Budget 2024: How fiscal rules are impeding long-term investments – and what Rachel Reeves can do about it
Before we get onto the budget and what Rachel Reeves might do to fiddle her fiscal rules and give herself a little more room to spend, I want you to ponder, for a moment, a recent report from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
This wasn’t one of those big OBR reports that get lots of attention – such as the documents and numbers it produces alongside each budget, full of the forecasts and analyses on the state of the economy and the public finances.
Instead, it was a chin-scratchy working paper that asked the question: if the government invests in something – say, a road or a railway, or a new school building – how long does it generally take for that investment to come good?
The answer, according to the report, was: actually quite a long time. Imagine the government spends a chunk of money – 1% of national income – on investment this year. In five years’ time that investment will only have created 0.4 per cent of GDP. In other words, in net terms, it’s costed us 0.6% of GDP.
But, and this is the important thing, look a little further off. A high-speed rail network is designed to last decades, and as those decades go on, it gradually improves people’s lives – think of the time saved by each commuter each day – small amounts each day, but they gradually mount up. So while the investment costs money in the short run, in the longer run, the benefits gradually mount.
The OBR’s calculation was that while a 1% of GDP public investment would only deliver 0.4% of GDP in five years, by the time 10 or 12 years had passed, the investment would be responsible for approaching 1% of GDP. In other words, it would have broken even. The money put in at the start would be fully earned back in benefits.
And by the time that investment was 50 years old, it would have delivered a whopping 2.5% of GDP in economic benefits. Future generations would benefit enormously – or so said the OBR’s sums.
Having laid that out, I want you now to ponder the fiscal rules Rachel Reeves is confronted with at this, her first budget. Most pressingly, ponder the so-called debt rule, which insists that the chancellor must have the national debt – well, technically it’s “public sector net debt excluding Bank of England interventions” – falling within five years.
There is, it’s worth underlining at this point, nothing fundamental about this rule. Reeves inherited it from the Conservative Party, who only dreamed it up a few years ago, after COVID. Back before then, there have been countless rules that were supposed to prevent the national debt falling and, frankly, rarely ever succeeded.
But since Reeves wanted everyone to know, ahead of the election, just how serious Labour was about managing the public finances, she decided she would keep those Tory rules. One can understand the politics of this; the economics, less so – then again, I confess I’ve always been a bit sceptical about all these rules.
The upshot is, to meet this rule, she needs the national debt to be falling between the fourth and fifth year of the OBR’s five-year forecast. And according to the last OBR forecasts, which date back to Jeremy Hunt‘s last budget, it is. But not by much: only by £8.9bn. If that number rings a bell, it is because this is the much-vaunted, but not much understood, “headroom” figure a lot of people in Westminster like to drone on about.
Read more from Sky News:
Abolishing national insurance ‘could take several parliaments’
UK has no ‘credible’ plan to fund military equipment
And – if you’re taking these rules very literally, which everyone in Westminster seems to be doing – then the takeaway is that the chancellor really doesn’t have much room left to spend in the coming budget. She only has £8.9bn extra leeway to borrow!
Every spending decision – whether on investment, on the NHS, on benefits or indeed on anything else, happens in the shadow of this terrifying £8.9bn headroom figure. And since the chancellor has already explained, in her “black hole” event earlier this year, that the Conservatives promised a lot of extra spending they hadn’t budgeted for – not, perhaps, the entire £22bn figure she likes to cite but still a fair chunk – then it stands to reason there’s really “no money left”.
Or is there? So far we’ve been taking the fiscal rules quite literally but at this stage it’s worth asking the question: why? First off, there’s nothing gospel about these rules. There’s no tablet of stone that says the national debt needs to be falling in five years’ time.
Second, remember what we learned from that OBR paper. Sometimes investments in things can actually generate more money than they cost. Yet fixating on a debt rule means the money you borrow to fund those investments is always counted as a negative – not a positive. And since the debt rule only looks five years into the future, you only ever see the cost and not the breakeven point.
