Adam Smith Institute

Europe's favourite think tank website
  • Narrow screen resolution
  • Wide screen resolution
  • Decrease font size
  • Default font size
  • Increase font size
The right response to an economic downturn Print E-mail
Written by Tom Clougherty   
Wednesday, 22 October 2008 06:02

Let's start with the wrong response: raising taxes and borrowing in order to spend money on government projects. Even if you accept the Keynesian argument that the government should 'prime the pump' with increased spending during a economic downturn (and I don't), the whole idea is predicated on counter-cyclical economic management – saving during the good times (increased taxes were meant to reduce demand, keeping down inflation) so that you have money to spend when things tighten up. Quite clearly, that is not what the current government has done: they've borrowed and spent beyond their means all through the boom years, and now intend to load us up with even more debt. More debt means higher taxes in future, and more money taken out of the productive (i.e. private) sector of the economy, to be spent in the unproductive (i.e. public) one. And that's not going to do a struggling economy any good at all.

A much better recipe for recovery would be to strictly control government spending and drive out government waste – that's what recessions do in the real economy; the public sector shouldn't be any different – while easing the burdens on business, strengthening the incentives for wealth creation, and putting money back into people's pockets. Here are some ideas politicians should be considering:

  • Reduce the uniform business rate: For small businesses this can be a major problem since it is based on the rateable value of commercial premises, rather than ability to pay (i.e. profit).
  • Eliminate employers' national insurance contributions: These 'contributions' are essentially just a tax on jobs – with unemployment on the rise it really makes sense for them to go.
  • Stop the rise in the small business corporation tax rates: Following the last budget, the tax on small business profits has risen from 19 to 20%, and is set to rise another 2 points in 2009.
  • Scrap the climate change levy: It doesn't do anything to combat climate change and it poses a significant burden on businesses – especially energy-intensive manufacturing ones that use a lot of electricity.
  • Reduce the burden of business regulation: First, stop new burdens being introduced. Second, scale back existing burdens. Third, simplify administration to reduce costs.
  • Get rid of stamp duty: This tax on share and property transactions makes little sense at the best of times, and less still when those markets are in trouble.
  • Encourage private investment: Get rid of taxes on capital gains, dividends, inheritance and savings.
  • Simplify and reduce corporation tax: Get rid of all the exemptions and complications – just have a single low rate on operating profit.
  • Raise the personal allowance: Take low-earners out of the income tax net, and put more money in everyone's pocket.
Comments (6)Add Comment
...
written by bludnok, October 22, 2008
Brilliant!

This would even stop me emigrating to China.
...
written by Kit, October 22, 2008
You forgot to scrap the minimum wage.
Regulation
written by Anonymous, October 22, 2008
A lot of regulation comes from the EU, in order to reduce and simplify regulation you would have to first terminate EU membership.
...
written by HJ, October 22, 2008
Very good points. I think cutting or removing employers NI contributions should be a top priority. As you say, it's a tax on jobs.

However, when you say "More debt means higher taxes in future, and more money taken out of the productive (i.e. private) sector of the economy, to be spent in the unproductive (i.e. public) one.", whilst I agree with your sentiments, I don't think it's fair to simply say that the private sector is 'productive' and the public sector 'unproductive'. Of course, the public sector is far less productive overall, of course it's inefficient and, of course it is generally consumptive rather than productive. Its productivity growth is also far lower than the private sector (or even negative) and so more debt to fund it should generally be avoided. However, some of the public sector does produce useful and productive services (which is not to say that they should be in the public sector or that they wouldn't be run better in the private sector) - universities, the Post Office, roads, etc. spring to mind and it is arguable that more investment in some of these (and away from other public sector activities) would help improve the productive capacity of the economy.
...
written by d, October 23, 2008
omg why is this happening just sit down and randomly pick someone
...
written by West Mids Accountant, October 23, 2008
All sensible ideas and sensible at any time that any have decent accountant would have recommended from the year dot. Increasing the personal allowance is something the tories should have fought every election from 1997 on. I have asked for this for years - I think most tory politicians don't understand the tax system so don't understand the problems. The dopes. If Joe on the street can't understand tax then its too complicated - they will only get things right on regulation and tax when thousands of lawyers and tax advisors are out of work.

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.

busy
 

About the ASI

The Adam Smith Institute is the UK's leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies. Politically independent and non-profit, the Institute promotes its ideas through reports, briefings, events, media appearances, and its website and blog. For further information, click here.

rss180
facebook180
twitter180
youtube180

Join our email list

Email info@adamsmith.org if you would like to subscribe to our fortnightly e-bulletin.

Support the ASI

Enter Amount: