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.


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

Concert and Blues

Tallinn is full tonight... Big concerts on at the Song field The Weeknd and Bonnie Tyler (!). The place is buzzing and some sixty thousand concert goers have booked every bed for thirty miles around Tallinn. It should be a busy high summer, but it isn´t. Tourism is down sharply overall. Only 70 cruise ships calling this season, versus over 300 before Ukraine. Since no one goes to St Pete, demand has fallen, and of course people think that Estonia is not safe. We are tired. The economy is still under big pressure, and the fall of tourism is a significant part of that. The credit rating for Estonia has been downgraded as the government struggles with spending. The summer has been a little gloomy, and soon the long and slow autumn will drift into the dark of the year. Yesterday I met with more refugees: the usual horrible stories, the usual tears. I try to make myself immune, but I can´t. These people are wounded in spirit, carrying their grief in a terrible cradling. I try to project hop

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo

KamiKwasi brings an end to the illusion of Tory economic competence

After a long time, Politics seems to be getting interesting again, so I thought it might be time to restart my blog. With regard to this weeks mini budget, as with all budgets, there are two aspects: the economic and the political. The economic rationale for this package is questionable at best. The problems of the UK economy are structural. Productivity and investment are weak, infrastructure is under-invested and decaying. Small businesses are going to the wall and despite entrepreneurship being relatively strong in Britain, self-employment is increasingly unattractive. Red tape since Brexit has led to a significant fall in exports and the damage has been disproportionately on small businesses. Literally none of these problems are being addressed by this package. Even if the package were to stimulate some kind of short term consumption-led growth boom, this is unlikely to be sustainable, not least because what is being added on the fiscal side will be need to be offset, to a great de