{"id":8164,"date":"2022-10-14T08:48:24","date_gmt":"2022-10-14T07:48:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxpolicy.org.uk\/?p=8164"},"modified":"2022-10-21T22:54:38","modified_gmt":"2022-10-21T21:54:38","slug":"increase-cgt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heacham.neidles.com\/2022\/10\/14\/increase-cgt\/","title":{"rendered":"How to raise \u00a38bn by increasing capital gains tax"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The two biggest tax-cutting Conservative Chancellors in British history both increased capital gains tax – and for good reasons. Jeremy Hunt should follow them, and raise \u00a38bn.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Here’s the current situation: someone earning \u00a350k pays income tax at a marginal rate of 40%; someone earning \u00a3150k pays a marginal rate of 45%. But the same person making a capital gain pays nothing on the first \u00a312,300 of gain, and only 20% on the rest. This is a problem for several reasons: <\/p>\n\n\n\n To my mind, the case for change is irresistible. <\/p>\n\n\n Today’s CGT problems are nothing compared to how things were before 1962, when capital gains were completely untaxed. So when you see 90%+ top rates of income tax in the 1950s, you’re safe to assume that the properly wealthy took most of their returns as capital gain, and paid no tax at all. The halcyon days of progressive taxation it was not.2<\/a><\/sup>To return to a recent theme: never, ever, look at tax rates in isolation – the question is *what* the rates apply to, and what they *don’t*.<\/span> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Then in 1962 the second most spectacularly tax-cutting Chancellor in British history, Anthony Barber, introduced (when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury3<\/a><\/sup>I got this muddled in my first draft, and said Barber was Chancellor in 1962, which he wasn’t until 1970<\/span>) a “speculative gains tax<\/a>” that taxed some short-term capital gains as income (countering some of the most obvious avoidance schemes that were around at the time). Three years later, an actual capital gains tax was introduced<\/a>, at a flat rate of 30%4<\/a><\/sup>There is a nice summary of the history from HMRC here<\/a><\/span>. Again much less than the rate of tax on normal income – I’m not clear why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The rate stayed at 30% for 20 years, with an “indexation allowance” introduced in 1982 so that inflationary gains wouldn’t be taxed. And then the absolutely most spectacularly tax-cutting Chancellor in British history, Nigel Lawson, in the absolute most tax cutting Budget in British history, increased<\/em> the rate in 1988, so it applied at whatever the taxpayer’s marginal rate was. His explanation<\/a> couldn’t have been clearer: <\/p>\n\n\n\n There it stayed throughout the Blair premiership.5<\/a><\/sup>I’m skipping over the taper, entrepreneur’s relief etc<\/span> Then one of Gordon Brown’s big mistakes – he and Alistair Darling cut the rate to 18% in 2008. George Osborne pushed it back up to 28% in his first Budget in 2010; then cut the rate to 20% <\/a>(in most cases) in 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This leaves us today with the problem that Lawson thought he’d solved: a capital gains tax rate that’s often much lower than the income tax rate.<\/p>\n\n\n In short:<\/p>\n\n\n\n None of this is very controversial in tax policy circles. Rishi Sunak asked the Office of Tax Simplification to look into problems with CGT, and equalising rates and reducing the allowance were their key recommendations<\/a>. Sadly, Rishi shelved it<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a debate to be had as to whether, if we’re returning to the higher rates of the 80s and 90s, we should return to having an indexation allowance so that inflationary gains aren’t taxed. The argument for: it’s unfair to tax a gain that isn’t real. The argument against: we tax inflationary elements of income returns (e.g. interest on a loan, bond or bank account is fully taxed). On balance, I would probably tend to providing an inflation allowance (or, alternatively, follow the Mirrlees Review<\/a> recommendation of giving an allowance equal to the risk-free return on government bonds), but I do not have a strong view.8<\/a><\/sup>There’s a good discussion of this in Arun Advani’s paper here<\/a>.<\/span> <\/p>\n\n\n There is no evidence for that. IFS research<\/a> has found that the current low CGT rates save plenty of tax for investors, but don’t increase investment.<\/p>\n\n\n In 2020-21, CGT raised a record \u00a314.3bn. I estimate an additional \u00a37bn would have been raised that year if CGT rates had been equalised with income tax and dividend rates9<\/a><\/sup>Much of the revenue would be income tax, as people cease bothering to convert income to gains<\/span>. That’s on the basis of a simple static analysis applied to HMRC data<\/a> on how much gain is attributable to the various different asset types. It’s quite a lot less than some other estimates<\/a> out there, very possibly because I am equalising at the dividend tax rate, not the income tax rate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n HMRC estimated<\/a> that in 2020-21 the \u00a312,300 annual allowance cost \u00a3900m.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So overall we are looking at approximately \u00a38bn of revenues. Dynamic effects will reduce this, but I don’t expect by much provided sensible steps <\/a>are taken to protect the base.<\/p>\n\n\n\nHow did we get into this mess?<\/h2>\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
What’s the answer?<\/h2>\n\n\n
Would increasing the rate of CGT adversely affect business investment?<\/h2>\n\n\n
How much would it raise?<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n