Inheritance Tax: Pensions
Lord Massey of Hampstead Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I presume the noble Baroness is referring to the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for a flat tax, and it is very interesting that she raises that. Currently, fewer than 10% of estates will have an inheritance tax liability. If you put a flat tax on all pensions, you are asking 90% of estates to pay more so that 10% of estates can pay less. I do not consider that to be fair.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, interest charges for late payments of tax are charged at 8% per annum and apply to estates after six months. Does the Minister agree that, given potential complications in finalising and executing wills, six months is rather short and that a longer grace period of at least one year should apply before interest charges are levied?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Lord raises. As I understand it, six months is standard within the tax system.
Economic and Taxation Policies: Jobs, Growth and Prosperity
Lord Massey of Hampstead Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, for initiating this important debate, and I congratulate him on his speech and his book. This is, of course, a very problematic time for the UK economy; we recognise this from all sides. We urgently need more growth and job creation. Yet while the Government have these objectives in mind, some of the measures taken in the last year actively undermine the stated ambition, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.
The first problem has been the decision, as mentioned by many colleagues, to raise NI and the minimum wage, which creates disincentives to employ and has led to a creeping up of unemployment now to 5%, which is a four-year high. The Employment Rights Bill, which has been much debated and amended in this House, would exacerbate the situation further by reducing the flexibility of the labour market and imposing more regulation on business. This matters because it is businesses that will drive our economy forward, not transfer payments and debt-fuelled capital spending by government. We have now hit the 45% level of public spending as a proportion of GDP, and historically that is a peak which has proved unsustainable. I believe the Government recognise this, but in branding spending cuts as a return to austerity, they have boxed themselves in. They are now choosing to raise income tax, under pressure—some might say—from the left wing of their parliamentary party.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the impact of these tax increases should fall on those with “the broadest shoulders”. He should take note that these broad-shouldered citizens are the same people who already pay 30% of income taxes, create the real jobs we so desperately need and run the businesses that can compete internationally. Rather than penalising this highly productive cohort, why do the Government not look at the benefit bill and take the political risk of tackling benefits, which now account for 15% of GDP and rising? As the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, have both mentioned, this could be a cross-party effort to reform this whole structure.
High levels of benefits are a double whammy—they impact the borrowing requirement, but they also lead to more immigration. The jobs that the local population cannot or will not take on still need to be filled, be they in the NHS, the care sector or hospitality. The result is increased net migration with all the negative side-effects on public services, rent levels and—some would argue—social cohesion, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, also alluded.
The Government’s number one priority must be to get the economically inactive back to work; I do not think that is controversial in this House. For the upcoming Budget, I urge the Government to avoid two measures that would seriously undermine wealth creation and growth. Raising capital gains taxes or, even worse, equalising them with marginal rates of income tax will reduce risk-taking and produce no revenues for the Exchequer. Investors will simply hold on to assets and invest new money into bonds. It will reduce equity investing, which we urgently need, especially in small and mid-sized UK companies. Another tax to avoid at all costs—this has been mentioned by several Peers—is an exit tax, which would be a disaster for the UK’s reputation as a business-friendly country. However tempting it might be from a redistribution point of view, the idea of financially trapping people in this country will serve only to demotivate not only those who are running businesses here but those who would come here to build the businesses of the future.
We are at a crossroads for the economy, and I recognise that the political choices are very difficult for the Government. In a sense, there is a conflict between their ambitions for growth and their political ideology, but the opportunities for growth are there for the UK to seize. We can be a leader in the AI revolution and benefit from the productivity gains which can flow from its evolving capabilities but, for the UK to benefit from this, businesses need to be incentivised to take up these opportunities, not burdened by increasing regulation, rising taxes and higher interest rates, which result from excessive spending.
GDP Per Capita
Lord Massey of Hampstead Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I can absolutely confirm that that remains our mission. Our growth mission is to have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We are currently the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and the IMF recently revised up the growth forecast for this year, the second time it has done so. I think both the IMF and the OECD currently forecast that the UK will be the second fastest-growing G7 economy this year. Our growth mission also includes living standards; since the election, living standards are up 2.1% compared with the 1.8% fall over the last Parliament—the only Parliament on record in which living standards were worse at the end of it than at the start. We also have a commitment on GDP per capita, as the noble Lord rightly says; the OBR currently forecasts GDP per capita to rise by 5.6% over this Parliament.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, the ONS reported recently that 53% of the population are net recipients of state benefits and therefore make a very modest, to say the least, contribution to GDP. Meanwhile, 1% of the population are producing 13% of GDP and paying 28% of our tax. Whether we like it or not, the UK is becoming ever more financially dependent on its top earners but at the same time making it less attractive for them to stay and contribute to the UK. The evidence is mounting—we saw it from France yesterday—that people are considering moving their assets abroad and potentially leaving the country. So does the Minister agree with me that, whatever your ideological view of wealth distribution might be, the UK needs to focus on retaining its high earners, and does he recognise that if only 10% of the top 1% leave—that is 35,000 people—our fiscal black hole would increase very substantially?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
That is a very long question but I can give the noble Lord a very short answer. Yes, of course, I agree with him. It is very important that we retain our high earners and retain as much talent in this economy as we possibly can.