David Gauke
Main Page: David Gauke (Independent - South West Hertfordshire)Department Debates - View all David Gauke's debates with the HM Treasury
Finance (No. 2) Bill
David Gauke Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
I do not follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic that that justifies a non-assessment at this stage. He knows very well that there has been a huge intake from the 50p tax rate which this Government fail to acknowledge. He also knows that we suffered a catastrophic international financial crisis in 2008 to which the Labour Government responded by ensuring that those who could bear it most would take the highest burden, therefore introducing the 50p tax rate. This Government took the first opportunity to abolish it, without even allowing enough time for proper analysis of its effect to take place.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The hon. Lady says that there was a huge intake from the 50p rate of income tax. What is her evidence for that?
Catherine McKinnell
HMRC’s report, “The Exchequer effect of the 50 per cent additional rate of income tax”, but I will go into that in more detail in due course.
The Prime Minister went on record and said in this Chamber that the 50p tax rate was cut because it did not raise any money—the Minister seems to have just made the same assertion—but page 39 of HMRC’s report makes it clear that it resulted in a yield of about £1.1 billion, which is hardly a sum to ignore in these straitened financial times. However, what stands out most from HMRC’s assessment—this point was also raised when we debated last year’s Finance Bill—is the number of times that the words “uncertain” and “uncertainty” appear; I nearly lost count, but it is a staggering 30 times. The Chancellor decided to give a tax cut to his millionaire pals before we had a clear picture of the impact of the 50p rate.
That is not just the view of the Opposition. Robert Chote, chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, stated:
“This is a judgement based on not even a full year’s data, based in terms of how people have responded to the 50p rate, in particular in terms of those self assessment tax-payers.”
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“By giving out £3 billion to well-off people who pay 50p tax…the Government is banking on a very, very uncertain amount of people changing their behaviour and paying more tax as a result of the fact that you’re taxing them…There is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of risk on this estimate.”
In its report on the 2012 Budget, the Treasury Committee concluded:
“The costs and benefits of reducing the additional tax rate to 45p are both highly uncertain, and could be significantly more or less than the cost included in the Budget. We recommend that HMRC publish in due course a comprehensive assessment of the effect on the Exchequer of the new 45p rate.”
We agree. We need a full and proper assessment of what effect the top rate tax cut has had on tax receipts and we need to be sure that the Government continue to estimate what the gain would be if the additional rate were returned to 50%. We need, as the IFS has previously suggested, to get a clear understanding of whether the short-run response to this tax cut has been symmetric to the introduction of the 50p rate. Will people continue to use the avoidance techniques that the Government clearly believe they employed to avoid the 50p rate, or will some or all of that activity come to an end as a result of the new 45p rate? The Government should commit to our amendment’s request for such a review, if they genuinely seek to maximise revenue to the Exchequer and not to give a tax break to their millionaire friends.
Geraint Davies
Every week during Prime Minister’s Question Time the Leader of the Opposition asks why, at a time when there is so much poverty and a need for austerity, the richest in society are benefiting from a cut in the 50p income tax rate, and the Prime Minister replies, “We will raise more money from the 45p rate than from the 50p rate.” We all know why that is, and the Minister knows why it is. It is because rich people are able to manage their affairs and can move their income between tax years, and in this instance they will simply move it into the 45p year. The Minister knows that, and he also knows that if we retained the 50p rate on a sustained basis, we would gather more money.
The Minister shakes his head with a smug expression, but he knows that, and he also knows that many people already pay 52p in the pound. Those with incomes of £32,000 or £42,000 are paying 40% in tax plus 12% in national insurance. The Minister’s claim that we could not possibly have a 50p rate because all those rich people would get on their yachts and leave Britain is absolute rubbish.
Mr Gauke
Let me make two points. First, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the HMRC report on the 50p rate, but if he has, he will have seen that a large element of the loss is due to a reduction in economic activity, and has nothing to do with tax avoidance. Secondly, I am afraid that he has got his facts wrong: people stop paying 12% in national insurance contributions as soon as they reach the higher-rate threshold.
Geraint Davies
That is not my understanding. According to the Minister’s own analysis of economic activity, which he mentioned, the yield from a 50p rate would be greater over a period. The analysis factors in the behavioural change to which I have referred, namely rich people moving their incomes around. It is also the case that people are paying the rates to which I referred. I have commissioned research from the House of Commons Library. It is all very well for the Minister to sit there nodding away, but that is the fact of the matter. It is completely unjustifiable that, at a time when the incomes of some of my constituents are being reduced to about £11 a week and they are on a starvation diet, his rich friends should be enabled to have this extra money.
The Minister continues to resist calls for a bankers’ bonus tax. At one moment he claims that bankers should be taxed in that way, and at the next moment he gives them 5p back. It is absolutely preposterous. The Minister hopes that the food banks that are now emerging in their thousands will help to cope with the Dickensian circumstances that he is causing, in which people are starving in their own homes, but, as I have already pointed out, unless a supplement to the social security system is introduced such people will not be able to survive.
The Minister is pushing us into a situation in which the state is withdrawing in the hope that the charitable sector will help to sustain certain very poor communities. It is absolutely appalling. We have a dementor Government who are sucking the lifeblood out of our poorest communities. Those people want to spend their money, and would otherwise be reviving our local economies. All that they want is a chance to work, and to do a job.
We should be investing in infrastructure, skills and connectivity. We should be marketing local areas and helping businesses to succeed and create jobs, rather than taking away the demand in those local areas. We should also be promoting spending. At present everyone is saving instead of spending because they are scared of the future, but we do not want a future of fear; we want a future of hope. We do not want a future of division; we want a future that cares and a future that works. We want a “one nation” Britain, rather than a divided and weak society moving forward under the Tories.
I hope that the Minister will think again about the need for those with the broadest shoulders to make the highest contribution, rather than just smirking with his colleagues. I would guess that they—in their richer communities in the divided Britain whose divisions they are accentuating—will not have to deal with the number of people who approach our surgeries in despair, asking what they can do with the very limited amount of money that they have.
Some of the changes in the Budget are completely unnecessary. The bedroom tax was originally expected to raise £490 million. The figure has just been revised to £400 million, but in fact the tax will raise no money at all. It was supposedly intended to confront the problem of rising housing benefit costs, which have doubled over the last 10 years, but we know that 70% of that rise was due to the fact that not enough houses were being built and private-sector rents were going up. The displacement into the private sector of people who are being punished because their children have grown up will simply increase housing benefit costs further.
The Minister knows in his heart, and from the analysis, that such changes are unnecessary. They will not raise money, so why make them? Why not let the rich pay a little bit more towards the public good? Even if the bedroom tax does raise £400 million, the Minister is spending £12 billion on ever-increasing tax thresholds. While that in itself is welcome, the fact remains that these changes are about choices. If the Minister’s choice is to give the richest more and hand a bit from the very poorest to the squeezed middle, he is taking the wrong direction in terms of the prosperous and united Britain that I believe we all want to see.
Mr Gauke
Let me say something about clauses 1 and 16. Clause 1 deals with the income tax charge for 2013-14, which requires legislation every year. I assume that Labour Members will not oppose the clause, given that the legislation raises £154 billion a year. However, a few weeks ago they did oppose the income tax charge in the Budget resolutions. If they had been successful, the deficit would have increased by more than £150 billion a year. Moreover, whereas the Government have taken some 2.7 million people out of income tax, Labour would have taken about 30 million people out of it, including millionaires.
I understood the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) to be opposed to clause 16. I shall say more about that shortly, but let me first comment on the three main parts of her interesting speech. She began by calling for greater economic growth in the economy. That section of her speech was followed by a part opposing the abolition of the 50p rate of income tax and containing no acknowledgment that it was an anti-growth measure which was not helping the United Kingdom to grow, was sending a signal that the UK was not open for business, and was higher than the rates imposed by many of our competitors. The third part of her speech set out her opposition to the cap on reliefs contained in clause 16 and schedule 3. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says that concern is not opposition, but what she said sounded an awful lot like opposition to me.
Kelvin Hopkins
As the Minister may know, in Denmark the standard rate of income tax is about 30% and the higher rate is about 60%. Denmark has a very successful economy. High tax rates do not equal poor economic performance.
Mr Gauke
The fact remains that the 50p rate was higher than the rates imposed by many of our competitors. It was also considerably higher than the rate imposed by the hon. Gentleman’s party, a rate that stood at 40p for 155 of the 156 or so months during which his party was in office. I appreciate that he has always been very consistent in this regard, and I assume that he considers even the 50p rate to be too low.
Catherine McKinnell
Is the Minister seriously blaming the 50p tax rate for stagnating growth? If so, can he explain why, although the Government removed the 50p rate in this year’s Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its growth forecast for each of the next three years?
Mr Gauke
We know what the big issues are with growth. We are having to deal with the aftermath of the financial crisis, the eurozone crisis, high commodity prices and the terrible fiscal situation we inherited from Labour. Having an uncompetitive top rate of income tax does not help, a point that previous Labour Governments recognised until we got to the fag end of the previous Government when, as a political ploy, the then Prime Minister put the rate up to 50p. It is striking how the Opposition will not confirm that they will return to a 50p rate.
Geraint Davies
I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way. Does he agree with the trickle-down theory, which is that if we give the rich more money the poor will eventually get a bit more? Or does he believe that it is more of a trickle-up and that if one crushes the poor, like the dementors I mentioned, one can take their money and give it to the rich, so that we have the bloated group of people whom he represents side by side with people in massive poverty?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman refers to dementors, and I am afraid that he is living in the world of fairy tales and Harry Potter with his economics. It is this Government who are taking people out of income tax and this Government who are providing support to low earners. The fact is that a 50p rate was not effective.
We heard many speeches about a tax cut for millionaires and so on. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North made it pretty clear that she disliked clause 16 and schedule 3, which introduce a cap on reliefs. Such reliefs exist for good reasons and can encourage certain activities and behaviours that benefit both our economy and wider society, such as entrepreneurship and investment, which help to drive growth. We are committed to supporting such activity, but that support should not be limitless, especially at a time when the priority is to balance the public finances. In the past, some individuals have been able to offset unlimited reliefs against their income to reduce their income tax bills to zero. Those are often very wealthy individuals who can end up paying a lower tax rate than the people they employ to clean their offices. That is simply not right and some individuals have been able to do that year after year.
It is right and fair that we should seek to prevent such activity by limiting uncapped reliefs. That is what clause 16 and schedule 3 do: they cap the use of previously unlimited income tax reliefs at £50,000 or 25% of an individual’s income, whichever is the greater. The cap came into effect on 6 April this year. The changes will affect only around 7,500 individuals and more than 90% of the revenue will come from those with an income of more than £150,000—that is, those who pay the additional rate of income tax. The limit is expected to raise about £200 million a year, significantly more than the cost of reducing the 50% rate down to 45%.
One question that has been asked is whether the provision will hurt start-ups and SMEs. Some 90% of trading losses set against general income in a tax year are less than £15,000 a year, well below the threshold for the cap. Business loss reliefs are not intended to subsidise businesses that have no chance of success. We have a generous regime, but we do not believe that it should be without limit. Unlimited reliefs mean that some people, often with high incomes, can pay little or no income tax year on year. We do not believe that that is fair. There will be no limit on trade or property losses set against profits from the same trade or property business in another year and business loss reliefs are not intended to subsidise established businesses that make losses year after year.
Catherine McKinnell
Can the Minister provide reassurance that he has taken on board the concerns raised by a number of accountancy organisations, whose opinions are very reputable, that the change will not only counteract the clamping down that the Government are correctly introducing but hamper the growth of genuine small businesses that are struggling? I would say that those businesses are struggling because of the Chancellor’s failing economic plan.
Mr Gauke
Of course, we have consulted on this policy and have listened very carefully to the representations we have received. If we are serious about raising revenue in a way that does not damage the economy, the cap on reliefs is a sensible approach. It is a matter of fairness and I would have thought that hon. Members from all parties would agree that it is wrong for us to have a system whereby people can drive down their tax bill year after year to very low rates despite being high earners. That is exactly what this measure is about.
The measure demonstrates that as a Government we are doing more to raise money from the wealthy. In Budget 2010, we increased higher rate capital gains tax; in Budget 2011, we tackled avoidance through disguised remuneration, which was opposed by the Opposition; in Budget 2012, we raised stamp duty on high-value homes; in the autumn statement 2012, we took action to reduce the cost of pensions tax relief; and in Budget 2013 we announced further measures to tackle offshore tax evasion by high earners. Under this Government, the richest now pay more in income tax than in any year under Labour.
Amendment 1 requests a review, and HMRC published a thorough and very well-researched report at Budget 2012 that showed the effect of the additional rate of income tax. Those matters were debated at considerable length last year and the report shows that the rate was not raising the money that the previous Government intended it to raise. It is illogical to maintain a tax rate that is not effective at raising revenue from high earners and that risks damaging growth. We have found better ways of raising money from the wealthy that raise more money but do less damage to the economy.
We always keep tax rates under review, but I note the inclusion of a request for a review in the amendment. It seems to me that the purpose of the amendment is not just to enable us to have another debate on the 50p rate today but to enable the Labour party to find an escape route from its policy. Until a few days ago, it was against getting rid of the 50p rate. Labour will not answer the question, however, of what it will do at the next election. Its holding position is clearly that it will have a review. The Labour party knows that to go into the next election campaigning for an increase to the 50p rate would simply underline that it is anti-enterprise. It knows such an increase would damage the economy and is trying to find an escape route. Despite all the bluster in all the speeches we have heard today, Labour will not confirm that that is the policy it supports. It is all about posturing, not about practicality. That is why they did not have a 50p rate when they were in government and why they are trying to slip away from it now, hoping that no one will notice. I recommend that clauses 1 and 16 and schedule three stand part of the Bill and we hope that they will have all-party support.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for his response and the completely fictional rewriting of HMRC’s report on the impact of the 50p rate of tax, which showed very clearly that it brought in additional revenue of about £1.1 billion. Who knows how much more it might have brought in had the Government not abolished it at such an early stage, before there was even the opportunity to collect the data that would have given a picture of the longer-term impact?
We will press amendment 1 to a vote, and we are asking for a proper review of the impact of the 50p rate of tax so that members of the public can know the truth about the amount of revenue it would have brought in had this Government not opted to give a tax cut to millionaires while letting ordinary people bear the brunt of the Chancellor’s utterly failing economic plan.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Albert Owen
That argument is completely wrong. It might be Conservative central office’s take on it. The previous Chancellor suggested a VAT rise, but was outvoted by the Cabinet. He was just one individual. The current Prime Minister, however, was clear that he would not put it up, but then did. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse the previous Chancellor of making an argument and then blame the last Government for not listening to him. It was the leader of the Conservative party, now the Prime Minister, who turned circles on this issue.
This regressive taxation hits the most vulnerable in our society. According to the Office for National Statistics, 9.7% of the money the poorest 20% spend goes on VAT, and they spend more on VATable goods than the richest 20%, for whom that figure is 5.8%. It is an unfair tax, as well as one that takes money out of the economy.
The Conservatives have been consistent in shifting from direct to indirect personal taxation. It was Anthony Barber who introduced VAT, at 10% I think, and a later Chancellor, in 1979, who raised it from 8% to 15%, which had a negative effect for many years. In 1984, it went up to 17.5%. As I said, in opposition, the Conservatives said that they would not do this, yet it was one of the first things they did. They are not getting the revenue yield they expected, because the economy is in such dire straits—it is stagnating, in many ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) talked about wage freezes and other impacts of Government policy. With a policy of reducing VAT, the Government could actually do something, instead of blaming the previous Government, the European Union or other external factors. Here is an opportunity for them to use one of the levers of power at their disposal.
I hope that the Liberal Democrats will support us. They have made such a big issue of it in the past. There is only one Liberal Democrat here today, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton), but I would be happy to take an intervention from him, if he feels as strongly as his party did—not him personally—before the general election. It is a big issue. I talk to small businesses, and they tell me that the rate of VAT is having a negative impact on their businesses. Everyone in the House wants to stimulate the economy, and here is a way of doing it relatively quickly.