Third, the debt rule used by this government actually focuses on a measure of the national debt which might not necessarily be the right one. That might sound odd until you realise there are actually quite a few different ways of expressing the scale of UK national debt.
The measure we currently use excludes the Bank of England, which seemed, a few years ago, to be a sensible thing to do. The Bank has been engaged in a policy called quantitative easing which involves buying and selling lots of government debt – which distorts the national debt. Perhaps it’s best to exclude it.
Except that recently those Bank of England interventions have actually been serving to drive up losses for the state. I won’t go into it in depth here for risk of causing a headache, but the upshot is most economists think focusing on a debt measure which is mostly being affected right now not by government decisions but by the central bank reversing a monetary policy exercise seems pretty perverse.
In other words, there’s a very strong argument that instead of focusing on the ex-BoE measure of net debt, the fiscal rules should instead be focusing on the overall measure of net debt. And here’s the thing: when you look at that measure of net debt, lo and behold it’s falling more between year four and five. In other words, there’s considerably more headroom: just under £25bn rather than just under £9bn based on that other Bank-excluding measure of debt.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Might Reeves declare, at the budget or in the run-up, that it makes far more sense to focus on overall PSND from now on? Quite plausibly. And while in one respect it’s a fiddle, in her defence it’s a fiddle from one silly rule to an ever so slightly less silly rule.
It would also mean she has more room to borrow to invest – if that’s what she chooses to do. But it doesn’t resolve the deeper issue: that both of these measures fixate on the short-term cost of debt without taking into account the long-term benefits of investment – back to that OBR paper.
If Reeves is determined to stick to the, some would say arbitrary, five-year deadline to get debt falling but wants to incorporate some measure of the benefits of investment, she could always choose one of two other measures for this rule.
She could focus on something called “public sector net financial liabilities” or “public sector net worth”. Both of these measures include some of the assets owned by the state as well as its debts – the upshot being that hopefully they reflect a little more of the benefits of investing more money.
The problem with these measures is they are subject to quite a lot of revision when, say, accountants change their opinion about the value of the national road or rail network. So some would argue these measures are prone to more volatility and fiddling than simple net debt.
Even so, these measures would dramatically transform the “headroom” picture. All of a sudden, Reeves would have over £60bn of headroom to play with. More than enough to splurge on loads of investments without breaking her fiscal rule.
There’s one other change to the rule that would probably make more sense than any of the above: changing that five-year deadline to a 10 or even 15-year deadline. At that kind of horizon, a pound spent on a decent investment would suddenly look net positive for the economy rather than a drain.
Whether Reeves wants to do any of the above depends, ultimately, on how she wants to begin her term in office. Does she want to establish herself as a tough, fiscally conservative Chancellor – with a view, perhaps, to relaxing in later years? Or does she feel it’s more important to begin investing early, so some of the potential benefits might be obvious within a decade or so?
Really, there’s nothing in the economics to stop her choosing either path. Certainly not a set of fiscal rules which are riddled with flaws.
Business
Rachel Reeves said this flagship policy would raise money – it may end up doing the opposite
What do we do about the non-doms?
It’s a question more than a handful of people have been asking themselves at the Treasury lately.
Politics Hub: Follow latest updates
It had seemed simple enough. In her first budget as chancellor, Rachel Reeves promised a crackdown on the non-dom regime, which for the past 200 years has allowed residents to declare they are permanently domiciled in another country for tax purposes.
Under the scheme, non-doms, some of the richest people in the country, were not taxed on their foreign incomes.
Then that all changed.
Standing at the despatch box in October last year, the chancellor said: “I have always said that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your tax here. So today, I can confirm we will abolish the non-dom tax regime and remove the outdated concept of domicile from the tax system from April 2025.”
The hope was that the move would raise £3.8bn for the public purse. However, there are signs that the non-doms are leaving in such great numbers that the policy could end up costing the UK investment, jobs and, of course, the tax that the non-doms already pay on their UK earnings.
If the numbers don’t add up, this tax-raising policy could morph into an act of self-harm.
Rachel Reeves has plenty to ponder ahead of her next budget. File pic: Reuters
With the budget already under strain, a poor calculation would be costly financially. The alternative, a U-turn, could be expensive for other reasons, eroding faith in a chancellor who has already been on a turbulent ride.
So, how worried should she be?
The data on the number of non-doms in the country is published with a considerable lag. So, it will be a while before we know the full impact of this policy.
However, there is much uncertainty about how this group will behave.
While the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the policy could generate £3.8bn for the government over the next five years, assuming between 12 and 25% of them leave, it admitted it lacked confidence in those numbers.
Worryingly for ministers, there are signs, especially in London, that the exodus could be greater.
Property sales
Analysis from the property company LonRes, shows there were 35.8% fewer transactions in May for properties in London’s most exclusive postcodes compared with a year earlier and 33.5% fewer than the pre-pandemic average.
Estate agents blame falling demand from non-dom buyers.
This comes as no surprise to Magda Wierzycka, a South African billionaire businesswoman, who runs an investment fund in London. She herself is threatening to leave the UK unless the government waters down its plans.
Magda Wierzycka, from Narwan nondom VT
“Non-doms are leaving, as we speak, and the problem with numbers is that the consequences will only become known in the next 12 to 18 months,” she said.
“But I have absolutely no doubt, based on people I know who have already left, that the consequences would be quite significant.
“It’s not just about the people who are leaving that everyone is focusing on. It’s also about the people who are not coming, people who would have come, set up businesses, created jobs, they’re not coming. They take one look at what has happened here, and they’re not coming.”
Lack of options for non-doms
But where will they go? Britain was unusual in offering such an attractive regime. Bar a few notable exceptions, such as Italy, most countries run residency-based tax systems, meaning people pay tax to the country in which they live.
This approach meant many non-doms escaped paying tax on their foreign income altogether because they didn’t live in those countries where they earned their foreign income.
In any case, widespread double taxation treaties mean people are generally not taxed twice, although they may have to pay the difference.
In one important sense, Magda is right. It could take a while before the consequences are fully known. There are few firm data points for us to draw conclusions from right now, but the past could be illustrative.
Read more on Sky News:
Reeves warned over tax rises
What is a wealth tax?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Are taxes going to rise?
The non-dom regime has been through repeated reform. George Osborne changed the system back in 2017 to limit it to just 15 years. Then Jeremy Hunt announced the Tories would abolish the regime altogether in one of his final budgets.
Following the 2017 reforms there was an initial shock, but the numbers stabilised, falling just 5% after a few years. The data suggests there was an initial exodus of people who were probably considering leaving anyway, but those who remained – and then arrived – were intent on staying in the UK.
So, should the government look through the numbers and hold its nerve? Not necessarily.
Have Labour crossed a red line?
Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the response could be far greater this time because of some key changes under Labour.
The government will no longer allow non-doms to protect money held in trusts, so 40% inheritance tax will be due on their estates. For many, that is a red line.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Rachel Reeves would hate what you just said’
Mr Adam said: “The 2017 reform deliberately built in what you might call a loophole, a way to avoid paying a lot more tax through the use of existing offshore trusts. That was a route deliberately left open to enable many people to avoid the tax.
“So it’s not then surprising that they didn’t up sticks and leave. Part of the reform that was announced last year was actually not having that kind of gap in the system to enable people to avoid the tax using trusts, and therefore you might expect to see a bigger response to the kind of reforms we’ve seen announced now, but it also means we don’t have very much idea about how big a response to expect.”
With the public finances under considerable pressure, that will offer little comfort to a chancellor who is operating on the finest of margins.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike