SOMETIMES in politics a simple phrase gets lodged into everyone’s consciousness, framing a debate. This is sometimes deliberate, but it can happen by accident too. As Scotland approaches the first budget in which meaningful tax decisions will be made, one example of this needs to be challenged.
I doubt that anyone deliberately decided to start talking about whether the Scottish Government would “pass on” UK tax decisions in order to narrow the policy options we think about. But that could be the result of this tiny linguistic trap. In reality there is no passing on to be done; the Chancellor sets income tax policy for one territory, and the Scottish Government (or more accurately the Scottish Parliament) sets it for another. We shouldn’t start from the assumption that our choices are limited only to copying Hammond’s actions or declining to do so.
Those actions, of course, do include severely damaging choices. Far from living up to the rhetoric around helping people who are “just about managing”, the Autumn Statement this week gave the lion’s share of benefit to the wealthy. Let’s just consider a few examples.
He has continued the decades-long trend toward ever lower corporation taxes, even as we become more aware than ever of the industrial scale of corporate tax dodging. Some of the biggest corporations, with the highest paid tax accountants, will see their bills go down. Apparently this is designed to send the signal that the country is “open for business”. While the far-right chatter about the “virtue signalling” of anyone who speaks up for equality, justice or decency, the Chancellor’s disgraceful greed signalling is what really deserves to be rejected.
He has again increased the gap between the minimum wage for older and younger workers, instead of ensuring a real Living Wage for everyone. This will increase the exploitation of young people and increase the danger that those in the most precarious work will be eased out, given fewer hours or simply not hired once they approach the age of 25, when the upper rate kicks in. This age inequality is fundamentally at odds with the idea that there is a minimum value to human labour, and that it relates to the right of people to live in dignity rather than to mindless market forces.
Apologists for the UK Government may point to the changes to the taper rate for Universal Credit, which affects how quickly people lose their payments if they increase their working hours. But this restores only a tiny fraction of the billions of pounds of cuts which have already been approved, and which the UK Government has refused to reverse.
As for income tax, the latest changes continue a shameful con trick which began with the LibDem/Tory coalition. Steady increases in the personal allowance are misrepresented as a social justice measure, “taking more people out of paying tax altogether”.
It’s true that a small number of people who are currently paying very little income tax will be spared it. But the vast bulk of the tax cut which the raised threshold creates will go to better-off people, and the poorest will get no benefit at all. In fact, a whopping 85 per cent of the income tax cuts which the Autumn Statement sets up between now and 2020 will go to the richest half of households. Much of this is about the controversial higher rate threshold, but even the raised personal allowance leaves the wealthiest 10 per cent of households nearly £50 a week better off, while nobody in the poorest 50 per cent of the population gains even half of that – most of them get far less.
In three weeks the Scottish Government will publish its own draft budget. We can’t afford to judge it on the basis of a few popular stand-alone policies. We have to look at the overall impact on poverty and inequality across our society. Our ambition should be to slash the number of people who are really struggling, and that means more than just refusing to “pass on” or copy unjust rUK tax changes.
We can use devolved tax powers to reduce what’s paid by everyone on a lower than average income, while raising the revenue needed from those who can actually afford it. We can top up benefits, such as child benefit, which would lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty. And we can ensure that government support is only available to businesses which pay the real Living Wage to all workers.
These policies would reduce inequality, leave fewer people struggling to make ends meet and protect investment in public services. Greens look forward to engaging further with Scottish ministers on the draft budget in the weeks ahead, but we’ll only be able to support it if it’s a bold and creative anti- poverty budget.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here