A national insurance hike to boost social care would be built on a misunderstanding

Published

3 years ago

July 20, 2021

admin

Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have, it is reported, agreed to pay for long term reform of social care by raising national insurance by a penny in the pound for both employers and employees.

The move would raise an estimated £10bn annually.

The government is braced for unease among its backbenchers because the Conservatives promised not to raise income tax or national insurance in their election-winning 2019 manifesto.

It perhaps ought not to be too worried about that. The prime minister can always point to the crisis in social care and the need, more broadly, to repair the public finances after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The chancellor, meanwhile, can point out that one of his predecessors, Gordon Brown, did something similar in his April 2002 budget. Having pledged not to raise income taxes in Labour’s election-winning 2001 manifesto, Mr Brown broke the spirit of that promise, slapping more than 4 million workers with a 1% increase in national insurance.

The risk of breaking an election promise is the least of the problems with this proposal.

For a start, the move will perpetuate the myth that national insurance is some kind of special safety net, hypothecated to pay for pensions, unemployment benefits and other elements of the welfare state such as the NHS.

It is remarkable how many people still believe this when, for many years, national insurance has simply been income tax by another name.

Yes, there is something called the National Insurance Fund, but essentially it is a government accounting wheeze.

The money raised in national insurance contributions is insufficient to pay for the benefits and public services that many people think they do. It just disappears, effectively, into the government’s coffers and is spent in the same way that revenues from income tax, VAT and corporation tax are spent.

Because the UK state pension system is a so-called ‘pay as you go’ system, the national insurance paid by today’s workers pays the pensions of today’s pensioners, not their own.

This misunderstanding of national insurance may be precisely why the government is proposing going to go down this route.

Polling suggests people are happier paying national insurance rather than income tax because they genuinely appear to believe they are getting something, a benefit, for doing so.

It is why chancellors down the years have reached for national insurance as their favoured stealth tax. In 1979, national insurance receipts were equal to half of income tax receipts. This year, according to the Treasury, they will be equal to roughly three-quarters of income tax receipts.

There are also other problems with this proposal.

One is that it exacerbates intergenerational unfairness. Unlike income tax, workers of state pension age do not pay national insurance on their earnings, so the hike will fall entirely on younger workers.

Moreover, because national insurance – unlike income tax – is levied only on earnings, rather than other sources of income, such as interest on savings, the cost of this measure will fall disproportionately on younger people rather than older ones.

In other words, having made sacrifices throughout the pandemic to protect older people, younger people will again be paying through their earnings for a benefit that will benefit older people rather than themselves.

This move, then, may deepen the problems the Conservatives have with younger voters.

An explicit aim of reforming social care is to prevent people having to sell their homes to pay for such care. Younger people, unable to buy a home in the first place, may wonder why they are being asked to pay higher national insurance contributions so that others may keep theirs.

Others will criticise the lack of progressivity in this proposal.

All workers (other than those earning more than £100,000 annually and who do not benefit from the personal allowance) can earn up to £12,570 before they have to start paying income tax. By contrast, national insurance kicks in as soon as a worker has earned £9,568.

Accordingly, a wealthy pensioner living off a generous final salary pension or on income from their savings and dividends will not be paying this proposed hike, but a low-paid worker earning just £184 per week will be.

Another major problem with this proposal is the unwanted consequences it will have. Taxes, by their nature, reduce the activity on which they are levied. It is why chancellors tax smoking heavily.

Because this proposed national insurance will fall on employers, as well as employees, it will make the cost of hiring someone more expensive.

Higher payroll taxes mean fewer people in work and, potentially, lower growth. It is why, in response to Mr Brown’s national insurance hike in 2002, the then-Conservative leader, Iain Duncan-Smith, called the move a “tax on jobs”.

So, too, did David Cameron and George Osborne when Mr Brown ordered his chancellor, Alistair Darling, to announce a 1% rise in national insurance in March 2010 to pay for the financial crisis. Mr Darling had wanted to increase VAT instead. Mr Brown’s decision ensured Labour had barely any support from business in that year’s general election.

So, to conclude, what the PM is proposing is a tax increase that will disproportionately hit younger and low-paid workers while making it harder for employers to hire people.

Or, as Nick Macpherson, the former permanent secretary at the Treasury, put it on Twitter: “Rentiers and trustafarians won’t have to pay a penny. And the low paid young will subsidise the wealthy old. Higher spending does require higher taxes. But national insurance is a regressive tax on jobs.”

Quite.

Business

Russia sanctions-busting? Big questions remain over UK car exports

Published

1 day ago

April 26, 2024

admin

Russia sanctions-busting? Big questions remain over UK car exports

The extraordinary, unprecedented and largely unexplained flows of millions of pounds of British luxury cars into states neighbouring Russia continued in February, according to new official data.

Some £26m worth of British cars were exported to Azerbaijan in February, according to data from HM Revenue & Customs.

The numbers show that in the latest quarter this former Soviet state with developing economy status was the 17th biggest destination for UK cars, bigger than long-established export markets such as Ireland, Portugal and Qatar.

Azerbaijan’s ascent has coincided almost to the month with the imposition of sanctions on the export of cars to Russia.

British cars are banned from being sent into Russia, both as “dual use” goods, which could be repurposed as weapons, and, for any cars over the value of £42,000, under specific luxury goods restrictions.

However, even as UK car exports to Russia plummeted to zero, they have risen sharply to states neighbouring Russia, including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and, most notably of all, Azerbaijan.

While it is impossible to prove where those shipments end up eventually, there is plentiful anecdotal evidence that these countries are being used as conduits to smuggle banned goods to Russia.

The latest HMRC data shows that in the three months to February, the average value of the cars being sent to Azerbaijan was over £115,000, making this small, relatively poor economy one of the most high-value luxury car markets in the world – alongside Switzerland, Luxembourg and Saudi Arabia.

The total value of UK car exports to Azerbaijan in the two years since the invasion of Ukraine and the imposition of sanctions is now £523m. That compares to £58m in the immediately preceding two years.

Britain’s motor lobby group, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), has insisted that this 800% increase can be explained by domestic factors in the Azerbaijani economy – and is not connected with Russian sanctions.

An SMMT spokesperson said: “UK carmakers comply with all trade sanctions and would condemn any party putting that commitment at risk. Car exports from UK factories to Azerbaijan have grown since 2019 due to multiple factors, including significant new model launches, pent-up demand and a growing domestic appetite for UK luxury cars. Indeed, UN data shows that just two cars of any origin have been officially exported from Azerbaijan to Russia this year.

“We have never ruled out the possibility that third parties might exploit any vulnerabilities in the sanction regime, and manufacturers do everything in their power to prevent this. Any UK-built vehicle on sale in Russia found its way there without their authorisation. This is a fast-moving global issue covering products from multiple sectors in many countries deploying sanctions, and tackling any vulnerabilities requires a coordinated, global response.”

However, while United Nations (UN) data suggests the quantity of cars being officially exported to Russia remains low, that same evidence suggests that, far from behaving like a normal car market, Azerbaijan does seem to be funnelling cars off elsewhere into Central Asia.

Contrary to the SMMT’s analysis, which suggests the car exports can be explained by domestic factors, car exports from Azerbaijan have risen by 4,800% since the invasion of Russia, with most of the cars destined (according to UN data) for Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and the United Arab Emirates.

According to UK government sources, these states are understood to be widely used as conduits for goods into Russia.

Cars are not the only British goods to have seen a large spike in exports to Central Asia and the Caucasus – so too have components and machinery used to make weapons. In a visit to Kyrgyzstan this week, Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron admitted that Russia is using central Asian countries to sidestep sanctions and build its “war machine”.

Business

Post Office inquiry: Former complaints handler executive says she never ‘knowingly’ did anything wrong

Published

1 day ago

April 25, 2024

admin

Post Office inquiry: Former complaints handler executive says she never 'knowingly' did anything wrong

A former top Post Office executive has told the Horizon scandal inquiry she never “knowingly” did anything wrong and did not remember a 2010 email saying that cash balances in sub-postmasters’ branch accounts could be remotely accessed.

Angela van den Bogerd, who held various roles over 35 years at the organisation, made the comments after opening her evidence on Thursday by saying she was “truly, truly sorry” for the “devastation” caused to wrongly convicted sub-postmasters.

Her roles at the Post Office included handling complaints about its Horizon software, which was provided by Japanese firm Fujitsu.

More than 700 Post Office managers were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015, after the system made it seem like money was missing from branches. At the time, the company insisted Horizon was robust.

Ms van der Bogerd, who was played by Coronation Street actress Katherine Kelly in the ITV drama Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, had previously not spoken publicly since a 2019 High Court case.

At the time, Judge Peter Fraser criticised her testimony and said she “did not give me frank evidence, and sought to obfuscate matters, and mislead me”.

Jason Beer KC, lead counsel to the inquiry, challenged Ms van den Bogerd’s opening statement, as he accused her of not saying sorry for her own role in the scandal.

Ms van den Bogerd, who resigned as the Post Office’s business improvement director in 2020, said she regretted missing significant documents and apologised for “not getting to the answer more quickly”.

She said: “But with the evidence I had and the parameters of my role at the time, I did the best I could to the best of my ability.”

Ms van den Bogerd added: “I didn’t knowingly do anything wrong and I would never knowingly do anything wrong.”

The inquiry heard that Ms van den Bogerd was sent an email in December 2010 informing her Fujitsu could remotely amend cash balances in branch accounts via Horizon.

She told the inquiry she had no memory of it and only became aware of the issue in a January 2011 email.

The inquiry was shown a transcript of a meeting that same month between her and sub-postmistress Rachpal Athwal, who was sacked after being wrongly accused of stealing £710 before being reinstated.

In the meeting, Ms van den Bogerd said Horizon could not be accessed remotely by anyone from the Post Office, without mentioning that Fujitsu could, the inquiry heard.

Mr Beer asked: “Are you saying that what you said overall there is accurate?”

Ms van den Bogerd replied: “So that is accurate. I go on to talk later about Fujitsu, I believe”. Mr Beer said it was inaccurate because she had not given the full picture.

The inquiry also heard that, prior to a High Court case in 2019, Ms van den Bogerd made a witness statement in 2018 in which she said the first she knew of the possibility of inserting transactions into the system remotely was in the year or so before.

Mr Beer told the inquiry: “That was false.”

She replied: “Well, at the time I didn’t think it was.”

Pressed further on the issue, she said the messaging on remote access was “constantly changing” and that colleagues had been “very strong” that such access was “impossible”.

Ms van den Bogerd was also asked about an October 2014 email she and other senior staff were sent by Post Office media officer Melanie Corfield, which discussed what the response should be if anyone asked about remote access to Horizon.

The email said: “Our current line if we are asked about remote access potentially being used to change branch data/transactions is simply: ‘This is not and never has been possible’.”

Mr Beer said: “You knew that was false from multiple sources by then, by now, didn’t you?”

Ms van den Bogerd appeared flustered, before replying: “Clearly I was aware of that and just didn’t pick this up… it didn’t register with me at the time, but obviously from what we’ve discussed then this was incorrect terms of reference of a flow of information, yes.”

She added she was “certainly not trying to cover up… it wasn’t just me, there were other people party to the same information”.

Meanwhile, earlier in the hearing, the former executive said she agreed with Mr Beer that using words such as “exception” or “anomaly” to describe computer bugs had been an “attempt to control the narrative”.

The inquiry continues.

Business

Post Office inquiry: Former complaints handler executive says she never ‘knowingly’ did anything wrong

Published

1 day ago

April 25, 2024

admin

A former top Post Office executive has told the inquiry into the Horizon scandal that she never “knowingly” did anything wrong.

Angela van den Bogerd, who held various roles over 35 years at the organisation, made the comment after opening her evidence on Thursday by saying she was “truly, truly sorry” for the “devastation” caused to wrongly convicted sub-postmasters.