The Government plans to "tackle Labour's legacy of debt" yet they are also proposing a number of tax cuts. But there is an alternative way to reducing the deficit.
An email from David Cameron to Conservative supporters on Monday evening promised that the new Government would “tackle Labour’s legacy of debt”. No mention, of course, that the Conservative party were complicit in calls for light touch regulation and had been calling for years for an end to “burdensome” and “unnecessary” regulation. They will do this by focusing on “benefits, tax credits, and public sector pensions“. But there is an alternative to “Osborne’s bombshell“.
The graph below from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how Government revenue and spending has widened since the recession started. It shows clearly that before the crash, current spending excluding capital projects and revenues were virtually in balance. The deficit has been caused by increased spending – primarily due to automatic stabilisers such as unemployment benefits and the financial sector bail outs – but also by falling tax receipts.
In this public finance environment, it is extraordinary that the Coalition Agreement argues for several tax cuts including:
• an increase in the personal allowance for income tax – a Lib Dem priority which does nothing for the poorest families;
• a regressive move to cut to the planned increase in employer National Insurance – dubbed Labour’s “jobs tax“, ironic given the Government’s focus on cutting public sector jobs;
• reductions to the corporation tax rate which will do little to boost private sector output;
• a freeze to Council Tax in England for at least a year; and
• the introduction of a transferable tax allowances for married couples to “recognise marriage in the tax system” – a policy which will discriminates against single parents, widows, and married couples where both couples are in full-time work.
Recent research by Stan Greenberg shows that tw0-thirds of voters believe that “it is not the time to cut taxes” (p.44). Some spending cuts will, of course, be necessary (who really mourns the loss of ID cards?) while the overall level of spending will fall if the recovery is secured. But the Government’s planned attacks on the solidarity and redistributive impact of the welfare state is only one approach to deficit reduction. The alternative is to abandon these tax cuts and push ahead with many of the progressive tax raising proposals in the Compass report, ‘In place of cuts‘.
UPDATE 13.10:
Paul Krugman has an excellent blog outlining why the “fiscal austerity” of Cameron, Merkel and others is affecting the rest of the world:
We do have a framework for thinking about this issue: the Mundell-Fleming model. And according to that model (does anyone still learn this stuff?), fiscal contraction in one country under floating exchange rates is in fact contractionary for the world as a hole. The reason is that fiscal contraction leads to lower interest rates, which leads to currency depreciation, which improves the trade balance of the contracting country — partly offsetting the fiscal contraction, but also imposing a contraction on the rest of the world. (Rudi Dornbusch’s 1976 Brookings Paper went through all this.)
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
23 Responses to “The alternative to “Osborne’s bombshell””
Haylz Lou
RT @leftfootfwd: The alternative to "Osborne's bombshell" – stop the Lib-Con's tax cuts http://bit.ly/aiRESu
Anthony Painter
Good @leftfootfwd post on debt. See how current spending was covered by revenues until…the crash. Go figure. http://bit.ly/aoOVZv
House Of Twits
RT @leftfootfwd The alternative to "Osborne's bombshell" – stop the Lib-Con's tax cuts http://bit.ly/aiRESu
DevonChap
But the Treasury and the IMF beleive that the banking collapse has permamently reduced the size of the banking sector in the UK that provided a large part of HMG’s tax receipts. So even once the recession is worked though we will still be out of balance, since tax revenues are permamently reduced from that source. Also interest payments will have increased on the money borrowed during the recession. So together the money available for spending is reduced. Cuts are needed, waiting and hoping is not an option.
Billy Blofeld
No mention, of course, of Gordon’s Tripartite system which was found “unable to fulfil one of its main purposes” namely financial stability.
As Americans like to say – Labour screwed the pooch.