Tax

Keir Starmer is not a lucky politician. He has again been forced into self isolation after testing positive for Covid, which means he misses the first PMQs of the year. This is the Labour leader’s sixth period of self-isolation. So, instead it will be Rayner versus Johnson at PMQs at the later time of 3 p.m. this afternoon. These contests are normally more hammer and tongs than the Johnson–Starmer ones. Rayner’s style is more direct than Starmer’s; and is often more effective in rattling Johnson.  The obvious area for her to go on today is cutting VAT on household energy bills. Labour is already in favour of this and Tory MPs are getting increasingly agitated about the issue.

Given the enthusiasm for tax cuts usually shown by Conservative MPs it is remarkable how few of them have, in public, raised objections to the government’s loose fiscal policy. True, the Prime Minister’s announcement of a hike in National Insurance ostensibly to pay for social care, elicited squeals from the back benches, yet last month’s Budget drew only muted objections. This was in spite of claims by the Resolution Foundation that the Budget will cost an average household £3000 a year – if you take into account the effect of higher prices as businesses seek to pass on their higher tax bills to consumers.

No one knows what will come out of the sausage making now going on up on Capitol Hill, but let’s take a look at one proposal to raise money to pay for some of the cost of the reconciliation bill. At the moment, capital gains are taxed only when the asset is sold or the owner dies. (The estate tax is just a tax on capital that is triggered by death rather than by sale.) Oregon senator Ron Wyden proposes that they be taxed every year whether sold or not. Unrealized capital gains are certainly a tempting target. After all, for people like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, practically their whole, vast fortunes are capital gains, the cost basis of their stock in Microsoft and Amazon is, at most, a few cents a share.

Tucked away in the reconciliation bill now bogged down in Congress is a requirement that banks report the annual deposits and withdrawals from every bank account that has activity of more than $600 a year. It would not list individual transactions, just the total money flow in and out. Ostensibly, this is to catch rich people who have been under reporting income. Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen gave as an example: “High-income individuals with opaque sources of income that are not reported to the IRS, there's a lot of tax fraud and cheating that's going on.” Wages, salaries and fees are already reported to the IRS through W-2 forms. So is investment income. That sort of income is what a large majority of American families depend on.

International cooperation is alive and well – at least when it comes to raising taxes. One hundred and thirty six countries have now signed up to a global minimum corporation tax of 15 per cent, proposed by G7 countries in June and pushed heavily by the UK Treasury. This is another step forward for what is thought to be the biggest overhaul to the international tax system in a century. The installation of a corporate tax floor is part of a comprehensive effort to reform how multinational companies are taxed: that is, to more precisely target where profits are being made (instead of where products are being created).

On October 3, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, based in Washington DC, released a huge trove of 11.9 million leaked documents pertaining to the wealth of hundreds of world leaders, public officials, and billionaires. Like the Panama Papers that were leaked in 2016, the Pandora Papers detail vast offshore holdings, perhaps as much as $32 trillion, that have allowed the beneficiaries to avoid taxes that would have been due had the wealth been held at home. For instance, a United Kingdom company controlled by Cherie Blair, the wife of former prime minister Tony Blair, acquired a £6.45 million ($8.8 million) property in London not directly but by purchasing a British Virgin Islands company.

There is about to be a two-phase onslaught on the living standards of those on low-to-middling incomes. On 1 October the energy price cap, for dual fuel, rises from £1,150 to £1,277. This is a rise of 11 per cent, at a time when furlough is ending and just a few days before the £1,000 a year uplift to Universal Credit is removed (which presumably Boris Johnson will not be swanking about in his big speech to Tory conference). That’s the first hit to living standards. There’ll then be a gradual further erosion of living standards with rising food inflation (of around five per cent, as per what Tesco’s chairman John Allan said on my show this week).

Perhaps it’s finally dawned on the government that they have an intergenerational inequality problem on their hands. The decision to suspend the pension triple-lock for one year to avoid an 8 per cent increase to the state pension would suggest so. Asset wealth is already excessively concentrated in the over-55s. To even this spendthrift government, a massive bump in pensions while the rest of the economy languishes is a step too far. But that’s exactly what happens every year anyway under the triple-lock. The policy means that even when the rest of the economy stagnates, pensioners receive a boost. It is a feature of the system, not a bug, which came into place as part of the coalition in 2010 and has quite clearly run its course.

It is a curious thing to exclude a vast group of generally quite well-heeled voters from funding a policy innovation that they will benefit from more than any other group. One might almost call it blatant favouritism. But Boris Johnson’s plan to pay for a big increase in resources going into social care long-term and the NHS short-term amounts to just that. By opting for a National Insurance increase to fund his proposals, the PM is ensuring that nobody over the state pension age of 66 will have to put their hands in their pockets. Neither will the extra financial burden fall on so-called 'unearned' income such as dividends on shares or interest on savings. Instead, working people under 66 will suffer a direct hit to their pay packet.

We are in the middle of a once-in-a-generation shift: working from home. There are skill shortages across the economy, supply bottlenecks, and empty supermarket shelves. A couple of million people are still set to come off furlough, back into jobs that may no longer exist. The labour market is in utter chaos. But, hey, here’s a good idea. Let's whack a tax on jobs. Really? The government’s widely leaked plan to increase National Insurance, a tax on jobs, could not come at a worse possible time.  The government’s widely leaked plan to increase National Insurance, a tax on jobs, could not come at a worse possible time We can all debate whether the government should raise taxes to fund social care.