X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Coffee House

Why George should listen to Danny

23 February 2012

10:08 AM

23 February 2012

10:08 AM

In the new Spectator, we back the Liberal Democrats’ plans to raise the tax
threshold to £10,000 — provided that the money is found by cuts in state spending rather than the pensions raid they propose. It’s not top of my list of tax cuts, but we have to
accept the realpolitik. It’s the only tax-cutting option that has advocates in the Treasury.

There are plenty of proposals around to cut taxes and wake the British economy from its ‘lost decade’ slumber. The need to use tax cuts as a remedy to the deficit will be familiar to
anyone who has followed the American presidential debate: every candidate, even Romney, has their own list of radical tax cuts. The basic concept which JFK outlined in 1962 (speech here) remains: that a deficit caused by overspending is a sign of sclerosis, but one caused by tax cuts is transitory because the economy will be
moving to an era of higher growth. The Tory leadership rejects this JFK logic, and will tolerate a corporation tax cut but no more. (This is a legacy from the 2005 Tory wars, where David Davis was
attacked for his ‘unfunded tax cuts’ — a Brownite idea which, alas, stuck).

[Alt-Text]


Other people have been planning pro-growth tax cuts, and Jonathan provided a handy list of
them
yesterday. I am personally drawn to those by the Centre for Policy Studies (see its brilliant Adrenalin Now
paper). The Centre for Social Justice says that a marriage tax break is better-targetted at the poor. There are ideas from the Free Enterprise Group of Tory MPs (now, alas, reduced to a caucus
within the party) and Liam Fox’s plans for employment tax cuts also make lots of sense. But we ought to face facts: George Osborne has shown few signs of interest in any of this. He thinks
he’s doing enough and that his slow-mo corporation tax cut will (to use his phrase) ‘put fuel in the tank of the British economy’.

The Lib Dems, therefore, have the only tax-cutting game in town — and they could do with some help from Conservatives making the case. So far, Nick Clegg has talked about his policy as some kind of fiscal pain relief: saving £60 a month. This is
popular (YouGov say 87 per cent like it) but even this undersells the policy. By making work pay more, it would likely move tens of thousands of people from welfare to work, augmenting the
coalition’s welfare reform strategy. Crucially, it might even pay for itself. The notion is denounced as cuckoo by some, but not by authorities in Sweden who now reckon that its tax cut for
the low paid has 80 per cent paid for itself due to less dole and more VAT receipts.

But let’s imagine that the idea of a self-financing tax cut is a little too futuristic for today’s policymakers, and that the £7 billion cost of Clegg’s tax cut has to come
from somewhere. As I argued on Tuesday, the government machine is spending
£9bn less this year by breathing in a little more sharply than it intended to: no schools or hospitals were harmed in the making of this spending cut. And this was by accident. What might it
do on purpose? This ought to be a textbook coalition compromise, and the centrpiece of next month’s Budget.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close