SELF ASSESSMENT INCOME TAX  RECEIPTS

Official forecasts:

Budget 2010                                                      Autumn 2012

2008-9     £22.5bn                                                £ 22.5bn

2009-10   £21.7bn                                                     £ 21.7bn

2010-11    £21.5 bn                                                     £21.5bn

2011-12     24.2 bn                                                      £20.3bn                           

2012-13     £ 29.2 bn                                                    £22.6bn

2013-14      £32.5  bn                                                    £23.8bn

2014-15      35.1                                                       29.4

 

Self Assessment tax income fell 10% from the peak to 2011-12. It fell 5.6% in 2011-12. By the end of the second year of the 50% rate receipts were down by 6.5% on the level before its introduction.

The bulk of the Self Assessment Income Tax is at higher rate. The decline in 50% revenues is likely to have been faster than that in total Self Assessment revenues.

It is interesting to contrast the very optimistic forecasts made by the government in June 2010, and to see just how much they have taken off their forecasts in the light of experience since then.  This year they think they will be almost £7bn down on estimate, and the revenues are currently undershooting even the latest forecast.

In contrast, raising the VAT rate has produced some extra revenue. Capital Gain tax receipts are forecast to fall this year.

The poor performance of revenues is the main reason why the public borrowing figures have remained high this year, well above the 2010 forecast.

 

           The State is threatening to many people who work hard, try to provde for their own families, and wish to keep out of the way of officialdom.

            The motorist is hounded by an avalanche of official rules and regulations. If a driver fails to notice, misunderstands or fails  to comply with some minor part of the enormous encyclopaedia of rules, he or she will be fined. There are very complex rules on how and where to park, how much to pay for parking, how to display tickets, how to proceded in a box junction, endlessly varying speed limits in apparently similar conditions, varying rules on access to bus lanes.  The motorist feels the state is out to stop him getting to work or going to the shops. Often it appears that unworkable  requirements have been introduced just to increase the fines revenue.

            The government lectures the motorist not to use the car so much. It forces up the taxes on motoring, from Vehicle Excise Duty, to new car taxes, to petrol and diesel duty and VAT. The state is reluctant to explain how many of us can do other than go by car for many of the journeys we wish to make, given the inadequacies of  public transport outside central London.

          The worker is hounded by the tax system  which always want more of  the money he earns to pay for the ever rising public spending. The homebuyer faces higher Stamp duties, the family has to pay higher VAT on the things it needs for living, more and more people are dragged into the 40% tax band, whilst anyone who dares to earn a six figure salary is regularly pilloried by politicians and required to pay more one way or another.

           The owners and managers of small and medium sized enterprises are constantly forced to read and understand more regulations. Their attention is often diverted from their customers and managing their output and sales, to managing a wide range of matters that the state thinks are more  important. Business owners are often attacked for failures to live up to standards on a wide range of issues which the public sector often does not achieve. Businesses are accused of paying too little tax, of paying low wages, and of charging too much.

            Many people who pay their own way in the world and who work hard think they get a rotten deal from the state. They think the state takes too much money off them in tax, wastes too much of their tax revenue, and imposes far too many rules on them.  They feel the state is not there for them. If their home is broken into, or if they need hospital treatment, they are often disappointed with the level and speed of service on offer for them.

 

           UK and US politics is increasingly polarised between those who see the state as a threat and those who see it as a lifeline or ally. This week I want to explore why some people think the state is the answer to most of their problems, and why some think more or less anything the state does is harmful to their interests or undertaken for cynical reasons.

            In the Commons a majority of MPs are optimists about state activity. They tend to the view that the state is there to right wrongs, create  greater  equality, provide important  services and look after people. They therefore tend to like more state activity rather than less, and regularly support governments which like to raise spending and take on more tasks for people. In every year I have been in the Commons so far state current spending has gone up in cash terms, and usually has gone up in real terms as well.

             Those who see the state as a friend say that it is thanks to the state that people with little or no income have money to spend, that everyone gets access to health care regardless of means, that we are kept safe in our communities thanks to the plolice and criminal justice system, we are provided with free schooling, pensioners recieve a range of additional benefits, and money is taken from the rich to help pay for it all so there is greater equality.

           They often go further, and see private sector companies as potential exploiters or  bullies. In their view  the state has to tax, regulate and check them to stop them abusing their customers, employees and local environments. Only the state can make people and companies respond to the threat of global warming, the dangers of unregulated motoring, and much else which defenders of the state fret about.

