TonHE 2022-23 The tax year ends on April 5. Dates are the easiest aspect of the UK tax system. People in England, Wales and Northern Ireland pay a basic income tax of 20 percent on those earning more than £12,570 ($15,612) a year; Scotland has its own rate. Britons must also pay National Insurance Contributions (network cards) Earn more than 12% of £242 per week, unless they are over pension age or self-employed.
Your browser does not support
Recent university graduates with student debt must pay an extra 9% on any income over £27,295. The 40% income tax rate kicks in at just over £50,000, at which point parents are also taxed on benefit payments known as child benefits. The result could be a marginal tax rate of 60% for those with two children and 70% for those with three. For every £1 you earn over £100,000, you’ll lose 50p of your £12,570 tax-free allowance; this drops to zero if you earn £125,140 or more. That means a marginal tax rate of at least 60% for high-income taxpayers — rising to more than 100% for parents who also start losing tax-free child care benefits. Just keep going, keep going, keep going.
No country has a perfect tax system. However, Britain’s shortcomings are becoming more and more obvious. Part of the reason is that the state takes more money out of the pockets of its citizens. Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), a fiscal watchdog predicts that from 2025, the government will collect about 35% of gross domestic product On the tax front, it was the second-highest level since the end of World War II.
But the main problem is that the flood of exemptions distorts the economy, confuses taxpayers and robs the treasury of revenue. The goal of tax policy should be to raise funds efficiently and equitably. Taxes should encourage productive activities as much as possible, but discourage harmful activities, such as pollution. Fairness means not only ensuring that the overall system is progressive so that those with the most resources contribute more, but also that people in similar situations are treated equally.
The UK tax system is flawed in all these respects. Start with the three main taxes: income tax, network cards and VAT (VAT). Together, these three taxes account for around £500 billion in annual government revenue, or two-thirds of total tax revenue (see Figure 1). They are full of complications.income tax and network cardBoth apply to wages, but partly network cards are also paid by the employer.self-employment wages network cardat different rates.People over state pension age do not pay network cardSecond. Income tax on investment income; network cardno.
This discrepancy motivates fraud. The self-employed pay less National Insurance contributions; the same goes for those who set themselves up as “companies” and pay their wages as dividends, counting as investment income. Businesses can collude with their employees to pretend they are not real employees at all, thereby lowering both parties’ tax bills. This rewards those who tinker with the employment structure rather than doing something more productive. The solution to such problems is simple: combine the two taxes into one simplified income tax. The benefits will be huge.Analysis OBR It was discovered that the 2021 rule change, forcing companies to check whether their contractors are bona fide businesses, has raised £1.5bn for the treasury.
VAT, which accounts for £140 billion in revenue (approximately 5% of total revenue gross domestic product), are also riddled with holes. The tax is levied on most final purchases by consumers at the rate of 20%. But a range of goods, from food to domestic air travel, are zero-rated; others, such as domestic energy, attract just 5%.Companies with an annual turnover of less than £85,000 do not need to register VAT fundamental.Such exemptions are expected to cost the Treasury £67bn in the 2022-23 tax year, about half of the total actually raised VAT.
These exemptions reflect a variety of bona fide motives.Excluding goods that the poor are more likely to buy aims to ensure VAT is progressive. At the same time, the exemption for small companies is intended to free them from the administrative burden of registering for taxation.
Both reasons are wrong. While the overall tax system should be progressive, not every tax category needs to be progressive.and VAT The objective of the exemption for food, etc. is not clear. For example, exempting children’s clothing from taxes would benefit wealthy people who are likely to buy designer brands more than those who rely on second-hand goods. A more effective way to reallocate funds would be to remove exemptions and use the extra money to boost welfare levels that do target the poor.
In principle, the exemption for small companies makes sense; VAT Returns are indeed a hassle. But the threshold incentivizes companies to stay below a certain size. The amount frozen in cash since 2018 has accumulated to the £85,000 mark on time (see Figure 2). By the end of the 2025-26 tax year freeze, OBR The number of firms expected to be slightly below the threshold has almost doubled, to 44,000 from 23,000 in 2018-19.
Not only is this bad for the public wallet, it misses VAT Receipts payable for large companies, but not for the economy as a whole, because large businesses tend to be more productive. A lower bar would make staying small a less viable option.It will also bring the UK more in line with European norms – for example, German companies only need €22,000 ($24,050) in revenue to start paying VAT.
The same problem plagues other taxes.UK property taxes are the highest of any country in the world OECD, a club of rich economies: it raised 3.8% of national income in this way. On the face of it, this sounds sensible: Property cannot be moved overseas, and owners often get a windfall without breaking a sweat, just in an affluent area. Taxing such gains is justified for reasons of efficiency and fairness.
Unfortunately, UK property taxation is poorly designed. They include stamp duty, a tax on the sale value of property that is paid by buyers, and a council tax levied on residents but based on property valuations in 1991 (when it hastily replaced poll tax).
Stamp duty distorts the property market. Since it is only charged when a property is sold, the tax discourages moving, thus sorting people into places where they can be more productive. Council taxes, meanwhile, are retrograde and arbitrary: today’s valuations are only loosely related to those of more than 30 years ago. This has benefited property owners in London, where house prices have risen faster while prices in the rest of the UK have fallen as a result. A land value tax based on updated valuations would be fairer and more efficient, encouraging landowners to make the most of space.
Treasury should take a lot of responsibility for this situation. The British Treasury is very powerful, integrating economic planning, taxation and budget management. Its control over its financial resources effectively gives it veto power over how other departments spend their money. But the Treasury itself is outside the normal decision-making process. The annual fixed budget, the highly dramatic affair in which the Chancellor announces all changes to fiscal policy, is prepared in secret and without consultation. Many newspapers judge the budget by whether the chancellor manages to “conjure a rabbit out of a hat” and surprise the masses.
This arrangement encourages year-to-year adjustments and gimmicks rather than coherent strategy. Over time it led to a surge in tax cuts, as cutting taxes on certain categories of spending allowed the chancellor to announce something that was welcome in the budget.For example, any transport secretary who proposes to subsidize domestic passenger flights would be snubbed by the Treasury Department; the equivalent VAT Waivers have not received such scrutiny.
shoot the rabbit
One solution is to get rid of dramatic effects. There is no reason to wait for a parliamentary drama if tax changes are needed. No budget speech means one less chance to fiddle if they don’t need to adjust.Taxes should also be indexed to inflation so the chancellor doesn’t need to get CongressmanFor example, we support keeping the real value of fuel taxes unchanged. Failure to raise petrol taxes for more than a decade has cost the Treasury a cumulative £80bn.
Other countries involve relevant ministries as well as the Ministry of Finance in formulating their fiscal plans. In the UK, collective cabinet agreement on the budget is hypothetical rather than negotiated. Former prime minister Tony Blair asked his chancellor Gordon Brown to “hint” at the 1998 budget, an adviser says.
Making tax policy publicly means a lot of lobbying, but getting people involved before announcing it is Compare u– Steering under pressure.Former chancellor George Osborne is trying to get rid of a VAT The removal of hot takeaway food from the 2012 Budget, which raised a paltry £110m, was immediately dubbed the “pie tax” by the media and quickly abolished. Kwasi Kwarteng’s September mini-budget more vividly illustrates how budget surprises can lead to disastrous results.
Changing the tax system can be politically difficult. The loss of eliminating immunity will be concentrated in a few groups; the benefits of simplification and efficiency will be diffused. But these benefits have become more important as the tax has grown bigger and more confusing, and Britain’s productivity problems show no signs of easing. Any serious effort to reform the country would change the way Britons taxed and the process by which those taxes were set. ■
For more expert analysis of the UK’s biggest news, subscribe to Blighty, our weekly subscriber newsletter.
