Sunday 12 July 2020

Paying for it

 



Siren voices are already shouting alarm about the additional government expenditure necessary to keep the economy alive and kicking during and after the pandemic.  Shock, horror, we are warned:  "The Debt to GDP ratio is now over 100%, something that it hasn't been since 1963."

Well, I was in my mid-twenties in 1963 and I can assure them that it was a very good time to be alive.  Not quite as seminal, perhaps, as Philip Larkin's famous poem claims:


Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the "Chatterley" ban
And the Beatles' first LP.


The sexual revolution, and indeed most aspects of the "swinging sixties," rather passed me by.  I'm not sure now whether to be thankful that I was protected from indulgence or sorry that I missed out, but in the swing or merely observing, it was a thoroughly enjoyable and stimulating time of excitement, hope and optimism.

I was in the first few years of my teaching career, pleased with what I was achieving, looking forward to greater challenges to come, and without the slightest apprehension that I should ever be without a job.  Others in my age group who found that they had chosen the wrong careers on leaving school cheerfully jacked in their jobs, retrained and began others.

The Prime-Minister, Harold Macmillan, had told us that we'd "never had it so good" and there was some truth in that.  Employment was secure, the average cost of pint  was around 2/-(about 10p in the as yet to be introduced new money), and houses averaged at £2 670 . The £sterling exchanged at $2.8n nearly three times what it's worth today, and you could enjoy a continental holiday for £50.

The Labour Leader Harold Wilson, from nearby Huddersfield, assured us that life could be even better if we dragged ourselves firmly out of the Tory comfort zone into the second half of the century  and harnessed the "white heat of the technological revolution." In the 1964 general election I attended a Labour Party rally in next-door Cleckheaton, where their Deputy Leader, George Brown, concluded his speech by proclaiming that  if we did all the things he'd outlined "We really will build a New Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land."  Even though I was already a member of the Liberal Party I stood up with the rest and cheered.

True, wages were measured in hundreds rather than thousands a year, and there were some unexpected hitches in achieving the New Jerusalem, but the over-all atmosphere was one of great confidence and optimism.

I do not remember anybody ever mentioning that the Debt/GDP ratio was over 100%

In our  economics courses there was a brief discussion of whether or not there National Debt was a "burden"and the standard answer was "No." Indeed, given the fact that growth and inflation would gradually reduce the ratio is was foolish  not to borrow to invest in the future.

This remains broadly true today, though with certain modifications,.

Then almost all the National Debt was held domesticly: it was money we owed ourselves, borrowed from those of us willing to lend (pension funds, insurance companies, financial institutions, holders of National Savings, even gamblers buying Premium Bonds) and paid back by the rest of us, including the lenders, through taxation.  Today, as a result of the "Big Bang" financial deregulation,  about 30% of the debt is held overseas, and if this generation of tax-payers doesn't repay it than future generations will have to.

Then continuous economic growth was seen as natural and desirable.  Today some of us have our doubts and would like us to look towards a Steaday State Economy, with progress being made by fairer sharing rather than further depletion of the earth's scarce resources and poisoning of the environment. Perhaps with more attention we can devise a method of achieving green growth.

On the plus side, back then the interest which had to be paid on the national debt was real. Today interest rates are close to zero if not actually negative, and so there's never been a better time to borrow.

It may be argued that government borrowing, which adds to the National Debt, is fine for investment purposes but not for current expenditure, and that much of what Rishi Sunak  is proposing to spend (eg the furlough payments) is in fact current expenditure.  True, but keeping the economy alive for the future  is, in the present circumstances, equivalent  to investment.

So let there be no worries about how to pay for it.  

Pay for it we will, as we have done in the past.  Personally I hope we will pay for it by intelligent and fair taxation rather than cuts in government expenditure.  A wealth tax has been mooted and supported by no less an authority than the former head of the civil service Sir Gus O'Donnell.  In an article in the Guardian last week, Polly Toynbee estimates that a wealth tax of 10% would yield £1tr, enough to pay for everything we want to do and more so.  

Even it that includes 10% for my modest wealth I'll by happy to vote for it.

11 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But at what cost in erosion of the fundamental principle of respect for private property?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We tax income, which is private property. Capital is taxed at death, or would be if the inheritance tax worked effectively. So no principle breached if capital is taxed during life.

      Delete
    2. We tax income, which is private property

      Income is a bit different, because the tax happens — conceptually at least — at the point where the money is transferred. It's not the same as the government just deciding that that thing you thought you owned? That belongs to us now.

      A wealth tax does rather set a dangerous precedent that everything you own is only yours because the government in its gracious magnanimity allows you to keep it, and it could at any point decide to take it back. As if we are all children and all our stuff really belongs to the government as our parent.

      Delete
    3. The original post calls for "intelligent and fair taxation." A wealth tax is just one possibility for which, given Gus O'Donnell's support, maybe the time has come. Others are a land tax, a financial transactions tax, clampdowns of both tax evasion and avoidance.

      Your distinction between taxing income, OK because it is taken "at the point of transfer" and wealth, not OK because it is now "private property" doesn't convince me. After all, a lot of people (businesses, self employed) pay income tax in arrears, long after it has been received. That, I understand, is why there is a frenzy towards the end of the financial year to get in the assessment form on time and avoid a fine.

      However, the main point is that the costs of avoiding the worst consequences of this pandemic should be fairly shared, and should be achieved either over time, as in the 1960s, or by taxation that does not damage the possibility of economic recovery. and not by cutting services and payments to those lest able to bear them.

      Delete
    4. Your distinction between taxing income, OK because it is taken "at the point of transfer" and wealth, not OK because it is now "private property" doesn't convince me. After all, a lot of people (businesses, self employed) pay income tax in arrears, long after it has been received. That, I understand, is why there is a frenzy towards the end of the financial year to get in the assessment form on time and avoid a fine.

      No, that doesn't work, because the tax is due at the point the money is transferred. It's a tax on the transfer. When the money is actually paid is merely an administrative detail; the liability arises from and at the point of the transfer. And if the rate of income tax changes, for example, the rate which applies is the rate at the time of the transfer, even if the bill is settled after the new rate comes in. The government isn't retrospectively deciding that it owns some of your property.

      Would you not agree that a wealth tax is basically expropriation? And that once a government has shown it is wiling to expropriate private property on a whim, there's no guarantee it won't do it again? It sets a precedent. Yes, you can say all you like, 'No, this is a one off' but the Rubicon will have been crossed. Once the unthinkable has happened it's no longer unthinkable and everyone who can will, quite sensibly, remove all their property from the jurisdiction of any country which has shown itself willing to simply confiscate private property.

      Delete
    5. I don't find a wealth tax "unthinkable." I believe it is perfectly sensible. The French do it from time to time and seem to survive quite happily. Possibly other counties as well.

      Do you find death duties (inheritance tax) unthinkable as well?

      Delete
    6. I don't find a wealth tax "unthinkable." I believe it is perfectly sensible. The French do it from time to time and seem to survive quite happily. Possibly other counties as well.

      That'll be why every successful French person (quite sensibly) leaves France, then? Often to come to the UK, and thereby pay taxes here instead, thus benefiting all of us in the UK. If we start acting like the French and showing that we might on whim expropriate their property, don't you think they might (again quite sensibly) go somewhere else instead, taking their tax revenues with them?

      Do you find death duties (inheritance tax) unthinkable as well?

      I find them distasteful, is that the same thing? But they are, like income tax, capital gains tax or VAT, at least levied at a point of transfer of assets, rather than simply being out and out expropriation of private property.

      Delete
  3. In '63 we even had the Beatles and Stones too. Even the Daily Mail was obsessed with The Beatles with dozens of stories about them each day, where every headline seemed to have four moptop haircuts.
    As a newly fresh university student ("fresher"?) I could get a pint for 1/3 (6p?) in my local Working Man's Club - actually most members were local businessmen (launderette, hairdresser, insurance) - but yes, around 2 bob for Brew XI in the lounge bar of the swankiest bar in town.
    And a 100 quid per term maintenance grant (a fortune!) Golden days.
    I am sometimes told that I should feel guilty, but I really thought that successive governments would improve the situations for everyone in future, and at the time I was rather jealous about what the future might hold. Oh, does anyone know what happened to the profits from North Sea gas? Or was it just Norway that benefited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like you I don't feel the least bit guilty, and am prepared to work for a society in which "all sorts and conditions"can have the similar fun and opportunities.

      Delete
  4. GET YOUR BLANK ATM CARD Get $5,500 USD every day, for six months! See how it works Do you know you can hack into any ATM machine with a hacked ATM card?? make up your mind before applying, straight deal... Order for a blank ATM card now and get millions within a week!: contact us via email address::alexanderhackers01@gmail.com We have specially programmed ATM cards that can be used to hack ATM machines, the ATM cards can be used to withdraw at the ATM or swipe, at any store or POS. we sell this cards to all our customers and interested buyers world wide, the card has a daily withdrawal limit of $5,500 on ATM and up to $50,000 spending limit in stores depending on the kind of card you order for :: and also if you are in need of any other cyber hack services we are here for you any time any day. Here is our price list for the ATM CARDS: Cards that withdraw $5,500 per day costs $380 USD Cards that withdraw $10,000 per day costs $665 USD Cards that withdraw $35,000 per day costs $3,550 USD Cards that withdraw $50,000 per day costs $5,500 USD Cards that withdraw $100,000 per day costs $8,000 USD Make up your mind before applying, straight deal!!! The price include shipping fees and charges, order now: contact us via email address::alexanderhackers01@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete