Hypothecation, hypothetically speaking

This won’t be the last question about hypothecated taxes in this general election, nor in elections for the rest of time.

Hypothecation is the process of assigning tax revenues to specific areas. The debate about it has a long history in the UK – see this House of Commons Library research paper (pdf).

In health, a little nugget to consider is that National Insurance raises roughly how much the health service costs. NI receipts in 2016/17 were £126bn and the NHS budget for 2016/17 was £120bn. But if you follow where those NI receipts go, I’d be surprised if they go directly to the NHS.

There’s a nice paper from the World Health Organisation (pdf) that I’d recommend reading on this thorny topic. I like it because it digs behind the economics of hypothecation and examines the reasons for and against it. The reasons given for hypothecation include:

  • Trust
  • Transparency
  • Public support
  • Protecting resources.

You can therefore see why @NHSMillion would be keen on hypothecation – particularly looking at that last point: the lack of trust that appears to exist is exactly why people want to protect NHS resources.

This said, I’ve never been a fan of hypothecation. Whilst it would be foolish to argue against trust and transparency in particular, I’m not sure you need hypothecation to ensure trust and transparency. The other cons of hypothecation also point to my reluctance to embrace it. They include:

  • Undermining solidarity
  • Exemption from review
  • Inappropriate funding levels
  • Tying the hands of government.

It’s coincidence that funding levels and NI receipts are roughly similar in health. But controlling for this,  my worry with hypothecation is that we quickly undermine solidarity for tax revenues and public services. Hypothecation opens the possibility of people saying “yes, I’ll pay tax for x” and so potentially “no, I won’t pay tax for y.” I fear it would exacerbate what we already see in areas like welfare support and social care.

Whilst hypothecation isn’t an answer, I think it at least helps us pose the right sorts of questions: how do we ensure transparency in how public money is spent, how do we debate the right balance between different types of services, and how do we build trust between those who make these decisions on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the electorate.

Advertisements

Redistributing my rebate: Hello to CiFers

As part of the Comment is Free’s People’s Panel, I’ve made a small contribution to their feature today on giving to charity. Anyone visiting there from there: hello!

The first full post with details of the tax rebate and my plan is here. The follow-up of suggestions so far is here.

On Monday I’ll post the shortlist of 5 organisations and details of how to vote.

Feel free to say hi in the comments, or get in touch via Twitter: @rich_w.

Quotation of the week

I have never, ever, thought it right that we pay tax on Mozart, but not on Jeffrey Archer.

— The Bookseller Crow, on the issue of VAT (not) on books. I happen to agree.

Are people naturally inclined to pay tax?

An interesting question came up over lunch with some friends: are people naturally inclined to pay tax?

The question arose in my mind after hearing about someone who came into a good wadge of cash – around £20,000 – and asked a friend if they knew of any way to invest it to avoid paying tax.

This anecdote is on the back of others I know who have taken on lodgers in their house and simply pocketed the cash without telling Revenue & Customs.

And, of course, there are a variety of stories and policy issues swirling around at the moment precisely on the question of what taxes should people incur and the extent to which people arrange their finances to avoid paying tax (think inheritance tax and Lord Ashcroft).

I thus wonder if the opprobrium that has been brought upon Lord Ashcroft from a tax point of view is slightly misplaced, in the sense that, given the opportunity, people may naturally be inclined to behave in exactly the same way he has?