HMRC has just released its estimate of what tax reliefs cost the Treasury each year. This is sparking, as it obviously will, demands that some to all of these be closed so that ever more of the economy can flow through government. The thing is, the targets being aimed at are peanuts as opposed to the Great Big Nuts of the system that should be targeted.
By far the largest of these reliefs is VAT rates. And there’s entirely good economic logic for removing those reductions in rates. For what is it that swallows all the money?
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Tax relief ‘giveaways’ to wealthy cost Britain at least £4bn a yearNope, it’s not that, that’s a rounding error. It’s this:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Analysis of figures published by HM Revenue and Customs on Thursday revealed that the total cost of Britain’s system of tax relief had risen to a record £164bn annually – more than the entire NHS budget.Sweden charges VAT on food. And we really shouldn’t be subsidising the consumption of energy now, should we? Not in this world of climate change. In fact, that reduced rate of VAT on energy is part of that $5 trillion we’re said to, globally, use to subsidise fossil fuel consumption. Really, we should stop doing that.
Or maybe we shouldn’t? This being a useful litmus test for those who will try to use these figures. There will indeed be, as there is, shouting about that £4 billion. But that’s as near nothing compared to that £53 billion. So, people who are serious about reducing tax relief so as to reduce austerity – which should they be saying we should do away with? And which will they say we should do away with?
Quite, they’re not being serious, are they? Especially given that climate change part, the VAT subsidy being one of the things they already cry havoc about.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
It's good to have a transaction tax on consumption including food and energy. It's bad to have a transaction tax on banking transactions. The only non-semantic difference between the two being that VAT is extremely regressive and hurts the poor most, but as is often said in these pages, squeeze them until the pips squeak.
Citation please. VAT is a flat tax and is indifferent to the income or wealth of the person doing the buying.
There are even nuances to suggest the 0 and 5% bands might favour the rich as being rich correlates with age. The elderly run their heating at a higher temp, the rich take more air travel ( no fuel duty there afaik ) and the young spend more on take-aways. The young buy clothes. The fat, which correlates slightly with being thick and poor, go to slimming world ( VAT payable ) while the rich take badminton classes ( VAT exempt I think ).
Council Tax, a tv licence, VED and the price of a passport are deeply regressive. VAT is flat.
From Investopedia: A regressive tax is a tax applied uniformly, taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. It is in opposition to a progressive tax, which takes a larger percentage from high-income earners.
Vat isn't a transactions tax, it's a consumption tax. It's not charged on each transaction, it's on the final consumption and once only - even though it's collected in stages.
If you re-read my comment, I said "non-semantic" difference.
But it's very much more than a semantic difference. The effects are entirely different.