Treasury

So let’s get this straight…

After today’s VAT changes: a) If you walked into a pasty shop and bought a pasty that has been kept hot in a cabinet (or in foil, or on a hot plate, or whatever), then you WOULD pay VAT. b) If instead that pasty had come straight out of the oven, then you WOULD NOT pay VAT. c) If the pasty was cold, or had been left to cool, you WOULD NOT pay VAT. d) If the pasty was cold, and then reheated in an oven or microwave before being handed over, then you WOULD pay VAT. e) If the pasty was being kept hot in a cabinet when you

The coalition rows back on the Budget’s VAT changes

No government likes to u-turn, and particularly not on a Budget measure. So, tonight’s changes to the VAT regime proposed by the Budget for Cornish pasties and static caravans are embarrassing for the coalition. It is also worth noting that they have come after they have taken most of the political heat they were likely to take for the changes, including in the House of Commons where there were decent-sized rebellions on both issues. One of the lessons that I suspect that politicians, and particularly the coalition, will learn from this episode is: don’t try and deal with the anomalies in the VAT system. Voters, for obvious and understandable reasons,

No time to tinker

Next week, the Institute of Directors and the Taxpayers’ Alliance will release what I humbly suggest will be the most powerful summary of the case for radical supply-side reform in a generation. The report of the 2020 Tax Commission runs to 417 pages, choc full of academic literature showing how big government chokes growth, and looking at what the optimal size of the state is. Broadly speaking, government spending is about half the size of economic output now and the optimal size is about a third. The recommendations are not being released until Monday, but it opens a very timely debate, which I preview in my Telegraph column. Here are

Let’s get real about the fiscal situation

Recently on Coffee House, and elsewhere, some people have been arguing that the deficit reduction isn’t happening fast enough. The latest, a paper from Tullet Prebon, argues that it’s wrong to say there are cuts. Its author, Dr Tim Morgan, reiterated its points on the Today Programme this morning. But it isn’t true — and the analysis itself proves it.   When this Government entered office, there was no credible plan to convince the bond markets that Britain was serious about dealing with its debts. So the new Coalition accelerated the pace at which the structural deficit was to be eliminated.   Some on the right and left disagree with

Politicians are avoiding the real problems with social care

‘The smell would be even worse’, says Zoe, the social worker I’m shadowing for the week, ‘were it not for the clothes.’ Trying not to touch or breathe, I survey the mounds of sweaters and jeans and dresses interspersed across the bare floorboards. The place is a disaster — junk everywhere, filling the shelves, piling up the surfaces; the sound of broken taps from the kitchen; the living room a living ruin. I’m on a housing estate in one of the Home Counties and we’ve been called out to see about putting in place a ‘preventative measure’ for Mrs R, a 90 year-old woman at risk of falls. Not having

Is Alexander ushering in Austerity Squared?

23rd April, 2012 — mark it down in your calendars, CoffeeHousers. For, after weeks of froth and fury about tax, today’s the day when the government focused on spending cuts again. In a speech to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Danny Alexander has announced what are, in theory, a couple of new restraints on spending. First, government departments will have to share information about their spending with the Treasury on a monthly basis, and let Osborne & Co. pore over it. And, second, they will also have to find extra capacity in their existing budgets for unforeseen expenditure, rather than just relying on the Treasury’s central reserve. Alexander described these

The coming schools crisis

Michael Gove’s school reform is being overwhelmed by the surging demand for school places, I argue in my Telegraph column today. When the Education Secretary first draw up his ‘free school’ programme, he said in a Spectator interview that his aim — while radical — was simple.  ‘In your neighbourhood, there will be a new school going out of its way to persuade you to send your children there. It will market itself on being able to generate better results, and it won’t cost you an extra penny’ Choice is only possible when supply outstrips demand. But the latter is growing faster than anyone envisaged a few years ago. The

QE comes to the fore

It’s roughly seven months until George Osborne’s Autumn Statement, so no better time to consider which political issues will come to the boil ahead of it. Fuel costs, I’m sure, will be one if them; because they never really go away, and the 3p rise in fuel duty will have just been implemented in August. But I’d say the safest bet is the finances of the elderly. If the furore over the frozen income tax allowance for pensioners didn’t put that voting bloc at the forefront of Osborne’s mind, then the demographics behind UKIP’s poll jump will surely do the trick. He will be under severe pressure to act. Actually,

Osborne’s Failure

If this has been a disappointing spring for David Cameron, it has been a calamitous season for George Osborne. The notion of Prime Minister Osborne has always struck me as odd but, on present trends anyway, it is one that need not trouble us any longer. I fancy many voters are able to resist the Osborne charm and though the “common touch” is not essential to success some basic understanding of how your decisions may be perceived surely is. And Osborne appears utterly deficient in that department. For a so-called master strategist he appears hopeless at tactics and, perhaps, strategy too. As Andrew McKie, writing in the Herald, puts it

Another case of Big Government trumping the Big Society

Exactly two years ago today, David Cameron launched the Conservative Manifesto — one of those rare moments in the Tory campaign where it all seemed to make sense. Cameron begged for a hearing: he was serious, he said, about changing government. It was about realizing that ‘Big Government isn’t the answer to the problems’ and that people outside government — like charities — were. This is why the charities debacle today is not just another Budget blunder. As I say in my Telegraph column, if Cameron tolerates the taxman’s proposed assault on philanthropy, he’ll be admitting defeat on what he described that day as his ‘fundamental tenet’. The best-paid 1