           I will look at just how frustrated the advocates of freedom and free enterprise are by the ever growing modern state tomorrow. They respond to these arguments for a larger and more powerful state by pointing out the large gap that often opens up between the aims of the state actions, and the outcomes.  When the state took over large industries with a view to running them in the better interests of the customers and employees, they found instead that nationalised industries topped the lists for sacking people, losing business, and putting up prices. The more the state tries to tax people into equality, the more the rich go offshore or hire better accountants to avoid the taxes the state seeks to impose. Inequality rose under Labour despite all their efforts to bring it down. With the demise of grammar schools in most parts of England, the gifted child from a low income household now finds it more difficult to advance than previous generations who had access to selective schools as the rich continue to enjoy. The more money that is put into the less successful parts of the country, the less successful they remain. All my time in Parliament has had a similar list of places that need special treatment.

 

             I recently went to Birmingham by train. I wanted to make a speech there first thing in the morning and get back for Parliament later. That meant staying in London the night before to be close to Euston. It was a good opportunity to see how much we need High Speed 2.

             I caught the 7.23 fast train from London to Birmingham, stopping at just Watford and Coventry. It was the train to get you to Brimingham for 9am, the crucial business train you might think. It left on time and arrived close to the scheduled time, despite a delay and slow movement at one point.I bought a standard class day return on the day of travel, as I had not had chance to buy an advance cheaper ticket. I had no complaints about the speed of the train or the time it took me to get from station to station. It was fast, considerably quicker than I would be allowed to travel on the M40.

              The carriage I was travelling in was 17% occupied. The next door one was around one fifth occupied. The first class carriages were much emptier than the poorly used Standard class.  There was little sign of all this need for extra capacity. Returning later the same morning, at half the price of the outbound fare, the carriages were still more than half empty.

               The approach to passengers was not very  businesslike. On the outbound journey it was not until after Watford that a crackly announcement told us there was a shop on the train where we could buy food and drinks. We were also told that the credit card machine was not working, so we could not buy anything unless we had sufficient cash.  It was not very inviting.

                There were regular announcements to tell you the name of the  next station. They also repeatedly told us we had to be unpaid guards, looking out for anything or anyone suspicious and reporting this to the police. It was difficult to see how I could do this, as there were no police travelling in uniform on the train. Fortunately I did not see anyone suspicious so I did not need to bother.It was an unusual approach to winning over customers.

               For almost £80 single to Birmingham I got no offer of a  newspaper, no drink, no information about onward travel, no seat belt, no moving map to show us where we had got to, no safety restraints on some people’s heavy luggage in overhead racks,  no hard copy maps in the seat pockets as you would on a plane. There was waste paper left in between the tray table and the back of the seat.  No-one tried to sell me any additional good or service, other than the announcement about the shop. On the return journey there were no ticket checks at either station I walked through nor on the train itself.

            Out of the train windows you could see large tracts of railway land that were not being well used, and numerous freight wagons and carriages left in sidings  and looking unused and in poor state. It did not give the impression of a well run set of  businesses with tight control over assets and money.

                First Group when it bid for the West Coast franchise said its load factor if it had started the franchise would have been just 35%. Even Network Rail, keen not to release capacity figures, did show in 2010 that overall load factors out of Euston were just 60%.

                I can see no reason why my random day to go to Brimingham was unrepresentative. Even if you allow for more use on other days and at other times, you have to conclude trains from Euston to Birmingham do not seem to be near full capacity or that busy. If I want to seea  crowded train I get on a commuter route at peaks, or try to get from Reading to London by train. The case for HS2 I thought rested on the need for more seats to Birmingham, to attract more Londoners to make the journey.

 

       The latest figures show poor retail sales continuing to the bitter end of 2012.  Low wage rises, continuing price rises, high taxes and the squeeze on real incomes that has been going on for five years now are taking their toll.

         It’s not just the income squeeze though that results in more shop bankruptcies and closures on the High Street. More and more purchases are made using the internet. Some people shop on line because they do not have the time to go to the shops. Some shop on line because it is easier than getting to the shops. Some shop on line because they find more choice and keener prices than they do in some local shops. The internet is taking off as method for picking, buying and paying.

