Treasury

The government is very pleased with itself today for closing a couple of tax loopholes such that Barclays will have to pay £500 million more to the Exchequer. And little wonder why. Not only does it support their rhetoric about a ‘tougher approach’ to tax avoidance, but — on the principle that ‘every little helps’ — it also hammers another few chips from the deficit. Broadly speaking, this sort of action is uncontroversial. In the battle of wits over taxation, the government is well within its legal rights to close loopholes, just as companies are well within theirs to exploit them. But this case is complicated by the fact that

When Tim Montgomerie first started calling for new wealth taxes I was horrified. Sweden has only just abolished its wealth tax after seeing hundreds of billions of kroner leave the country in capital flight over a number of years. Other countries have found wealth taxes are associated with narrow bases, high costs of collection and often very unfair treatment for different classes of assets. We should not replicate that here. As his proposals have been refined though, it isn’t that bad. More bands would be a relatively reasonable way of making the Council Tax system more progressive. It might require a revaluation which would be politically toxic, and it would

Nick Clegg, Ed Balls, Liam Fox, David Davis, the Centre for Policy Studies, the Centre for Social Justice and the Sun. It seems almost everyone thinks George Osborne should cut taxes in his Budget next month — the only disagreements are over how. Here’s a quick guide to the main proposals so far: There will doubtless be other suggestions before 21 March when we will finally learn which, if any, Osborne has chosen. UPDATE: The table originally gave the cost of the CPS’ corporation tax cut as £8.5bn. This is their ‘static’ estimate of the cost, but a more realistic estimate, derived from the Treasury’s ready reckoner, is £4bn.

More evidence this morning that the government won’t be dropping the 50p rate any time soon, in the form of an interview with Danny Alexander. ‘This is not the time to be looking to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy,’ he says to the Daily Telegraph’s James Kirkup and Robert Winnett. This is a line that other ministers have deployed recently, and not just Lib Dems. And it suggests that the coalition is confident that HMRC’s forthcoming review of the rate will say that it does indeed raise revenue. But the matter won’t end there. The IFS recently said of the HMRC review that, ‘tax records for just one

There’s some rare good news for the government in today’s public finance statistics. Public sector net borrowing in November is estimated at £18.1 billion, down from £20.4 billion last year. This means that total borrowing for the first eight months of this financial year is £88.3 billion, down 11 per cent on last year. That’s lower than expected, and puts us on target to undershoot the OBR’s forecast of £127 billion in 2011-12. That’d be a relief for the coalition, after Labour hit them hard when the OBR upped their borrowing forecasts last month. But this deficit reduction cannot be put down to spending restraint in Whitehall. In fact, central

It has only taken several months of bitter negotiation and a national strike to get here, but a deal between the unions and the government over public sector pensions could finally be in sight. Danny Alexander has just announced the details in Parliament, but basically it seems that, across a range of schemes, the coalition has offered kinder accrual rates than it did in November. And this more generous proposal has now been accepted in principle, or at least not turned down, by 26 of the 28 relevant unions. Among those who still oppose it outright are the PCS, led by everyone’s favourite union malcontent, Mark Serwotka. What happens next,

‘The most far-reaching reforms of British banking in modern history.’ That’s how George Osborne called it in Parliament this afternoon, in a statement that contained few surprises. What the government’s doing, in large part, is to follow exactly the recommendations contained in September’s Vickers Report. But is that really as far-reaching, or as radical, as the Chancellor would have us believe?   Certainly, many of these reforms are encouraging: measures such as ‘bail-ins’ and ‘living wills’ should facilitate the orderly winding-up of insolvent institutions, and reduce the necessity for taxpayer bailouts. But other parts of the government’s reform package are less convincing. For instance, additional capital buffers and reductions in