which will take time and give limited or no improvement.

When she says people granted asylum may need to return to their home countries if the UK view of these countries changes, how will she enforce deportation if the people want to stay? What will be the status of children born here to people granted refuge?

How often will the government make a new assessment of a country’s risks and status? Will Afghanistan under the Taliban ever be deemed  safe? Sudan in civil war? Iran under the theocracy?

When she offers additional legal routes for people to seek asylum, will there be any limit on numbers? Could we see all the people currently coming by illegal boat simply being able to come legally with speedier processing? Will people using these legal routes require prior vetting on the continent before being allowed to come here by boat or plane from France?

It is important to both reduce legal migration substantially and stop illegal. These measures will not do either.

The Worcestershire budget shows a major financial deterioration

Reform led Worcestershire County inherited a tight budget with rising spending for 2025-6 from the outgoing Council when it took over at the beginning of the new financial year. Councillors rightly argued for lower spending to get elected.

Instead of making early spending reductions which were clearly needed in its first year in office it  has allowed  spending  to rise more, well above its income growth. It inherited a maximum increase in Council tax bringing in considerable extra revenue.  The Council has also drawn down more reserves to pay some of the bills over and above the tax rise.

It  has now asked for a Capitalisation Directive from the government. This is an emergency device which allows a Council to borrow to pay the running bills, where under the rules they are only usually allowed to borrow for capital investment. They are meant then to take action to control future costs to avoid further overspending in  later years. If the Council carries on borrowing to cover running costs of services it can get into an unaffordable debt spiral, with interest costs taking up more and more of the income.

For 2025-6 its first year the new Council will use £23 million from inherited reserves for current spending, and will borrow a further £33.6m under this special permission from government. This borrowing will need to be repaid with interest over the following 20 years. This has happened despite receiving the extra  tax from a full 5% Council Tax rise this year imposed by the outgoing Council.

The Council is now consulting on its 2026-7 budget. It says it wants an additional £98 m to spend on a net revenue budget of around £500 m. It asks for views on Council tax rises below the 5% maximum, at the 5% maximum and at the higher levels of 7.5% and 10% where they would need government permission. Assuming the 5% rise, they say they will still have a gap of £66m between their wish to spend and their income. From the look of the document they think their tax choice rests between 5% and higher.They are consulting  on another Capitalisation Directive, to borrow an additional £43.6 m to cover current spending.

The document mentions the possibility of reducing the growth in spending, but sets out no options on how to do this. It argues that corporate overheads have been cut in previous years and are under good control. They are stated as just 3% of the budget total, whilst soaring debt costs as they borrow more are now 5% of the budget. It is unlikely the public will write in with a costed schedule of spending cuts. This surely should be the job of the Councillors to set them out with the officers, and to consult the public on them.

I urge the Council to identify the savings necessary to avoid more emergency borrowing and to keep the Council tax rise down . The government back up  of allowing emergency borrowing for cost over runs must not become a regular event as that is the route to the public sector equivalent of  bankruptcy.

The UK public sector productivity collapse

The collapse of public sector productivity in the UK is a national disaster. Productivity was down 8.4% on 2019 levels. It was down by an alarming 18.5% in the Health Service, which has received large increases in funding over the last five years. It is still not back up to 2019 levels.Government has expanded the public sector whilst allowing this collapse. This has resulted in record levels of taxation and huge deficits leading to big increases in borrowing. It is a simple case of poor public sector management.

 

There is no shortage of managers, as there has been a rapid expansion in their numbers to preside over and help cause the productivity drop. Their salaries and pension plans are much better than in the last century. Some of the worst managed parts of the public sector have been misled by people on more than £500,000 a year. Take the case of HS2. The job of CEO is to spend public money on building a new nationalised rail line to time and budget. There is no need to manage passengers and collect revenues, just spend well.

The result has been mega salaries and bonus for overrunning time and budget massively. Or take the case of the Post Office. CEOs paid more than £500,000 pay and bonus. They presided over losses running up to £1800 m. Worse still they falsely accused service managers of fraud and theft, leaving taxpayers with a huge compensation bill and some of their staff gravely damaged.

When I was a Minister I used natural wastage to slim the organisation. It worked better with fewer.

Old initiatives rarely die in the public sector, they just get shifted to a less prominent location. The culture of collective judgement and responsibility leads to overmanning and frequent changes of leadership on projects and activities. It creates inefficiencies and ensures no one is to blame if it goes wrong. When activities are contracted out there are quite often savings of 10-20% despite the need for the private sector to make a profit.

We’re not buying it.

The MOD is bad at buying things though weapons procurement is a major part of the budget. The Ajax military vehicle should not have posed big problems as it relied on conventional technology. Yet £3bn into the programme only a few vehicles had been delivered and there were quality and design issues that needed sorting out. How come so many intelligent and well paid procurement managers allowed that? Why was no one in charge who could create a good outcome? When government wants something new to happen it is often best to set up a new task force led by an outsider.

The development of  covid vaccines was based on just this model. It does not always work as it needs a good leader with Ministerial backing. The construction of the Nightingale hospitals needed Ministerial and military assistance and leadership. The NHS then did not make use of them, preferring to close down non covid activity to keep covid cases in general hospitals. Why? The idea of specialist covid places was a good one to contain infection

 

.

Less government

 

 

The enthusiasm for too much regulation in recent years has burdened us as taxpayers and as consumers as we pay for it. Some of it is wasteful and needless. Take the paperchase when someone buys a home. If they are paying with a deposit saved in a UK bank or building society why is there need of anti-money laundering paperwork, as the bank satisfied itself of their customer and can see the taxed income that provided the savings coming into their account. AML controls should be for the minority that pay in cash or draw on a foreign bank.

Having a driving licence and a utility bill does not prove someone with exotic sources of cash is not a money launderer, so in the minority of cases there needs to be a proper examination.

The Bank of England is the biggest loss making public sector institution by a mile. According to the OBR at budget autumn 2024 they will lose £240bn from end 2022 to the final run off of their bond portfolio. Why are they allowed to lose such huge sums? The Treasury and taxpayers have to send them the money for the losses and Chancellors approved the original bond buying. The European Central Bank made a similar error in buying too many bonds at high prices. It has loss containment policies which mean it will lose far less proportionately than the Bank of England.

The rail industry is largely nationalised. It is heavily loss making and needs big subsidies and borrowed capital. When train company franchises end their activities are nationalised. The high cost tracks, signals and stations have been long nationalised. The nationalised train companies do not perform better for customers and taxpayers than the private ones, and often perform worse.

Why can’t public sector management of a monopoly system do better? Throughout the public sector there is need for fewer but better managers. There is need for good bonuses only paid for good delivery. There is need to mentor and train Ministers to take an intelligent interest in management of their departments.

They should be criticised for allowing bad productivity. In the industrial businesses I have led I always found a limited number of well-paid good people was best. Quality and efficiency are two sides of the same coin. Getting things right first time matters. Honesty and quick remedies are essential when you get something wrong. Learn from your mistakes, design error out and always put customer and service users first.

Meltdown in Downing Street

Labour under Tony Blair was good at spin. Keir  Starmer’s team is hopeless.This  week saw a too stupid by half briefing against leadership challengers spectacularly backfire as Wes Streeting  tackled it head on and came out stronger. The public wants the PM to stay at home more and solve the big problems. Making the toxic atmosphere of the advisers the issue is a disaster.

The big difference between government and Opposition is Ministers own the actuality. Opposition can describe a world as they want it to be, and set out  how they  might get there. Ministers own the current facts. If they cannot defend them  then they need to make urgent changes and quickly show they are starting to work. On first coming into office maybe for a year you can blame inheritance, but a year on you have had plenty of time  and resource to change things for the better.

There will be more alarums and undermining of the PM all the time he fails to change key areas for the better. He promised smashing the gangs. Instead illegal migration has risen a lot. Instead of strengthening the law he repealed tougher measures the Conservatives were belatedly  bringing in.

He promised ending cost of  living pressures. Instead he has put inflation  up from 2% to 3.8%. He has fuelled inflation  with increases in managed fuel and water prices and big public sector lay  awards.

He promised no big tax increases. He instead put a big jobs tax on via employers National  Insurance, and is now threatening an Income Tax hike.

He promised faster growth and more jobs. Instead unemployment has risen  sharply to 5% and last month the economy contracted.

He cannot spin his way out of these truths. He needs to stop people near him talking about a Labour civil war and get on with practical measures to right these obvious wrongs  He owns higher taxes, higher borrowing, slower growth and more illegal migration. When will he make changes that tackle these big issues?

 

The last thing we need is an expensive EU re set

The government’s worst mistake as it surveys the damage it is doing to our economy is thinking an EU re set will boost growth. As the EU is making  clear, any attempt to get closer to them would come on their terms. It would mean us paying big bills to them. It would mean us accepting their laws on many matters. It would mean even higher carbon taxes and dearer energy.

They want us to pay  £5 bn a year to have a chance to bid to supply them with some weapons. They want us to surrender the Turing  scheme which helps UK students to go to a university anywhere in the world, and to go into Erasmus to pay  for more EU students to come to the UK at the expense of the freedoms of UK students to go to non EU universities.

They insist on us joining their carbon market to impose a still higher carbon tax on everything we do. They want us to impose big tariffs called a carbon border  tax on imports from outside Europe, making things dearer. They want us to accept a lot more younger migrants into our country, who may come with the need for subsidised housing and free public services. They require us to accept their rules  over farm products and will impose a charge for supervising our food trade.They have demanded many more years of taking too many fish from our waters, stifling the UK fishing industry.

None of this would make us better off. Linking to a slow growth protectionist customs union gave us dire growth in the last decade. Their rules make them uncompetitive   with the USA and China. The OBR should mark down their forecast of growth for the re set policy.They should add in around £10 bn a year more cost and lost activity.

There is one simple word for Ministers to use for every one of the EU’s demands. It is No. When I was single  market Minister No was in constant use as we had to fight off  so many costly and damaging proposals.