Economy

JEET. That, according to Andrew Grice in the Independent, is the new ‘buzzword’ circling around Libdemville (population: 57 MPs, and a few others). And it stands for the issues that they want to keep mentioning whenever they can: jobs, education, environment and tax. Fair enough. Although it is striking that only one of these issues is unlikely to put them in close combat with the Tories. Both parties of the coalition support free schools and academies, and the Lib Dems are getting their pupil premium too, so education is relatively uncontroversial territory. But as for the others… Jobs. The conflict here focuses on the role of the state. As George

The last three years have been one big transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. Thanks to record low interest rates, savers have gained little from tucking their money away in bank accounts, whereas borrowers have reaped the benefits. According to data from the Bank of England, mortgage holders paid interest of £1328 billion in the three years from 2008-2011, compared to £1897 billion in the preceding three years. That’s a difference of £569 billion, or just over £50,000 for each of the UK’s 11.2 million mortgage holders. Call it a stimulus if you like. But it’s a stimulus that involves clobbering savers so that borrowers can buy a flatscreen

There’s a huge amount of confusion surrounding the proposals for a ‘mansion tax’ and, more generally, taxation at the top end of the housing market. Old and novel arguments are rolled out by its proponents: that it is easier to tax wealth that can’t be taken offshore, or that the current level of taxation on high value property (generally perceived to be low) isn’t fair on first time buyers struggling to raise a deposit at the other end of the market. In reality, there are three main reasons why a mansion tax is unwarranted and potentially counter-productive, which I discuss in more detail in a Centre for Policy Studies report released

Can you trust someone like Alex Salmond to save Scotland from future crashes? The First Minister appeared on BBC1’s Sunday Politics earlier, where he was challenged about how he sees it. And it seems he may just be a graduate of the Gordon Brown school of Scottish financial mismanagement. In a Times debate on Friday,  SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon said they’d use sterling — whether the Bank of England liked it or not — and would not need the Bank to be a lender of last resort because Scotland would be so sensible it wouldn’t need it. An interesting suggestion, given that the 1707 Union between Scotland and England

Youth unemployment is approaching crisis levels in Britain. For almost two decades, Britain’s more flexible labour market had favourable effects on youth employment. But the re-regulation of the British economy has narrowed the difference between our jobs market, and that of the continent. Meanwhile the British poverty trap has been strengthened by a dysfunctional welfare state: British workers can in some circumstances keep as little as 5p in every extra pound they earn if they find work. Who would break their back for less than 50p an hour? We’re paying people not to bother, so little wonder that most of the employment rise — in the last government, and under

With all these tax cut suggestions kicking about — and with the British economy desperately in need of some oomph — it’s worth asking: which would help growth the most? It’s not of course the only consideration, but it is clearly an important one as we struggle to find our way out of recession.   Fortunately, the OECD is on hand with two recent reports to help answer our question. The first, ‘Tax Reform and Economic Growth’, divides taxes into four broad categories and ranks them on how harmful they are to growth: This suggests that the Centre for Policy Studies is right — on growth grounds at least —