A thread on how cutting the top rate of tax will raise MORE revenue
International evidence shows clearly that cutting top marginal tax rates invariably increases revenue and just as importantly that raising them reduces revenues. Here are some international and UK examples: 1/16
The top rate of US income tax was raised to 71% during WWI with dire economic results and was later cut to 25% by Presidents Coolidge & Harding. As a result, revenues nearly doubled. The share of tax paid by those earning over $100k rose from 28% in 1921 to 51% in 1925. 2/16
President Kennedy's 1963 tax cuts reduced taxes at all levels, cutting the top rate from 91% to 70%. Total income tax revenue increased from $68.8 bn in 1964 to $95.7 bn in 1968. The share of tax paid by those earning over $50k went up from 12% in 1963 to 15% in 1966. 3/16
President Reagan cut the top rate of US income tax from 70% to 50% in 1981 and cut the top rate again to 28% in 1986. The share paid by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. 4/16
President George HW Bush raised the top marginal income tax rate to 31% in 1990. Tax receipts fell as a % of GDP and in 1991 after the tax increase richer taxpayers paid $6.5 billion LESS than they had in 1990. 5/16
In 2003 President George W Bush reduced the highest rate of income tax from 39.6% to 35% and the dividend tax from 39.6% to 15%. From 2004 to 2007 federal tax receipts increased by $785 billion with the bulk of that coming from the better off. 6/16
During the period 2003 to 2006 the number of Americans filing tax returns claiming income of over a million almost doubled, from 181,000 to 354,000. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by 107% in just two years, from $132 billion to $273 billion. 7/16
When the top federal tax rate in Canada was cut from 45% in 1981 to 29% in 1990, the share of tax receipts paid by the top 10% of taxpayers grew from 29% in 1981 to 45% in 1992. 8/16
India in 1984 reduced its top income rate from 65% to 50%. As a result, tax revenue in the 1985 fiscal year rose by 20% over 1984. 9/16
In 1997 Indian income tax rates were reduced for all taxpayers with the effective tax rate declining from 22% to 16.3%. Over the following six years revenue rose by a ratio of 1:1.4 - for each 1% decline in the tax rate, revenue increased by 1.4%. 10/16
France in 2006 reduced the top marginal rate from 48.09% to 40%. That and further cuts in marginal tax rates until 2007 resulted in substantially higher tax receipts as this graph shows: 11/16
Sweden increased income tax for high-earners by 3% to 60% in 2016. The affected group reduced their earnings and less revenue was raised. 12/16 bit.ly/3RnM6Wd
In 1979 Chancellor Geoffrey Howe cut the top rate from 83% to 60%. Before the cut, the top 1 percent of UK taxpayers paid only 11% of the total income tax take. By 1988 they were paying 14% of income tax revenue. 13/16
In 1988 Nigel Lawson cut top rates from 60% to 40% and receipts rose further. By 1997 the top 1% of earners paid a huge 21% of the total tax bill. This chart shows the huge increases paid by higher earners as a result of the Howe-Lawson reforms: 14/16
In April 2013 Chancellor Osbourne cut the additional rate of income from 50% to 45%. In the subsequent year £8bn more revenue was raised. The top 1% of taxpayers now pay 30% of income tax. 15/16
All the evidence suggests that the cut in the top UK rate from 45% to 40% will increase tax revenue and that any subsequent raising of the rate from 40% would decrease revenue. 16/16
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Britain has a tax system where the top 100 super-taxpayers contribute almost as much as the North Sea oil industry; where the top 0.1% pay more income tax than the entire bottom 50%," notes @FraserNelson as he shreds Labour's class warfare smokescreen on tax. 1/5
"Even in her best-case scenario, rich-squeezing barely affects the public finances. [By her own estimates] her moves on inheritance tax, schools & non-doms together increase the tax haul by just below 0.5%. The real money is raised by stealth tax: freezing everyone’s tax-free allowance & catching more workers in higher tax brackets. And, of course, the big one: raising employers’ national insurance (NI), a tax paid indirectly by workers (through lower pay) and consumers (through inflation, now highest in the G7)."
"Raising employers’ NI was expected to lose 50,000 jobs over five years — it has in fact cost 125,000 jobs so far, with more to come. And that’s before the coming Employment Rights Bill."
But who has been getting the new payrolled jobs, asks Fraser?
Keir Starner has appointed a Housing Minister who hates private housing.
Miatta Fahnbulleh, former CEO of the far left New Economics Foundation (NEF), wants to tax & regulate private housing to death and build state housing instead.
1/11
Miatta & the NEF are fixated on forcing the transfer of private rented homes to the public sector. "Policy should be geared towards upgrading existing private rented homes to ensure they are energy efficient, & acquiring & repurposing them as homes for social rent," they write.