     The High Street business model is highly geared. Shop fitting out costs are high. Stock holding costs are high, rents are high, business rates and taxes are high. To succeed a retailer needs to attract a large number of customers on a regular basis, and needs to be sure of foot in choosing products and pricing them well.

       I have asked people about their shopping habits recently. Some say they have gone to shops only to find they did not have what they wanted. On returning home they found the items on the internet. Others have said they like the clicks and bricks approach, favouring those shops which let you choose and buy on line, and pick up from a local store almost  as soon as you wish.

           When it comes to shopping, more and more people like to make it an occasional event. They want to go to a large centre with many good brands and stores. They expect there to be cafes and restaurants for them to eat and drink as well as visiting the stores. In this world the successful large centres get better and better, and the magrinal High Streets and local shopping areas struggle to retain custom. Councils often add to the distress of local shopping areas by imposing penal car parking charges on visitors, and making it more and difficult to get access to the shopping centre by car. This drives more people to out of town retailers where you can park free of charge outside the shop of your choice.

           The recent clutch of business failures in the retail sector are a reminder that a lot needs sorting out to restore health to some High Streets. Councils need to improve access and allow more free and cheap parking for shoppers. Landlords need to be more realistic about rents if they wish to keep tenants. Government has to tax everyone less.

           We also need to accept that we now have too many shops for the style of shopping people wish to do. In some cases shops have to be converted into offices or residential and shopping streets have to contract. There is oversupply. Fashions are changing. Our towns and governments local and national  need to change with them.

 

I send my condolences to the families of the hostages that have been killed in Algeria. We all live in hope that more people have survived this ordeal. Understandably the Prime Minister had to delay his speech.

I expected  Mr Cameron today to confirm that he wants the UK to negotiate a new relationship with the rest of the EU. He accepts that the UK cannot join the currency, fiscal, banking and political union the Euro countries are now pressing on with. He recognises the UK wants something much less than this full integration. We want to trade with them and be friends with them, not to be governed by them.

I expected him also to say that the British people have to be asked their view in a referendum. Many voters have never been asked their view, some others who were regret their decision to vote “Yes”, as they think the common market they bought was a misdescription of what has evolved.

The President of the USA had made another clumsy intervention in the debate in a way designed to annoy many UK voters. The UK has no wish to be America’s poodle chained to the EU kennel wall.

There will remain important  issues over when and how he will renegotiate, and when and how the British people get a vote. Send in your views in place of the speech.

What is extraordinary is the Labour and Lib Dem parties both rule out a renegotiation, and rule out a referendum. They say we must stay in at all costs, accept the current balance of powers, and avoid mentioning the fact that many UK people are not happy with our current membership. It is so unsual for two major parties to wish to be so cut off from maintsream public opinion on such a crucial issue. I suspect most of the country is united in thinking we need a new relationship, and in agreeing we cannot join the politcal union they are making.

 

       Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin and I will be talking this morning about the differences between the internal or single market of the EU and a free market, or the common market that many UK voters thought they were signing up to in 1972-5.  Bill and Bernard have written a piece explaining the nature of the EU single market.

       All you need for a flourishing free market is the simple rule established in the Cassis de Dijon judgement – if a product is of merchandisable quality and can be offered for sale in one country, it can also be offered for sale in the other countries of the free market area. If France approves a French product for sale in France, the UK authorities should be prepared to accept the French decision and allow it to be sold in the UK. 

       The EU has developed something more and something different from this idea. They have used the concept of a single market to erect a vast legislative structure. They have sought to transfer more and more regulation from individual member states to the EU. They have sought to define, influence and control many products, services and industries in the name of the single market. They have  claimed that we need to harmonise laws, standards, employment rules, health and safety rules and much else besides to have a “fair single market. ”

          The single market programme was meant to have concluded in 1992. The member states solemnly signed up to around 300 Directives under qualified majority votes in order to complete the single market. There was a fanfare to launch it. We were all told it would make the EU as a whole richer, and would greatly expand the trade between the EU members.

           Instead, trade with non some EU countries grew more quickly than trade between the UK and the rest of the EU. The EU decided that it would take many more than 300 new laws to have their kind of regulated single market. They decided their market had to be a social market and include labour law. They saw all types of regulation as being part of the single market, from energy and renewables through to safety matters. Member states lost more and more powers and the EU gained more and more in the name of the single market. Some twenty years after the so called completion of the single market large law codes are still being wheeled out in the name of completing the single market.

            I suspect that most UK people and much of UK business does not want a single market if that means EU legislation on everything from food standards to transport, from financial services to health and safety.  We want a freer market, a common market, that allows trade but still allows member state decision making and differentiation.

           We should heed the European Parliament Fact Sheet which describes the current phase of Single market evolution. It says:

“The requirements of European integration suggest that the internal market should eventually culminate in a fully integrated market on national lines ….a single currency, a harmonised tax system, integrated infrastructure, complete freedom of movement of persons and legal instruments to operate effectively throughout the market”

           I am sure that this is what they are creating. I am not sure that is what so many UK advocates of the “Single market” have in mind.

 

            According to the polls the UK is a largely Eurosceptic country. It is full of people who either do not want to belong to the EU at all, or wish to be part of a free trade area or common market they thought they joined. There are very few who want to see the united Europe which France and Germany are building, and who wish the UK to be part of the emerging United States of Europe.

             For fifty years much of the UK establishment has taken a different view. They have either believed that the EU is just a rather grand single market, and we need to be in it for trade reasons, or they have used the cloak of trade to confuse the outlines of the emerging centralised government. Some thought the UK was struggling in the 1970s and needed German discipline and competition to sort us out. Some believed that the Exchange Rate Mechanism would control inflation and help our economy. Many went on to argue that we had to join the Euro, claiming the City and our other major economic interests would suffer badly if we stayed out. The collapse of  the ERM and the tribulations of Greece, Portugal andIreland within the Euro has not persuaded all of them that they were wrong.

          Today the Fresh Start Group of MPs will launch their proposals for getting powers back from the EU. They wish to see the UK regain full control over criminal law and justice, have an emergency brake to stop financial regulations we do not like through a country veto, and get back some of the powers over social and employment policy.

It would be a welcome start, but does not go nearly far enough for many Eurosceptics both inside and outside the Conservative party. It was Conservative party policy in opposition to repatriate our fishing grounds. It has long  been UK policy to undertake substantial change to the Comnmmon Agricultural policy to make it cheaper for food buyers. Many wish to see the UK regain control over its own energy policy and much else besides.

          There are the Come outers in UKIP constantly saying that the only answer is immediate withdrawal. They  assert that we need to withdraw without explaining how that is going to happen. There are the Better off outers within the Conservative Parliamentary party, who do work with others to try to limit further transfers of power and to start to shift things back. There are many suggestions on the combination of referenda, votes in  Parliament and clauses of the Treaty that could get us out or get us into a new relationship, but less thought about how the Eurosceptic majority can unite its forces to have its way.

 

           I thought the Mail was wrong to write an article recently condemning some police employees for having second jobs. It is quite common for people working shifts to have second jobs that they fit around the demands of their main occupation. Many in the fire brigade, or working for airlines do just the same.  Those enterprising police who do something else supplement their family incomes. They pay more tax, making a larger contribution to society. They share their second skill or enthusiaism with the public, or they carry out tasks that need doing that do not prevent them being alert and good officers for the day job. If your main job is only 40 hours out of a 168 hour week you should have options for the remaining 128 hours.

          Employees who do second jobs have made a decision about how they wish to spend their time that can  best be understood if we use yesterday’s distinction between paid for work and unpaid for work. If a policeman wants to earn more so he has more help at home with the  DIY or better holidays , who is to say he is wrong?

         I assume those who disagree think that the second job takes up too much energy of the individual, limiting their ability to do their main job. This is something which the employer can best judge by looking at results. Employers should not control how employees use their time away from their work contract, other than to avoid conflicts of interest.  Let us consider four different employees turning up for their day jobs to their private sector employer. (I am not now talking about the police).

            Ruth has a second job. She has set up her own dog grooming and dog walking business. She takes on animals for care and treatment at week-ends and in the evenings to earn extra money and because she loves animals. She always arrives at her main employer’s premises on time at 9 am. She also leaves promptly at 5pm to get back to her home and her other life. She feels she needs to offer good value for money and hard work when she is at her employer’s, and has a good record as an employee. She is saving for a bigger house,, and has delayed having a family until she has the property she wants.

          Christine is a single mother. She is also a good worker, but she often finds she has to ring in and say she cannot make it on time because the school run has delayed her, or because her young son needs to be taken to the doctors as he is sick. She finds juggling the demands of being  a good mum and an employee  are difficult. She always tries to make up any time lost for the employer, who is understanding.

          Geoff is a single 55 year old who is no longer in the best of health. He finds it difficult to sleep at nights. He often stays up watching football or late night movies. He likes to drink beer to keep him company when watching the tv. The next morning he is often below his best when he gets up. He is regularly late in to work, though tends to stay on late for a bit of company. His employer is not happy with his work rate or achievement, but is concerned about unfair dismissal legislation so has not done anything.

          George is an energetic 35 year old who can be a bit slapdash at work. He only does the job for the money, and is always talking and thinking about what he will do the minute he can get out of the workplace. He is busily building his own extension to his home. He rushes out at lunchtime to buy the materials he needs for the next week-end build. He also is a keen cyclist who likes to go off for long road runs. Sometimes when they are sponsored for charity he persuades the employer to let him go in firm’s time. He calls in sick  some Mondays or Fridays, as he  says he is giving himself a bad back from the building work he is doing.

          The question I have today is who is the best and the worst employee? There are many  excellent male employees, but in these examples I was more criticial of  the men  than the women in  common with the modern style.   Are second jobs always a bad idea, or can they be the sign of someone who is energetic and determined to do well?  Is  someone who spends a lot of his time on lesiure activities like watching sport and drinking necessarily going to be in better shape to tackle the challenges of the working day? Have you got some more types to introduce to liven up the discussion? (No named real people please)

 

 

                When the UK signed up to the free movement of workers and the single market, the idea was that anyone could come from the rest of the EU to get a job in the UK if they wished, and any UK citizen could do the same in other EU countries. Benefits were a matter for national governments to settle and pay for. The previous Conservative government was always careful to protect Parliamentary sovereignty on all welfare issues, regarding these as central to UK budgets and of vital interest to UK taxpayers and benefit recipients.

                Under Labour the free movement of workers elided into the free movement of  working age people, and the issue of welfare benefits was blurred between EU and UK jurisdiction. The precedent developed that anyone gaining a low paid job here in the UK from another EU country qualified for an expanded range of  in work benefits at UK rates paid for by UK taxpayers. It also became established that EU migrants using the EU freedom of movement provision could qualify for unemployment benefits. This drift was partly UK policy, and partly court judgements and pressures from the EU. I do not recall us having a major debate and vote in Parliament on the principle of more generous benefit distribution to EU migrants, but somehow we started to be more generous in eligibility to EU migrants than to migrants from elsewhere.

              Today many UK taxpayers and citizens think that when it comes to benefits EU migrants should be treated like working migrants from non EU countries. There is a growing worry about the generosity of our system to EU  visitors at a time of retrenchment in national welfare budgets.  Later this year the transitional provisions which limit the numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians that can come to the UK will be lifted. Many are asking how many people might arrive here, and what are the rules concerning in work and out of work benefits for them?

                The Prime Minister and other Ministers are well aware of the sensitivity of this problem. They are looking at ways of altering the current position without falling foul of EU rules and court decisions. The options seem to include:

1. Changing UK benefit rules to make them more based on contributions. If a person had to  contribute through National Insurance for a specified time, new migrants would not automatically qualify for such benefits. Young people who had been in school and College here for a specified number of years could also qualify. It is said that France and Germany have a system more based on contributions which is legal under EU rules.

2. Introduce a Work permit scheme for migrants from other EU states, which gives them the freedom to work here but does not give them access to the full range of benefits that UK citizens enjoy.

3. Negotiate a new  arrangement with the EU either over benefits or to prolong the transitional arrangements for entry of Romanians and Bulgarians.

           I appreciate many readers just want to pull out fo the EU altogether to avoid this kind of issue and re-establish our own national rules over all these matters. However, there is no sign of the current Parliament wishing to do this, so the government does have to consider how it can either negotiate a solution or find one within current EU law.

          The government does not wish to forecast how many people we might be talking about. The last Labour government had a hopelessly wrong forecast at the time of the admission of the last Eastern European members. As a result the UK  needed many more extra homes and jobs than was imagined in the official plans and forecasts.  The difficulty in guessing how many might find the UK attractive means there is even more pressure on the government to find a solution to this problem. The BBC has attempted to guess that it could be several hundred thousand. The truth is, no-one knows.