Liebrary: Do income tax cuts for the rich make us all richer? Part 2: more dismal evidence to the contrary

[If you want to read Part 1 click here, but you don't need to] 


UPDATE NOV 2016: The rich have been the biggest winners from ex-Chancellor George Osborne’s tax giveaways of £32bn, rolled out since 2010. That’s according to the think-tank, the Resolution Foundation, chaired by the former Tory cabinet minister David Willetts. They say the £32bn - including £17bn on raising the point at which people pay income tax, £8bn on cutting corporation tax and £7bn in freezing fuel duty - would be enough to eliminate the UK’s deficit.


Matt Whittaker, Chief Economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: “The £32bn worth of tax cuts announced since 2010 has been the difference between the government hitting and missing its deficit reduction targets in the last Parliament, or indeed in this one... Tax cuts on this scale have clearly played a role in supporting household incomes, though around four-fifths of the £21bn due to be spent on raising the personal tax allowance by 2020 will have actually gone to the richest half of households.”



It was a former leading Labour politician, Peter Mandelson, who said “we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”. A philosophy that has been followed doggedly by Labour and Conservatives alike for over 30 years. Ministerial claims of shock at tax avoidance and horror at excessive pay have been nothing but camouflage for this policy. 

Particularly since the cut in the top rate tax from 50% to 45%, in the March 2012 budget, government ministers have been swearing that cutting income tax for the rich makes us all richer. They claim lower tax encourages clever entrepreneurs to come and work hard and give us all jobs, and bring us economic growth. The opposition swears that this is not true. 

Each side says it with such earnest confidence that we ordinary Britons don't know what to think. So we just let the politicians carry on as usual, which the politicians do with great and insatiable appetite.

But the truth is out there, if you know where to look.

The impact of this philosophy is made very clear by the graphs below from a paper by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, "Optimal Taxation Of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale Of Three Elasticities". Graphs that expose a great and stubborn lie: that allowing people to get 'filthy rich' is good for national economic growth. The lie that if the few get ‘filthy rich’ we will all get mussed up with a splattering of extra wealth ourselves. The fib used to justify slashing personal and corporation tax. It is asserted that so long as there is a feast at the top table we all will get some of the leftovers. The evidence below shows that this assertion is false.

This first graph below shows there is actually no correlation between economic growth and cutting taxes - massive tax cuts for the rich make no difference to growth. The horizontal band of countries, excluding Ireland, shows that countries like the UK and the US who cut taxes most aggressively saw no greater economic growth than Germany, Australia, and many others who made smaller or no top rate tax cuts. Here is yet more evidence against the lie that letting the 1% get rich makes us all richer - evidence that is all around us. That successive governments stubbornly stick to it supports the theory of Goebbels, the nazi propagandist, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

On the other hand, the next graph shows there is a clear correlation between reducing tax and increasing inequality. As their taxes were slashed, the top 1% accrued even greater wealth because

a)      Less was taken away from them in taxes, leaving them more to pocket.

b)      As they were allowed to keep more they were more incentivised to grab a bigger slice of the pie. Not by creating a bigger pie and spreading the wealth, but by snatching a bigger share with excessive pay and excessive profits.

Read More

Monopoly comes quickly in ConDem Britain

KJ tells Fee about a new version of the famous board game Monopoly - the unregulated free market edition

Read More

Payday lenders and loan sharks: a very British way of lending

Chris and KJ wonder why payday lenders get such an easy ride in the UK

Read More

Shareholders voting against executive pay: the marvel is not that the directors had their bonuses questioned, but that they had bonuses at all

"The marvel is not that the bear dances well, but that it dances at all."
Russian proverb, on a performing bear in a circus.

Remuneration committees have continued to thrust bonuses at their well paid bosses in spite of unremarkable and failing performances. 

The usual defence is that the bosses' contracts legally bind the companies to offer the bonuses. The question left unasked is why the remuneration committees wrote the contracts in this way.

The remuneration committees say they take the advice of "compensation consultants" to ensure their pay is competitive in the market. A US Congressional Committee looked into this, and concluded that the same compensation consultants who were advising on executive compensation were:

“simultaneously receiving millions of dollars from the corporate executives whose compensation they are supposed to assess.” 


The report went on to say -

• The fees earned by compensation consultants for providing other services often far exceed those earned for advising on executive compensation. In 2006, the consultants providing both executive compensation advice and other services to Fortune 250 companies were paid almost 11 times more for providing other services than they were paid for providing executive compensation advice. On average, the companies paid these consultants over $2.3 million for other services and less than $220,000 for executive compensation advice.
• Some compensation consultants received over $10 million in 2006 to provide other services. One Fortune 250 company paid a compensation consultant over $11 million for other services in 2006, over 70 times more than the company paid the consultant for executive compensation services. Another Fortune 250 company also paid a compensation consultant over $11 million for other services, over 50 times more than it paid the consultant for executive compensation advice.
• Many Fortune 250 companies do not disclose their compensation consultants’ conflicts of interest. In 2006, over two-thirds of the Fortune 250 companies that hired compensation consultants with conflicts of interest did not disclose the conflicts in their SEC filings. In 30 instances, the companies informed shareholders that the compensation consultants were “independent” when in fact they were being paid to provide other services to the company.
• There appears to be a correlation between the extent of a consultant’s conflict of interest and the level of CEO pay. In 2006, the median CEO salary of the Fortune 250 companies that hired compensation consultants with the largest conflicts of interest was 67% higher than the median CEO salary of the companies that did not use conflicted consultants. Over the period between 2002 and 2006, the Fortune 250 companies that hired compensation consultants with the largest conflicts increased CEO pay over twice as fast as the companies that did not use conflicted consultants.

Some bosses had the sense to decline the lucre with little public goading, though some wailing and gnashing of teeth was heard as certain packages were sent back. Of course, not all CEOs turn down their bonuses. The shareholders of Citigroup voted against their CEO's multimillion dollar pay package.

Read More

How collective switching can help households get a fairer deal on energy bills

By Lani Shamash, of thepeoplespower.co.uk, writing on the UK energy market.

Mistrust, alienation and inertia. They’re consumer characteristics which have become synonymous with the UK energy industry as customers, the media and the government rail on a daily basis about the evils of the industry. We all talk about it, we all write about it, in fact I’d go as far as to say it’s a national pastime, a conversation topic so customary it’s become more of a Great British staple than the weather. After all, it’s not just isolated to the energy market, but now synonymous with the pharmaceutical, housing, mobile phone and, of course, financial industries, to name a few.

Clearly, in its current state, the relationship between energy suppliers and household consumers is skewed. And it’s a costly skew too; we collectively over-spend £4 billion a year because we’re on the wrong energy tariff. So when, last week, Nick Clegg announced that he had made a deal with the major energy companies, expectations were high. So what was agreed? Once a year the ‘Big Six’ will tell consumers whether we’re on their best tariff. Anything else I hear you ask? Er, no... That’s it actually.

It’s not much, but it’s a step towards something which we all desperately need; simpler, fairer energy bills. We need it to end the frustration brought on by the thousands of different tariffs which are changed with more regularity than an incandescent light bulb. Or to combat the sense of defeat in the person who throws that quarterly bill straight in the bin before even attempting to decipher its contents. And we need it to prevent the horrifying headlines on the fuel poverty epidemic which, according to a report commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, contributes to the 27,000 excess winter deaths that occur each year.

But most of us do nothing. The vast majority of us don’t even switch energy suppliers despite government advice telling us to. It might have something to do with the prospect of a big penalty, a phobia of forms, or a cynical little voice in your head which tells you that they’re all the same, that it’s a lose-lose situation so why bother. But you’re not alone.

You could join dozens, hundreds, thousands, and even millions of other little people to become a real force. Group bargaining’s an old idea, but it’s still a good one, and with the advent of mass internet access the possibilities are endless.

Read More

The gang debate the safety of wave-and-pay cash-free systems

Consumers – and con artists – get behind contactless payments

Read More

Stop Britain’s biggest rip-offs, and no budget cuts or tax rises are required. Make sure you ask your candidate about them before you vote

Next time they knock on your door, ask them what they will do about some of Britain’s biggest rip-offs: tax dodging, housing, the banks, gas & electricity bills, and MP's pay. We’ve given you a few ideas to start you off...

Tax evasion and avoidance: HMRC estimates that £35bn is dodged in tax. Nobody can know the actual figure, as so much secrecy surrounds tax dodging. Credible estimates put it at over £70bn. There is a huge and complex list of perfectly legal ways that corporations and the very rich can avoid tax – a bit like “claiming on expenses” but more sophisticated. Yet the ConDems are cutting the number of HMRC staff who investigate tax evasion and avoidance, and their efforts to “simplify” the tax system never include simplifying those loopholes. Labour never focussed on this when they were in power.

Suggest a policy: Increase HMRC staff, and monitor their performance. The cost will be peanuts compared to the sums involved. These loopholes must be closed, and the penalty for deliberate evasion should be a prison sentence.

Cut the cost of housing: The average tenant spends a fifth of their income on rent, and those costs are rising. More and more people are being priced out of the housing market because wages continue to fail to keep up with the rising cost of buying a house. The charity Shelter says 1.6 million children in Britain live in housing that is overcrowded, temporary, or run-down. Yet the government’s proposed building of 150,000 affordable homes over four years is less than a third of what is needed. This will leave millions of families stuck in limbo on housing waiting lists, and push house prices further out of the reach of those on ordinary incomes. Perfectly decent house-owners are genuinely afraid of what might happen if their property prices level off or even fall. But the less money everyone spends on housing, the more everyone spends on other parts of the economy that generate jobs, taxes and pensions for all. Cutting the cost of housing, just as cutting the cost of any other essential service (energy, telecoms, transport, health, pensions, banking) will directly benefit the whole economy. Since the early 1970s UK house prices have tripled in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. In Germany, the cost of residential property has barely budged in real terms in the past 40 years.

Suggest a policy: Build 600,000 affordable homes over the next 4 years.

Read More

The gang discuss ways to solve the issue of party funding

Gatecrashing the party... donations

Read More

Tax Haven Britain - Bearer Shares and Disappearing Companies

By Richard Murphy, founder of the Tax Justice Network , director of Tax Research LLP, and author of The Courageous State


Alistair Darling, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, has said the UK is not a tax haven. That is not true. It is using any reasonable definition, including that which I proposed. I’ve already suggested one obvious reason why it is, which is the existence of the domicile rule, so let’s take a second example that is less obvious.

This is the fact that the UK allows the issue of bearer shares. This is deliberate. The right survived into section 779 of the Companies Act 2006. As one formation agent who seems to specialise in the more esoteric end of the market has noted, UK companies with bearer shares are ‘our most popular package with UK residents’. It’s not hard to see why:

1) This option allows the names of the real owners of the shares in a company to not just be hidden: they simply aren’t known. As Wikipedia notes:

A bearer instrument is a document that indicates that the bearer of the document has title to property, such as shares or bonds. Bearer instruments differ from normal registered instruments, in that no records are kept of who owns the underlying property, or of the transactions involving transfer of ownership. Whoever physically holds the bearer bond papers owns the property. This is useful for investors and corporate officers who wish to retain anonymity, but ownership is extremely difficult to recover in event of loss or theft.

Read More

Chris and a monied chum debate revealing MPs' tax returns

Should he or shouldn't he...

Read More