Skip to main content

What Britain could start to do next

The problem with British government policy is that the civil servants are still working to the New Labour Playbook. "Eye-catching" announcements are made, usually with recycled, rather than new money which are supposed to give the impression that the government is purposefully shaping the agenda rather than simply waiting on events. Almost always these announcements involve spending, and whenever any idea of restructuring is mentioned, the necessary retrenchment is typically ignored.


Except, of course, that Britain needs retrenchment.


The reason why so many voters now believe the welfare system needs reducing, is because they have seen that it doesn't work. Often it has created a skivers charter, and placed innumerable bureaucratic obstacles in the way of those who actually wish to get work. Huge amounts of money have been wasted.


The core of British bureaucracy, ironically enough, lies not with the spending departments but with the Treasury. As I have noted before, the over 11,000 pages of the British tax code is five times larger than the German code. It is also a make work project for tax inspectors and accountants- with billions now at stake in vested interests. Yet the cost of tax collection is nearly as bloated as the tax code itself. Over £18 billion is spent on simply collecting tax. That represents about 8% of revenue, and does not account for the roughly the same amount spent on benefits and tax credits. Essentially 15% of our taxes are squandered on the spectacularly inefficient way we collect and distribute them. This cost does not count the cost of compliance for individual tax payers and companies and the army of accountants that they need to hire.


Meanwhile the regulatory burden on small businesses is decimating our spirit of entrepreneurship. People who can not find work find it even more difficult to set up on their own.


This has got to stop.


If the coalition does one thing, it must break out of the New Labour mindset so beloved of civil servants. The tax code must be radically reformed: tax simplification would be a start, but if the UK is genuinely going to restore its competitiveness, it should seek a tax code that can be understood and complied with by simple individuals. Supply side reform is now a critical part of stimulating recovery.


In my view, the British people are increasingly cynical of government programmes that do more for the civil servants administering them than for the supposed targets of those programmes.


A radical tax overhaul will show people that they can take back control in their lives.


That is the message that Liberal Democrats should be putting across in coalition and in public.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Cicero, while I agree with a lot of this, I was startled by the following:

"Over £18 billion is spent on simply collecting tax. That represents about 8% of revenue"

That implies total tax revenue is around £225 billion. Surely it is closer to £550 billion?

While I agree entirely that £18 billion is far too large a sum, and needs reducing, it doesn't strike me as very likely that it would produce the percentage scale economies you imply. Although in net terms it might do so by increasing tax take due to the reduction in tax evasion and increased economic activity resulting from reduced bureaucracy.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...