Full @resfoundation analysis of the Chancellor's Winter Economy Plan (with thanks to the team for sleep loss overnight). The short version: the policy does not match the rhetoric on protecting "viable jobs". A thread... resolutionfoundation.org/publications/t…
Economic context matters here - we're not living a V-shaped recovery. After swift bounce backs from total economic stagnation in lockdown, the recovery was slowing before the return of rising virus cases & social distancing restrictions confirmed difficult months lie ahead
The Chancellor job was therefore to bring economic policy back in line with both economic reality and social distancing restrictions - which he rightly did by extending support for firms and workers beyond cliff-edges at end October/early November
Centre piece of Chancellor's measures = 'new' Job Support Scheme which really = extended flexible furlough scheme. In considering it's impact it's REALLY important to separate out impact on employees and employers
JSS is generous to employees: by protecting 2/3 of lost wages from reduced hours (so long as they still work 1/3 of previous hours) it is inline with similar schemes elsewhere and the income protection of the full furlough scheme (slightly less than previous partial furlough)
BUT while @The_TUC and others rightly focus on generosity for employees IF they end up on the scheme it is largely the incentives on employers that decide whether any employees will actually be on the scheme...
The JSS is NOT generous to employers. It asks them to cover not only the wages for hours worked but half the costs of the support to workers for hours not worked (e.g to get someone working 33% of previous hours they have to pay 33% of previous wages)
This means the JSS cannot be what all the papers this morning wrongly say it is - a version of the German 'Kurzarbeit' scheme (which asks employers to pay 0 for hours not worked).
Specifically it doesn't give firms an incentive to cut hours instead of jobs because it costs firms more to pay two workers to work half time than one to work full time
Interaction with £1k Job Retention Bonus is... messy. Sometimes it & JSS will encourage short hours. But only until January AND only if you have low enough earnings that £1k > employer costs of JSS BUT not so low that you don't qualify for JRB. Good luck firms working that out...
So what is the JSS? A scheme to support firms with less work today AND strong (non-JSS) incentives to hold on to staff (think skilled manufacturing with high training/recruitment costs). The problem? These are not the bulk of the workers in the firing line of this crisis....
What the JSS is not = encouraging hours rather than jobs cuts where it matters - in hospitality and leisure - to slow the mass shake out of workers that is about to happen. Those sectors rely most on JRS + have least attachment between firms/workers so JSS incentives matter
In designing this scheme, and in the excessive welcome for it from unions/business and even the opposition, is excessive focus on higher paid jobs in the likes of manufacturing rather than on the real problem of this crisis: the disaster it is posing to employment of low earners
This can be fixed and without spending more money- scrapping the £7.5bn Job Retention Bonus (that literally no-one thinks is a good policy) would be enough to reduce the employer costs of the JSS hugely - transforming firms incentives to save jobs. We really should do it.
Here’s a short story about who wins and loses from the status quo of our inheritance tax rules - and about, what you might politely call ‘sub-optimal’ journalism🧵
On 19 November, the Times ran a ‘news’ piece on the demonstration in Westminster by farmers opposed to changes to inheritance tax. Obviously reporting the news is good, but reading such a one sided piece made me think it belonged in the comment pages thetimes.com/uk/environment…
In it they tell the story of John Kemp-Welch. Here’s how he’s described: “Kemp-Welch, 88, who owns 5,000 acres of "difficult hill farming land" in Perthshire where he and his children farm blackface sheep.”
So much misinformation around today on who will be affected by changes to inheritance tax - and lobbyists pretending the data isn't clear to obfuscate. We have detailed data on estates so the truth is in fact very clear if you care to look 🧵
If what you care about is just agricultural property, 84% of claims for relief are for less than £1.5m (which realistically is the minimum you'd have to have in assets including a farm before you start paying any tax). 96% are less than the £3m couples will still pass on tax free
Some farms include wider business assets - but even then 78% of claims are for less than £1.5m and 93% for less than £3m
Not news = those hugely benefitting from a tax exemption, despite never being the intended beneficiaries, are opposed to reform of that tax exemption
It takes a special kind of nonsense speak to claim the way to protect future generations of farmers is to provide a large tax incentive for non-farmers to buy up land, pricing actual would be farmers out. That is exactly what the status quo does
It's also totally untrue that a farm worth 'only £1m' will be affected. A couple passing on a farm + farmhouse worth £3m will remain entirely exempt from inheritance tax
Today @RachelReevesMP has swept away one of the biggest weaknesses in the UK’s macroeconomic framework: the bias against public investment. It’s a very big deal.
This means this government will avoid the huge falls in public sector investment planned by the last government, but it’s a bigger deal than just shaping next week’s Budget…
…because the new fiscal rules reshape the Treasury’s incentives - removing the short term incentive to cut investment to pay for tax cuts or fiscal shortfalls. Those pressures have driven our disastrously low and volatile levels of public investment for over 4 decades
Understandably lots of debate about child poverty this morning – something we as a country should spend much more time focusing on
The context here is the first Labour Kings Speech in 14yrs – implementing a manifesto just endorsed by the election result. No-one should be surprised that 98+% of Labour MPs voted for it/against amendments from other parties. That’s business as normal just days after an election
More importantly we shouldn’t confuse parliamentary procedure with what actually matters - reducing child poverty, something I’ve spent my life working on – in the last Labour government (which did exactly that) and ever since.
The case for @RachelReevesMP’s sweeping changes to the planning system announced today…
1. For 15yrs, we’ve been attempting to dig a tunnel under the Thames. No digging has taken place, but £800m has been spent & 9k pages of planning applications drafted. This is double what Norway spent actually building Lærdalstunnelen, the world’s longest road tunnel…
2. If we want net zero to happen, and to happen without higher costs, then things are going to have to be built. Things that not everyone loves. And they will also have to be built if we want our firms to be able to invest, grow and pay higher wages