Budget 2017: An IEA Briefing

Research

Budget 2017: An IEA Briefing

Philip Booth

6 March 2017

SUGGESTED

Lifestyle Economics

Cheap as Chips: Is a healthy diet affordable?

Healthy food cheaper than 'junk food', finds new IEA research

2 March 2017

Monetary Policy

SMPC votes Seven / Two to Raise Bank Rate in March

SMPC votes seven / two to raise bank rate in March

13 March 2017

latest

Government and Institutions

The hidden perks enjoyed by the public sector

1 July 2024

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Budget-briefing-2017.pdf

Download (PDF)

Executive Summary:

When applied to investments in company shares, capital gains tax is generally a double tax because it taxes anticipated profits and retained profits that are taxed elsewhere in the system. It should therefore be abolished. Where investments are designed to hide income as capital gains, income tax should be charged on investment returns as already happens in some cases. Capital gains tax raises relatively little revenue and, as a tax on transactions is highly distortive.

If capital gains tax is not abolished, price indexation allowance should be re-introduced so that investors are not taxed on illusory gains.  The government should reconsider the future of inheritance tax. The UK is an outlier in charging a tax on estates at death and at such a high rate. Taxpayers go to great lengths to avoid paying it. Taxes on estates are a form of double taxation (on income accumulated as savings and passed on at death) and favour consumption over investment.

One option would be to follow the example of a number of developed countries and abolish the tax altogether.

Alternatively, it could be reasoned that people who inherit money or are given large gifts should be taxed on the income they receive from gifts and estates in a similar way to how they are taxed on other forms of income. The government could move to a system that taxes large gifts at a rate closer to 20 per cent over a lifetime taxfree limit. Countries that retain taxes on transfers of capital use such a model. This would reduce the burden on estates that are widely disbursed and, with a lower rate of tax, reduce the incentives for avoidance.

Land and property taxes in the UK are high but extraordinarily inefficient. In particular, stamp duty, as a tax on transactions, reduces labour mobility and also makes it more expensive for people to downsize or move home for other reasons. Council tax is regressive in many respects and business rates act as a disincentive to investment in business property.

There are now approximately ten different sets of rules of stamp duty depending on the value of the property; how it is owned; and whether it is a second property owned by a married couple or by an individual (a situation which discriminates against married couples). There are eight different rates of duty, again depending on the nature of ownership. Just 20 years ago, there were two rates (one being zero) and one set of rules.

The government should abolish stamp duty, council tax and business rates and replace them with property taxes that are much less economically harmful. Such changes could easily be phased in over five or ten years.

Changes to these three groups of taxes would considerably simplify the tax system and make taxes more economically efficient. The changes would be largely self-contained. The proposals would represent a radical reform of, and a huge improvement to the UK tax system.

Fullscreen Mode

Philip Booth

Philip Booth is Senior Academic Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He is also Director of the Vinson Centre and Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham and Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham. He also holds the position of (interim) Director of Catholic Mission at St. Mary’s having previously been Director of Research and Public Engagement and Dean of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. From 2002-2016, Philip was Academic and Research Director (previously, Editorial and Programme Director) at the IEA. From 2002-2015 he was Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Cass Business School. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Federal Studies at the University of Kent and Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Australia. Previously, Philip Booth worked for the Bank of England as an adviser on financial stability issues and he was also Associate Dean of Cass Business School and held various other academic positions at City University. He has written widely, including a number of books, on investment, finance, social insurance and pensions as well as on the relationship between Catholic social teaching and economics. He is Deputy Editor of Economic Affairs. Philip is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and an honorary member of the Society of Actuaries of Poland. He has previously worked in the investment department of Axa Equity and Law and was been involved in a number of projects to help develop actuarial professions and actuarial, finance and investment professional teaching programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. Philip has a BA in Economics from the University of Durham and a PhD from City University.