Osborne’s tax avoidance clampdown

So, George Osborne has taken a look at the tax arrangements of some of the UK’s wealthiest people. And his reaction? ‘Shocked’, apparently — or so he’s told the Telegraph: ‘I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right. I’m talking about people right at the top. I’m talking about people with incomes of many millions of pounds a year. The general principle is that people should pay income tax and that includes people

Your guide to Osborne’s fiscal rules

George Osborne’s two fiscal rules have been around since his very first Budget, delivered almost two years ago, so they’re hardly news. But they do underpin much of what he’s done since, including last week’s statement, so they’re also worth knowing about. Fraser touched on ome of the detail in a post last weekend, but here’s a supplementary guide for CoffeeHousers: 1) The deficit rule. This is the one that seems to cause the most confusion, perhaps because it has often been simplified — wrongly — as something like ‘eliminate the deficit by the end of this Parliament’. Fact is, the ‘end of this Parliament’ doesn’t come into it. And as for ‘eliminating

Osborne opens the door to dynamic costings

George Osborne’s announcement that the Treasury is going to start looking at the dynamic effect of tax changes is significant. The aim, I understand, is for them to gather data on this which could then be used to work out the costs of various tax and spending changes. This would mean that most tax cuts would, in the Budget Red Book, cost the government less. The decision, though, about what system to use is no longer in the Treasury’s hands. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility now does all forecasts and policy costings so the decision on what model to use ultimately rests with them. Osborne made this announcement in

The borrowing behind Osborne’s Budget

Will George Osborne’s refusal to look again at high levels of state spending become the greatest risk to Britain’s economic stability? There have been plenty of rude comments about the Chancellor’s supposed tactical ineptitude in the weekend press, but he has still managed to keep on borrowing and have almost no one notice. Osborne’s iron commitment is to spending, and a programme of cuts which total just under 1 per cent a year. His commitment to deficit reduction is flexible, as his three Budgets have demonstrated: Osborne spent the election campaign berating Labour for its lack of ambition in halving the deficit in four years. He’s now doing it in

Osborne needs to speed up

Will the Budget make a difference? Nowadays, we have a quick and easy guide: Box 3.1 from the Office for Budget Responsibility — otherwise known as the ‘blind bit of difference’ test. Sure, Budgets can make your hot takeaway lunch 20 per cent more expensive and your cigarettes cost £7.50 a packet, but the question, in a recession, is whether any stardust can be found between its pages. Whether it will be do anything for jobs, the deficit or economic growth. The Budget nowadays is handed to the OBR in advance of publication and assessed for its impact on the economy. The verdict: speeding up the corporation tax cut (another welcome move, and brave

Balls goes on the attack against 45p

Ed Balls committed Labour to voting against the reduction in the 50p rate at his post-Budget briefing. But he wouldn’t say whether or not Labour would pledge to restore it in their manifesto; sticking to the classic opposition line that all decisions on tax will be made in the manifesto and not before. Balls, though, was on typically pugilistic form; few politicians relish a scrap as much as he does. The Labour leadership clearly view the abolition of the 50p rate as a major political opening for them. Balls went out of his way to attack the HMRC report that Osborne used to justify the move. He mockingly declared that

Behind Osborne’s 50p tax change

How significant was this Budget? On an economic level, not very. There’s no discernible impact on growth: all of the main forecasts have more or less stayed the same since the Autumn Statement. Borrowing is the tiniest bit lower, mainly thanks to a £23 billion accountancy trick with Royal Mail pensions. And even many of the policies announced today will barely rouse the Exchequer’s attention. That cut in the top rate of income tax to 45p? It will mean only £100 million a year less in direct revenues. That stamp duty increase for properties worth over £2 million? It will net only £300 million a year. The overall effect is

Alex Massie

The Cost of Living Like This

Brother Jones and Fraser and Pete have already given you some of the useful charts from today’s budget. But the truth of this budget can be summarised quite simply: Everyone Pays More. Here’s the proof, culled from the Red Book: Conservative Home say this shoots Ed Miliband’s fox, proving that the rich will pay more as a consequence of this budget. Up to a point. In pure cash terms, the total impact of the budget may be greater on the wealthiest 10%; in proportional terms it seems to hit those on lower incomes rather harder. Again, however, note this: George Osborne appears to have delivered a tax-raising budget. If Britain

Alex Massie

Let the Tax Competition Games Begin!

It is not right to say that this is the last United Kingdom budget. Far from it. Nevertheless, the times they be changing. Due to an unfortunate coincidence of parliamentary timing (though doubtless some will see a conspiracy in this) the Scotland Bill will be agreed today. It will, naturally, be lost amidst the budget brouhaha but it is a significant moment nevertheless. The SNP have made their peace with the coalition, recognising that the Calman Commission’s recommendations, imperfect though they may be, are another step towards a more independent future. Significantly, the Scotland Bill accepts the proposition that it is perfectly feasible, and perhaps even proper, for the different