Recently there have been calls from business leaders and Conservative politicians to scrap the UK’s 50% income tax rate, which is paid on taxable incomes over £150,000. The 50% income tax rate is thus paid by top earners, who comprise around just 1% of taxpayers.
And yet the government receives about 30% of income tax revenue from this 1% – and this was before the introduction of the 50% rate in April 2010. (In fact, with the marginal national insurance rate of 2%, top earners are paying an effective marginal rate of 52%.)
One argument used by those who favour reducing the 50% rate is that the rich would pay more income tax, not less. There are four reasons given for this. The first is that people would be encouraged to work harder and/or seek promotion if they knew they would keep more of any rise in income. The second is that fewer rich people would be encouraged to leave the country or to relocate their businesses abroad. The third is that more people would be encouraged to work in or set up businesses in the UK. The fourth is that there would be less temptation to evade taxes by not declaring all income earned or to find clever ways of avoiding tax.
These arguments were put forward in the 1980s by Art Laffer, an adviser to President Reagan. His famous ‘Laffer curve’ (see Economics (8th edition) Box 10.3 or Economics (7th edition) Box 10.4) illustrated that tax revenues are maximised at a particular tax rate. The idea behind the Laffer curve is very simple. At a tax rate of 0%, tax revenue will be zero – but so too at a rate of 100%, since no-one would work if they had to pay all their income in taxes. As the tax rate rises from 0%, so tax revenue would rise. And so too, as the tax rate falls from 100%, the tax rate would rise. It follows that there will be some tax rate between 0% and 100% that maximises tax revenue.
Those arguing that a cut in the top rate of income tax would increase tax revenue are arguing that the 50% rate is beyond the peak of the Laffer curve. But this is an empirical issue. In other words, to assess the argument you would need to look at the evidence as, theoretically, the peak of the Laffer curve could be below or above 50%. Indeed, some argue that the peak is more likely to be at around 75%.
The following podcasts and articles consider the arguments. As you will see, the authors are not all agreed! Consider carefully their arguments and try to identify any flaws in their analysis.
Update
On 27 June 2012, Arthur Laffer appeared on the BBC Today Programme to discuss the Laffer curve and its implications for UK income tax policy. You can hear it from the link below
Podcasts
Should the 50p tax rate be ditched? BBC Today Programme, John Redwood and Paul Johnson (3/3/12)
Arthur Laffer: Tax rate should ‘provide for growth’ BBC Today Programme (27/6/12)
Articles
Where’s the High Point on the Laffer Curve? And Where Are We? Business Insider, Angry bear Blog (3/3/12)
Tax cuts: we can have our cake and eat it The Telegraph, Ruth Porter (22/2/12)
‘Scrap the 50p tax rate’ say 500 UK entrepreneurs Management Today, Rebecca Burn-Callander (1/3/12)
The Laffer Curve Appears in the UK Forbes, Tim Worstall (22/2/12)
Memo to 50p tax trashers: Laffer Curve peaks at over 75 per cent Left Foot Forward, Alex Hern (1/3/12)
Questions
- Explain how a cut in income tax could lead to an increase in tax revenue.
- Distinguish between the income effect and the substitution effect of a tax cut. Which would have to be bigger if a tax cut were to increase tax revenue?
- If, in a given year, the top rate of tax were raised and tax revenue fell, would this prove that the economy was now past the peak of the Laffer curve?
- What would cause the Laffer curve to shift/change shape? To what extent could the government affect the shape of the Laffer curve?
- If the government retains the 50% top tax rate, what can it do to increase the revenue earned from people paying the top rate?
- What other objectives might the government have for having a high marginal income tax rate on top earners?
- Investigate the marginal income tax and national insurance (social protection) rates in other countries. How progressive are UK income taxes compared with those in other countries?
On 21 March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, delivered the 2012 Budget for the UK. The details of the tax and benefit changes can be found in the Budget Report, with the Treasury’s summary of the tax changes here.
One of the key elements in the Budget was the reduction in the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45% from April 2013. The Chancellor argued that the introduction of the 50% rate in 2010 had raised very little extra tax revenue. Partly this was the result of people managing their tax affairs so that they could bring forward income to the year before the 50% rate was introduced – a practice known as forestalling. People are likely to do the reverse with the latest tax change and delay receiving income until next year. For details of the effects of forestalling, see the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and fiscal outlook charts and tables Box 4.2a.
But part of the reason for the 50% tax rate raising relatively little has been the effect on incentives. A rise in the top rate of income tax can encourage people to move from the country – or move their incomes; it may discourage top earners from working more; it may encourage people to engage in various tax avoidance schemes; it may encourage people to evade taxes by not declaring all their income.
The effect of a rise (or fall) in the marginal income tax rate (t) on taxable income is given by the taxable income elasticity (TIE). This is defined as the proportionate change in taxable income (Y) divided by the proportionate change in the net-of-income-tax rate (r) (where r = 100 – t: i.e. the percentage of an extra pound that is not paid in income tax, but is retained by the taxpayer for spending or saving). TEI is thus ΔY/Y ÷ Δr/r. The larger the disincentive effect of raising taxes, the more will taxable income fall and hence the higher will be the value of TIE.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in 2010 based its calculations on a TIE of 0.35 for the rise in the top marginal rate of income tax from 40% to 50%. This means that for each 1% fall in the net-of-income-tax rate, taxable income would fall by 0.35%. With a TIE of 0.35, the OBR calculated that the new top rate would bring an extra £2.9bn per year by 2011-12 (after allowing for any temporary residual effects of forestalling). However, the OBR now believes that the TIE is significantly higher and that the 50% rate will bring only an extra £0.7bn in 2011/12.
In its analysis of the effects of a cut in the top rate from 50% to 45%, the OBR has assumed a TIE of 0.45.
Turning to the costing of the move to 45 per cent, measured against our baseline that reflects the new information on the 50 per cent yield, we have endorsed as reasonable and central the Government’s estimate that the underlying cost would be around £0.1 billion in 2013-14, based on an assumed TIE of 0.45. The figure is as low as this because a TIE of 0.45 implies that the revenue-maximising additional tax rate is around 48 per cent. Moving from just above to just below this rate would therefore have very little revenue impact. Moving the additional rate back to 40 per cent would take it further below the revenue maximising rate and would thus be more expensive at roughly an additional £600 million. But for the reasons set out above we would again emphasise the huge uncertainties here.
Economic and fiscal outlook – March 2012 (p110)
The government’s arguments for reducing the top tax rate, therefore, are that it will have little effect on tax revenue, but would have a significant effect in encouraging inward investment, discouraging emigration of high earners and encouraging high earners to work more.
Articles
Rich tax cuts offset by changes to relief Financial Times, Vanessa Houlder (21/3/12)
Budget 2012: A big debate about small numbers (cont’d) BBC News, Stephanie Flanders (21/3/12)
Budget 2012: End of 50p tax, but 45p rate here to stay The Telegraph, Robert Winnett (21/3/12)
Budget 2012: Top income tax rate ‘won’t go any lower than 45p’ This is Money, Tim Shipman (22/3/12)
Why is tax avoidance a reason for letting people off tax? New Statesman, Alex Hern (22/3/12)
Study: Millionaires Don’t Flee States Due To Tax Hikes Think Progress, Pat Garofalo (22/3/12)
Laffer Curve Fun, with a side serving of nepotism Mark Wadsworth blog (22/3/12)
Budget 2012: are we really all in this together? Guardian, Polly Curtis (21/3/12)
Did the 50p tax rate really raise less than £1 billion in 2010/11? Touch Stone, Howard Reed (22/3/12)
45p: Power beats evidence Stumbling and Mumbling, Chris Dillow (22/3/12)
Reports, documents and presentations
Economic and fiscal outlook – March 2012 OBR
Budget 2012 HM Treasury (21/3/12)
Budget 2012 IFS (March 2012)
The Exchequer effect of the 50 per cent additional rate of income tax HMRC (March 2012)
Can More Revenue be Raised by Increasing Income Tax Rates for the Very Rich? IFS, Mike Brewer and James Browne (2009)
The 50p income tax rate IFS, James Browne (March 2012)
Questions
- What are the arguments for and against reducing the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%? Do the same arguments apply to a further reduction to 40%?
- According to the OBR, at what top tax rate is the top of the Laffer curve?
- Why are the OBR’s calculations subject to considerable possible error?
- Why might a fall in the top tax rate from 50% to 40% not exactly reverse all the effects of an earlier rise in the top tax rate from 40% to 50%? In other words, why may the effects not be symmetrical?
- Distinguish between the income and substitution effects of a change in income tax rates. Which is assumed to be larger by the OBR in the case of reducing the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%? Explain.
Cutting the budget deficit is a key government objective, but at the moment it seems to be in conflict with another objective, namely economic growth and thereby avoiding a double-dip recession. In order to raise tax revenue and meet the cries for more equity, the 50% tax rate above £150,000 was imposed, affecting some 310,000 people. However, in a recent letter from some top economists to the Financial Times, they called for the scrapping of the top rate of tax. They argue that it is hindering entrepreneurship and encouraging potential top rate tax payers to leave the UK, thereby hindering the economic situation. George Osborne has asked HMRC to evaluate just how effective the top rate of tax has been at generating government revenue.
In contrast to these calls for scrapping this top rate of tax, some of the richest people in the world have said that they would be happy to pay this rate of tax. In the words of Sir Stuart Rose, the ex-boss of Marks and Spencer:
“How would I explain to my secretary that I would pay less tax on my income, which is palpably bigger than hers, when her tax is not going down.”
Those against scrapping the tax argue that it will be ‘monstrously unfair’ and ‘phenomenally immoral’. This, combined with official figure that suggest by 2015/16 the top rate tax will bring in an extra £3.2bn more revenue than had the tax remained at 40%, certainly adds weight to their argument. In total, over the five year period, it is predicted to bring in an extra £12.6bn.
The policy to increase the tax threshold to £10,000 will meet with the critics’ approval, but less so, if it is accompanied by a scrapping of this top rate tax. Furthermore, the government’s coffers will take a significant beating if both of the above occur!
Another option to replace the 50% tax rate is a higher tax on high value homes – the so-called ‘mansion tax’. Whatever happens with taxation, one thing is clear: the government needs to find a way to generate tax revenue, without putting the economy back into recession. If the 50% tax rate encourages people to leave the UK to avoid the tax or to forego entrepreneurship, it will directly be acting as a disincentive. Fewer jobs will be created due to a lack of entrepreneurship, output may be lower and hence growth will not reach its potential. Crucially, the international competitiveness of the UK economy is being badly affected, as it becomes a less attractive place for investment and talented workers. The following articles consider the 50% tax rate and the controversy surrounding it, despite it only being a temporary policy.
Stuart Rose ‘would pay more tax’ BBC News (9/9/11)
Lawson: ‘dangerous’ and ‘foolish’ to keep 50p tax rate Telegraph, Louisa Peacock (10/9/11)
Rose calls 50p tax rate ‘only fair’ Financial Times, Elizabeth Rigby (9/9/11)
Top 50p tax rate damages economy, say economists BBC News (7/9/11)
George Osborne loses nerve on plan to cut 50p top tax rate Independent, Nigel Morris (8/9/11)
Top tax rate will raise £12.6bn more in revenue, official figures reveal Guardian, Polly Curtis (7/9/11)
Laffer curves and the logic of the 50p tax Financial Times, Tim Harford (9/9/11)
Row over ending of 50p tax rate threatens to spark Tory rebellion Guardian, Patrick Wintour and Polly Curtis (7/9/11)
I’d happily pay more tax, says former M&S boss Sir Stuart Rose Independent, Andy McSmith (10/9/11)
Questions
- What are the main arguments in favour of keeping the 50p tax rate?
- What are the main arguments in favour of scrapping the 50p tax rate?
- What does the Laffer curve show? Is it relevant in the case of the 50p top rate of tax? What does it suggest about the ability of the tax to generate income?
- How does the top rate of tax affect the international competitiveness of the UK economy?
- Why is there a trade-off between raising tax revenue and boosting economic growth through the use of the 50p tax rate?
- Why is there concern about the highest rate of tax actually causing tax revenue to fall?
- What are the equity arguments concerning the scrapping of the 50p tax and raising the tax threshold? Is there an equity argument in favour of the 50p tax rate?
Taxes are a key element in redistributive policies: taxes on the rich can be spent on benefits to the poor. The more progressive the taxes (i.e. the more steeply they rise with rising incomes), the bigger will be the redistributive effect and hence the more equal will post-tax incomes be.
But high and steeply progressive taxes can act as a disincentive to work longer, or to go for promotion or to move to a better paid job. High corporate taxes and income taxes can act as disincentive to inward investment and may encourage a ‘brain drain’ and capital flight with people and capital leaving the country for lower tax regimes abroad.
Raising taxes has two effects. First there is the substitution effect: people may work less and substitute it with leisure – after all, work is now less rewarding. People may also substitute working abroad for working at home. But the second effect works in the opposite direction. This is the income effect. As taxes are raised and people’s take-home pay is thereby reduced, they may feel the need to work longer hours or try harder for promotion in order to make up the lost income and maintain their living standards. Thus the effect of higher taxes is not clear-cut. It is an empirical question of which of the two effects is the stronger.
One important determinant of the effects of different tax rates is their relative position compared with other countries. Another is the international mobility of labour and capital. The greater the mobility, the greater the elasticity of supply with respect to changes in tax rates.
The following report and articles look at relative tax rates between different countries and the effects on output and factor movements
Articles
Wide tax gaps among countries, UHY study finds UHY International, Press Release (10/6/11)
Britain’s most talent workers flee to avoid high tax rates The Telegraph, Myra Butterworth (13/6/11)
UK tax rate ‘one of the highest’ Belfast Telegraph (13/6/11)
Data
Tax Rates Around the World – Comparison UHY Worldwide-tax.com
Effects of taxes and benefits on household income National Statistics
(see especially Data: The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 2009/10)
Questions
- Why may relative income tax rates between countries give only a partial picture of the international competitiveness of these countries? What else would need to be taken into account?
- Does making taxes more steeply progressive necessarily act as a disincentive to output? Explain.
- What factors are likely to determine the relative size of the income and substitution effects of tax changes?
- How progressive are income taxes in the UK compared with other countries? Give examples.
- What externalities (positive and negative) might result from steeply progressive income tax rates?
- What determines the international elasticity of supply of labour?
- What is the Laffer curve? How will the shape of the Laffer curve be affected by the international mobility of labour and international tax rates?
