Why do those
concerned about low incomes never criticise sin taxes?
The UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) has
released a new report on the state of
household finances. The
Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 2011/2012 contains many valuable nuggets of
information and different commentators across the political spectrum have found
something to gloat about.
So, for example, in a pointed prod at left-wing
journalist Owen Jones, Toby Young in the Telegraph blogs about the fact
that income inequality has fallen in recent years, to the point where one
measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient, is now back to 1986 levels. On the
other hand, left-leaning Twitter users have noted that tax takes a bigger slice
of income for the poorest 20 per cent of the population (36.7 per cent of gross
income) than it does for the top 20 per cent of earners (34.5 per cent of gross
income). (See this snapshot from the
report.)
How can that be? The difference comes from indirect
taxes - that is, taxes on expenditure rather than income and property. On
income taxes alone, the richest 20 per cent pay three-and-a-half times as much
tax, as a proportion of income, than the poorest. Yet that progressive taxation
is completely reversed by the effect of tax on spending. The biggest
expenditure tax is value-added tax (VAT) at 20 per cent. For poorer people,
over 10 per cent of their gross household income goes on VAT. So cutting VAT
would be a big boost to lower-income groups.
But nearly seven per cent of gross income for poorer
people goes on what might be loosely defined as ‘sin’ tax - that is, tax on
boozing, smoking and driving. If you really wanted to help out households that
are strapped for cash, you could start by reducing taxes that are justified as
an attempt to change our bad habits. However, it seems unlikely that
anti-poverty groups will have much to say on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment