A national insurance hike to boost social care would be built on a misunderstanding
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.
The Treasury risks hurting those worst affected financially by the COVID crisis through any rise in NI contributions
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”.
Gordon Brown introduced an extra tier of National Insurance in 2002
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.
The chancellor is under pressure because financial market moves have pushed up the cost of government borrowing, putting Rachel Reeves’ economic plans in peril.
So what’s going on, and should we be worried?
What is a bond?
UK Treasury bonds, known as gilts because they used to literally have gold edges, are the mechanism by which the state borrows money from investors.
They pay a fixed annual return, known as a coupon, to the lender over a fixed period – five, 10 and 30 years are common durations – and are traded on international markets, which means their value changes even as the return remains fixed.
Money blog: Major mobile company increasing bills next month
That means their true interest rate is measured by the ‘yield’, which is calculated by dividing the annual return by the current price. So when bond prices fall, the yield – the effective interest rate – goes up.
And for the last three months, markets have been selling off UK bonds, pushing borrowing costs higher. This week the yield on 30-year gilts reached its highest level since 1998 at 5.37%, and 10-year gilts briefly hit a level last seen after the financial crisis, sparking jitters in markets and in Westminster.
Why are investors selling UK bonds?
Bond markets are influenced by many factors but the primary domestic pressure is the prospect of persistent inflation, with interest rates staying high for longer as a consequence.
Higher inflation reduces the purchasing power of the coupon, and higher interest rates make the bond less competitive because investors can now buy bonds paying a higher rate. Both of which apply in the UK.
Inflation remains higher than the Bank of England‘s 2% target and many large companies are warning of further price rises as tax and wage rises bite in the spring.
As a result, the Bank is now expected to cut rates only twice this year, as opposed to the four reductions priced in by markets as recently as November.
Nor is there much optimism that the economic growth promised by the chancellor will save the day in the short term, with business groups warning investment will be tempered by taxes.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sky News’ Ed Conway on the impact of increased long-term borrowing costs as they hit their highest level in the UK since 1998
Is the UK alone?
No. Bond markets are international and in recent months the primary influence has been rising borrowing costs in the US, triggered by Donald Trump’s re-election and the assumption that tariffs and other policies will be inflationary.
The UK is not immune from those forces, and other European nations including Germany and France, facing their own political gyrations, have seen costs rise too. (The US influence could yet increase if strong labour market figures on Friday reinforce the sense that rates will remain high).
But there are specific domestic factors, particularly the prospect of stagflation. The UK is also more reliant on overseas investors than other G7 nations, which means the markets really matter.
Why does it matter to Reeves?
The cost of borrowing affects not just the issuance of new debt but the price of maintaining existing loans, and it matters because these higher costs could erode the “headroom” Ms Reeves left herself in her budget.
Headroom is a measure of how much slack she has against her self-imposed fiscal rule, itself intended to reassure markets that the UK is a stable location for investment, to fund day-to-day spending entirely from tax revenue by 2029-30.
At the budget, she had just £9.9bn of headroom and some analysts estimate market pressure has eroded all but £1bn of that.
Read more:
Influential union leader announces retirement
Food prices will rise due to budget tax hikes, retail body warns
At the end of March the Office for Budget Responsibility will provide an update on the fiscal position and market conditions could change before then, but if they don’t then Ms Reeves may have to rewrite her plans.
The Treasury this week described the fiscal rules as “non-negotiable”, which leaves a choice between raising taxes or, more likely, cutting costs to make the numbers add up.
Why does it matter to the rest of us?
Persistently higher rates could push up consumer debt costs, increasing the burden of mortgages and other loans. Beyond that, the state of the economy matters to all of us.
The underlying challenges – persistent inflation, stagnant growth, worse productivity, ailing public services – are fundamental, and Labour has promised to address them.
Investment in infrastructure and new industries, spurred by planning and financial market reform, are all promised as medium-term solutions to the structural challenges. But politics, like financial markets, is a short-term business, and Ms Reeves could do with some relief, starting with helpful inflation and growth figures due next week.
An intervention by the chancellor to help shore up flagging financial market confidence in the UK economy has been ruled out by the government, amid further declines in the value of the pound.
Sterling fell to its lowest level against the dollar since November 2023 early on Thursday, building on recent losses.
A toxic cocktail of concerns include budget-linked flatlining growth, rising unemployment and the effects of elevated interest rates to help keep a lid on rising inflation.
They have also been borne out by a leap in UK long term borrowing costs, which hit levels not seen since 1998 earlier this week.
Money latest: Major mobile provider to raise bills
It piles pressure on the chancellor because it signals that investors are demanding greater rewards in return for holding UK debt, adding unwelcome costs to Ms Reeves who is borrowing money to invest in public services in addition to the budget tax burden on business and the wealthy.
The Tories were granted an urgent question in the Commons this morning which urged her to account for the shift in the market reaction to her budget, which critics have warned will only harm investment, jobs, pay and lead to higher prices.
Treasury minister Darren Jones, who was sent to reply on her behalf, told MPs there were no plans for further commentary beyond a Treasury statement issued on Wednesday which defended the government’s approach.
Shadow chancellor Mel Stride urged Ms Reeves to cancel her forthcoming, and long-planned, trade trip to China to allow for a change of course to recover market confidence.
He claimed Britons are having to “pay the price for yet another socialist government taxing and spending their way into trouble”.
Mr Jones responded that he would take no lessons on managing the economy from the Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why is Rachel Reeves flying to China?
Read more: Plenty of concern over UK economy but this is no Truss moment
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey demanded an emergency fiscal statement to parliament that cancelled the National Insurance hike planned for April to boost economic growth and bring interest rates down.
In addition to the strain on sterling over Mr Reeves’s tax and spending plans, the effect on the pound has been intensified by a strengthening dollar due to shifting market expectations of fewer US interest rate cuts this year.
Sterling is trading at $1.22 – a level last seen in November 2023.
The spot rate had stood as high as $1.34 in September.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Investors ‘losing confidence’ in UK
It has also fallen sharply however against other countries’ currencies.
The pound is a cent down versus the euro at €1.19 on the start of the week, falling six tenths of a cent in today’s market moves.
Long-term bond yields, which reflect perceived risk, hit their highest level since 1998 this week and other benchmark gilt yields are heading north too.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Cost of public borrowing at 26-year high
Additional borrowing costs make it more expensive for Rachel Reeves to service the debt she is taking on.
It may mean she faces a choice between more tax rises – something she had previously ruled out – or spending cuts as higher borrowing costs take their toll.
The Treasury said in its statement: “No one should be under any doubt that meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable and the Government will have an iron grip on the public finances,”
“UK debt is the second lowest in the G7 and only the OBR’s forecast can accurately predict how much headroom the government has – anything else is pure speculation.
“Kick-starting economic growth is the number one mission of this Government as we deliver on our Plan for Change. Over the coming weeks and months, the Chancellor will leave no stone unturned in her determination to deliver economic growth and fight for working people.”
Read more from Sky News:
Food prices to rise due to budget tax hikes
Bank of England currency printer receives takeover offer
But Matthew Ryan, head of market strategy at global financial services firm Ebury, said of the market moves: “This is a damning indictment of Labour’s fiscal policies, particularly the hike to employer NI (National Insurance) contributions, which businesses have already warned will lead to higher prices and a worsening in labour market conditions.
“We see wide ranging repercussions of this bond market sell-off. On the one hand, weak demand for UK debt raises the risk of either government spending cuts or further tax hikes to balance the country’s finances, neither of which would be positive for growth.
“Elevated gilt yields are also likely to be reflected in higher mortgage rates, which would provide a further squeeze on household disposable incomes.
“These worries have placed a high premium on UK assets, and we would not rule out additional downside for sterling as a result.”
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports9 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
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
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway