Thursday, 1 February 2024

Tax cuts?

 

To cut or not to cut. . . .?

 

For some time now the government has been dangling the prospects of (income?) tax cuts in the coming budget and its supportive press has been salivating over the prospect.

 

However, a few days ago the IMF warned that in the UK’s present circumstances this was not a good idea. On Wednesday 31st January the Guardian’s Economics Editor, Larry Elliott (a Brexiteer, ouch) reported the IMF spokesperson’s summary of their reasoning as follows:

“Preserving high quality public services and undertaking critical public investments to boost growth and achieve the net-zero targets will imply higher spending needs over the medium term  than are currently reflected  in the government’s budget plans.  Accommodating these needs, while assuredly stabilising the debt/GDP ratio, will already require generating additional high quality fiscal savings, including on the tax side.”

Those of us who live here (I believe the chief economist of the IMF, to the delight of the tabloids, is French, and in any case the IMF is based in the US) might think it is a bit late in the day  to “preserve” the high quality of our public services.  “Restore “ would be a more appropriate verb.

 Taking the “profound decline of the Royal Mail” as an example,  Aditya Chakrabortty (Guardian 1st February) describes how “many aspects of British life  have been devalued  and degraded – even while those at the top have made a killing.”

Chakrabortty argues that ”[f]rom Thatcher onwards the Tories have justified privatisation as bringing in essential investment”* In the case of the Royal Mail, “whatever investment has been made in [it] over the past decade , it has been dwarfed by the amount paid out to shareholders.  About £2bn has been paid out to [them} since 2013, equivalent to 60% of its profits after tax.

 Chakrabortty concludes his article: “How does a great  institution die?  The same way  as a country sinks into complacent underachievement : with false promises  from its politicians, with poor management from its corporate leaders, with a lazy regulator – and moneymen who rake off  as much as they can before running for the exit.”

And to the Royal Mail we can add the water industry, the railways, care or the elderly, hospitals loaded with PFI debt, crumbling schools,  PPE. . . . .

There is much to repair.  Tax cuts are about as appropriate as blood letting in 18th century medicine.

*I would add private sector (ruthless, and very highly “compensated”) management skills and modern (precarious) working practises. 

5 comments:

  1. However, a few days ago the IMF warned that in the UK’s present circumstances this was not a good idea

    Yes, but the IMF promotes a big-state, high-tax model whereas we want the state to do less and let people keep more of their own money to do with as they wish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But I don't fancy filling in potholes or extracting my own teeth.

      Delete
    2. But I don't fancy filling in potholes or extracting my own teeth.

      Fortunately, you don’t have to — any more than you have to grow your own food or make your own car or refine the petrol to run it yourself. That’s the glory of specialisation allowed by a free market economy.

      Delete
  2. But the free market hasn't provided enough affordable dentists and , unless you go back to turnpikes, a public authority is needed to keep the roads in good condition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the free market hasn't provided enough affordable dentists

      How do you know? There isn’t a free market in affordable dentists, there’s the NHS which pays flat rates. Perhaps if dentists were allowed to compete on price, with people on low incomes given subsidised dental insurance that they could top-up if they wished and use at the dentists of their choice, and also if artificial limits on dental school places were removed, then there would be an increase in supply. Isn’t it worth a try?

      and , unless you go back to turnpikes, a public authority is needed to keep the roads in good condition.

      Now you’re just talking about the free-rider problem and, yes, a public authority is one way to solve that. But the modern state has expanded way beyond just what is necessary to provide non-excludable, non-rivalrous goods; we need to get it back under control and strip it down until it just does its core functions of that, providing justice, and putting in place a very basic safety net for the genuinely needy who fall on hard times

      Delete