Knock-on effects cause knock-out problems


One of the most pernicious and durable errors in politics is the idea that politicians, in their hubris, and hiding in the Westminster bubble, can make any changes that occur to them, cooked up on the back of an envelope after a good dinner, and nothing else will change.  There will be no unintended consequences or perverse incentives.

And sadly, this leads to headlines that are superficially appealing to the electorate.  Freeze energy prices.  Raise taxes on the rich.  Bash the bankers.  Too many people are prepared to applaud, even though these actions will make them poorer and may cost them their jobs.

“Let’s raise taxes on the rich”.  The Greens have announced that they want to raise the top rate of income tax to 60%. Labour wants to reinstate the 50% rate.  And many voters, knowing that these changes won’t hit them, approve.  Let the rich pay.  Let the broadest backs carry the heaviest burdens – despite the fact that those on higher incomes already pay disproportionately more tax than the rest of us.  But back in the real world, the evidence from many countries over decades shows that punitive taxes on high earners impact negatively on revenues.  These people may work less, or retire earlier, or put less effort into their business and more into tax avoidance.  Or they may decide not to bother with a new investment.  And in many cases, the rich and mobile will simply move abroad to a more wealth-friendly environment.  The key lesson, counter-intuitive though it may be: high taxes on the rich mean fewer jobs for the poor.

Then there’s the mansion tax.  It will distort the market.  It will primarily make London and the South east, the greatest motor of the UK economy, less attractive to investors.  Even the threat of it is already affecting prices of more expensive properties – reducing the postulated tax base.  It would arguably make the tax system too progressive (especially taken with the higher income tax rates mentioned above); it would not be related to the individual’s ability to pay (e.g. elderly people who are property-rich but cash-poor); and it could have substantial disincentive effects.  Yet both Labour and the Lib-Dems favour some variety of mansion tax.

Non-Dom status:  Labour proposes to scrap non-dom status.  Ed Miliband has claimed that the move will raise millions (despite the fact that non-doms already contributed £8.2 billion to GMRC in 2012/13).  He seems to think that the non-doms will take the hit lying down, and ignores the fact that they can go elsewhere – as many will.  Many economic commentators – and even Ed Balls himself  – have suggested that scrapping non-dom status will not raise revenue, but will cost the Treasury money.  There are issues regarding the inherited nature of non-dom status that need to be addressed, but simply scrapping the scheme would do more harm than good.

All three of the above proposals are politically motivated, knee-jerk, “bash-the-rich” ideas.  But the rich won’t stay around to be bashed.  They’ll go elsewhere, and they’ll be made very welcome in other jurisdictions – just as thousands of French business people came to London to escape President Hollande’s punitive taxes.   Labour and the Greens are deliberately hanging up a “Britain Is Closed for Business” sign, and those who suffer will include ordinary working people who will be affected by the loss of jobs and growth.

The Death Tax: David Cameron has said that he will raise thresholds to take family homes out of inheritance tax.  But he adds “It’s right that we as a nation have an inheritance tax”.  We say it’s wrong.  We pay tax when we earn; we pay tax when we spend.  It’s morally indefensible that the same money should be taxed a third time when we die.  But again, the false assumption of “No knock-on effects” kicks in.  The media are reporting the cost of the Tory initiative at £1 billion a year.  But pause and consider:  A reduction in the death tax means that more family businesses will survive, and will be more likely to invest and grow and create jobs.  Money in the pockets of beneficiaries may be invested.  Or it may be spent – incurring VAT.  If spent, it will increase consumer spending, enhancing growth and employment.  It’s difficult to estimate the exact amount, but the claimed £1 billion cost of reduced inheritance tax will be partly, or largely, offset by money that is left to “fructify in the pockets of the people” (as Gladstone put it).

Miliband’s energy price freeze:  The Labour promise of an energy price freeze has already had the effect of keeping prices higher than they would otherwise have been, as utility companies struggle to maintain the highest possible start point for the proposed freeze.  But government interference in market pricing mechanisms almost always has profoundly negative consequences.  It can drive operators out of the business, and clear goods off the shelves (as we saw in Soviet Russia).  And it is particularly pernicious in the energy market.  We desperately need new energy infrastructure investment. But who will invest in a market subject to these draconian interventions?  Already the massive regulatory uncertainty in the market has resulted in an excessive strike price at the new Hinkley C nuclear power station.  Miliband’s price freeze will block investment entirely – and put supplies under further threat.  If I may paraphrase the Miliband policy: “You can have cheaper prices on any energy that’s not available”.

Cutting emissions:  We have an elaborate programme of green energy policies designed to cut emissions.  It originated in Brussels, but was enthusiastically endorsed by Ed Milband, no less, when Secretary of State for Energy.  He carries the personal responsibility for the 2008 Climate Change Act, perhaps the most damaging piece of legislation this country has ever seen.  But the effect of the policy is to drive energy-intensive businesses out of the EU altogether, often to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards.  A DECC report confirms that in one industry, petroleum refining, imported products imply 35% higher emissions than if refined in the UK.   Anecdotal evidence suggests that a ton of steel refined in Shanghai involves double the emissions of a ton of steel in Sheffield.  It takes a genius like Ed Davey to devise a policy that not only undermines competitiveness but also arguably increases global emissions.

Labour claims that “every policy proposal has been costed”.  But you can bet they never costed the inevitable but unintended consequences.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Knock-on effects cause knock-out problems

  1. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Labour always equalled poverty for all, except for them at Westminster. All others except UKIP are pretty much identical….add in the EU, Foreign Aid, Immigration (uncontrolled) and the bill (debt) continually mounts. VI’s and thicko’s

  2. davidbuckingham says:

    Dear Roger Helmer

    I’m thoroughly enjoying your uncompromising stand on the free market and energy – shame you’re not the economics spokesman as well as energy, rather than the socialist you have – bizarrely – at the moment.

    I want to run past you the idea of expanding the lottery to raise revenue – VOLUNTARILY – replacing the traditional COERCIVE system we have now – as a point of principle. I have known even left wing friends being enthusiastic about the idea ! It could be a collection of lotteries targeted to specific needs like the NHS or defence or welfare etc… I have suggested the same idea to the Taxpayers’ Alliance. I believe it could excite a lot of support.

    Hope you agree.

    Kind regards and best of luck – hope you win your seat.

    David Buckingham

    ps importantly I hope I will feel happy voting for Ukip – I am forever anti-EU unless it transforms into an EFTA look-alike which is about as likely as the Pope going atheist – however I am very pro-migration – without the a privileged position for EU members – England if it’s anthing is a country of migration in and out – defined by freedom and individual rights. I highly recommend Dan Hannan’s book on Freedom on Anglosphere history.

    • David says:

      But surely NOT at the rate it is now?

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Apart for the lottery probabilities being stupidly high the prizes are spread wrongly also. But no surprise really! Then there is the fiddles amongst the post code lotteries…another no surprise.

  3. Francis says:

    I don’t always agree with everything you say Roger but today I do. These politics of envy have no place in 2015. It is a fact that lower taxes produce greater revenue. Why don’t these morons see that?

  4. Alan Wheatley says:

    Re the “death tax”, its impact is not just restricted to those who pay it; strictly speaking it is those who have died that “pay” it as it is a tax on the estates of those who have died.

    And many of those people, in their lifetime, take measures to avoid or minimise the amount of inheritance tax on their estate. There are plenty of scheme to help you do this. One way of doing so is to give away some of what you own before you die. But you have to do this several years before your death, and the problem with this is that you do not know when you are going to die, nor what might happen during the rest of your life.

    If you wait too long no tax may be avoided. If you act too soon you may find that you need what you gave away. Parents tend to make lifetime gifts to their children. Sometimes they assume their children will look after them in old age, but sometimes the children do not see things the same way.

    So Inheritance Tax also has an impact on those whose estate falls, or could fall, near the bottom end of the threshold, and where measure could take the estate below the threshold.

    Some people claim claim there is a moral case for imposing Inheritance tax on the basis the beneficiaries should not be getting something for free. But there is a moral case against Inheritance Tax in that it causes stress in families who have to go though all sorts of artificial and contrived processes so that all, parents and children, can do the best for each other. Inheritance Tax is anti-family.

  5. Richard111 says:

    What is UKIP going to do about the Lisbon Treaty which comes into force in March 2017?

    The terms in that treaty means the EU can block any referendum as it will be against EU law.

    • David says:

      Well is obvious then why Cam has chosen 2017 for his fictitious ref, after the non event re-negotiations.

      UKIP must include this deadly date in all our messages.

      What a shower! ( the liblabcon)

  6. David says:

    So where does crapping Inheritance Tax leave the beneficiaries regarding Capital Gains Tax?

  7. Richard111 says:

    Lots of unhappy reading here…

    The title of the 2009 paper is NEW LABOUR NEW FASCISM NEW RACISM

    If the link doesn’t work BING Lisbon Treaty and look for the title.

  8. Ex-expat Colin says:

    And for C02 mischief today we have this to counter it:
    Prof Salby London 2015…the one forced to retire for his scientific beliefs

  9. Katie says:

    Roger, The link above to a video shows how bad the wind industry is in France too. Can you please use this as a basis for a new blog?

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      V. Interesting Katie. Some of that needs a WW1 revisit because talking won’t end it all. Not decommissioning the Nukes…thought France was?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s