"Social housing held and controlled by the public sector is best placed to meet social policy needs," they say.
They are not keen on the private sector building more houses, sniffily noting that "meeting the housebuilding targets would make it impossible for the UK to achieve its commitment to its carbon reduction goals by 2050."
Miatta herself campaigned against a private housing development in Peckham, saying "I support building homes on the Aylesham site — but they must include the right amount of social and affordable housing.”
Of course housing developments aren't viable on those terms.
Keir Starmer has appointed a high tax fanatic, Minouche Shafik, as his personal economic adviser.
Shafik is a collectivist academic who believes that “the idea that you are successful because you are smart & hardworking is pernicious & wrong."
She is a menace. 1/6
She wants to grab people's pension pots, saying "those with comfortable pension pots must be expected to pay more towards the common good.”
She also proposed “the imposition of property taxes which would direct a flow of capital from those in high value properties to those unable to get on the property ladder, through a capital endowment scheme.”
She co-chaired Torsten Bell's ‘Economy 2030 Inquiry’ which proposed a vast number of tax hikes, including the following:
Cut the VAT registration threshold to £50,000 then £30,000.
Create Road Duty for EVs.
End free carbon permits & introduce carbon border adjustment.
Encourage local congestion charges.
Charge Capital Gains Tax on death and when moving out of UK.
Scrap non-dom status.
Hike national insurance for higher self-employed incomes by 300% to 8%.
Hike basic rate of Dividend tax from 8.75% to 20%.
Introduce NI for rental income.
Extend employer NI to employer pension contributions.
Cut the £270,000 cap on tax-free pensions to £40,000.
Make everyone pay inheritance tax by scrapping the nil-rate band.
Hike vehicle excise duty for heavier cars.
Introduce pay-per-mile road duty for electric vehicles.
Scrap business and agricultural property reliefs.
Raise CGT on shares to 37% and real estate to 53%.
A branch manager of a lettings business was awarded a £25,000 bonus, but was horrified to learn that he would be left with less than nothing after tax. As a result of his £25,000 bonus, £25,533 would be taken by the tax man.
1/4
Over £100k the tax rate on his £25,000 bonus was 60% i.e. £15,000. "On top of this, he pays 2% NI plus another 9% is deducted to pay for this student loan which is really a graduate tax. This means an effective tax rate of 71% i.e. £17,750." writes Adam Walker
"As if this isn’t bad enough he has a 2-year-old daughter. Because he earned too much, he had already lost his right to claim child benefit which is worth £1,354p.a. However, his bonus £25,000 bonus means that he also no longer qualifies for 30 hours per week of free childcare which is worth a further £7,783p.a.. "
"When you add all this together, the impact of his £25,000 bonus is that the poor chap will be £533 worse off. He was so disgusted by this that he asked his employer to pay the whole of his bonus into his pension. This avoided the tax but it didn’t make him feel any less resentful."
"At the age of 28, he was looking forward to spending his hard-earned bonus on something nice not locking it up in a pension that he cannot spend for another 30 or 40 years.
As a consequence, their star manager who they so desperately wanted to keep decided to leave & take a job in Dubai."
"As we talk about the tax-raising budget to come we should not think of it as inevitable. It would be a gross breach of promise. It was what Labour were elected not to do, what they told us all that they would not do," says Danny Finkelstein in @thetimes
It's a key point
1/4
"Labour ran for office saying repeatedly that their plans were “about prosperity, not higher taxes”. At its manifesto launch Angela Rayner announced that “we can’t tax our way to growth.” To which Rachel Reeves added that “we don’t have a tax-and-spend manifesto. We have a growth plan.”
“There is nothing in our plans that requires any further increases in taxes, I have confidence in that. Voters can have confidence,” Rachel told Sky News.
"All of our plans are fully funded and fully costed and none of them require tax rises over and above the ones that we’ve already announced,” said Keir
No wonder the bond markets are worried that Torsten Bell is writing the budget. Not only does he advocate growth-destroying tax hikes but he has consistently pushed for higher public spending & the rewriting of fiscal rules to permit yet more borrowing
Examples below: 1/7
In “The end of austerity?” (Resolution Foundation blog, 13 Jun 2017) Bell argued that ending austerity should mean lifting the public-sector pay cap and reversing benefit cuts. “…An extra £3bn a year would be needed for a 1% pay rise," he said.
In “The end of austerity? Not so much” (RF blog, 3 Oct 2018) he said halting the planned fall in day-to-day departmental spend required £12bn extra annually by 2022–23.
In “The Budget marks a very significant easing – but not an end of austerity” (RF blog, 30 Oct 2018), he said argued that greater departmental spending was required to end austerity.