There is evidence that along with other measures—it cannot be seen in isolation—the previous Government’s VAT reduction from 17.5% to 15% actually helped the economy at a difficult time. The car scrappage and other short-term schemes were also introduced to boost the economy. The Government should be considering those sorts of things, rather than just blaming others. The economy is at a difficult juncture. Unemployment is rising again, after temporarily falling: 2.54 million people are on the dole—that is mass unemployment—and are not spending. Helping them, with their small incomes, by reducing VAT would have a big impact on the economy. The way forward is to create more jobs and get them back to work.
The Government have said—I am sure that the Minister will clarify this matter—that it is not possible to reduce VAT, but that is not the case. I have heard them mention on numerous occasions a mechanism by which Europe can prevent them from reducing VAT, but it could be done as a temporary measure. There are also many variations, zero-rating exemptions and concessions that could be applied to VAT.
Mr Gauke
I want to help the hon. Gentleman on this point. There is flexibility when it comes to reducing the rate, but the difficulty is that if one plucks a particular item, such as petrol, and reduces VAT on that alone, as his party advocated, it would need to be consistent with the VAT directives and that would require a derogation, which would take some years. The concerns we raised related to the ill-thought-out specific proposal that those on his party’s Front Bench put forward a year or so ago.
Albert Owen
I am grateful for that clarification. I recall that Labour Front Benchers said at the time that the proposal was specific to one thing, but this is a flexible measure. We can exempt certain goods from it. Yes, there are the European directives, but we could do this immediately and in doing so send out a positive message to the country and the business community and increase footfall in our shops and high streets.
The argument about reducing tax and increasing yields is perfectly legitimate. Some say that reducing corporation tax automatically boosts business, but it also results in a drop-off in the money that the Treasury takes. Nevertheless, it seems to be a favourite of the Conservatives, and I, too, support it. I support having a low-tax economy and reducing many of these taxes, but we should be consistent and do the same with VAT. The increase in it was supposed to raise several billions of pounds, but it has failed to do so because spending has fallen.
I support the proposal to reduce VAT. Action is need and needed now. The Chancellor could do it, and if he wanted to, he could do it straightaway. I accept that the poorest in the country, on the lowest wages, will benefit from the change to income tax thresholds, but they will lose out overall. The TUC is not alone in making this point. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the combined tax increases, of which there have been several, both direct and indirect, will make the average family £900 worse off. If families are worse off in this country, spending is reduced and the economy is bound to contract. That is basic economics. We need to stimulate the economy, and one way of doing it correctly is to reduce VAT temporarily from 20% to 17.5%. Let us get the economy moving. The Chancellor has the power to do it, and he should support the new clause.
Mr Gauke
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
I will deal with new clause 2 in a moment, but what has driven this debate, initiated by the Opposition, is the cost of living. That is an important matter for our constituents and the Government recognise the pressures that households face. We are taking action to support households with the cost of living, within the fiscal constraints that exist.
A key part of that has been to increase the personal allowance. Clause 3 will ensure that the benefits of that increase are shared fairly. In 2010, when the coalition was formed, individuals could earn just £6,475 before they began to pay income tax. Thanks to the actions of this Government, from April next year, the figure will be £10,000. That is an increase of £3,525, which means that the personal allowance will have risen by more than 50% in just four years, thereby helping our constituents with the cost of living. Our priority has been to help those on low and middle incomes, and we have. The changes in clause 2 mean that a typical basic rate taxpayer is already nearly £600 better off in cash terms under this Government. From next year, that figure will rise to more than £700.
That is not the only action that we are taking to help households with the cost of living. The fuel duty increase that was planned for September will be cancelled. The Finance Bill keeps fuel duty frozen at current levels, maintaining the longest freeze in fuel duty for 20 years. That is helping households and businesses with the cost of motoring. Fuel duty is 13p per litre lower than it would have been had we implemented the Labour party’s planned increases. We have also taken action to help local authorities in England to freeze their council tax for the third year in a row and to cap rail fares for commuters.
Albert Owen
The Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues are always talking about the freeze in fuel duty, which I welcome and for which I campaigned. However, has the Treasury made any calculations on the extra 2.5p in each pound that ordinary hard-working families spend on their petrol at the pump because of their measures?
Mr Gauke
Of course, that has been far outweighed by the steps that we have taken to reduce fuel duty. The net effect has been a substantial reduction in the amount of tax collected for every litre of petrol.
New clause 2 returns us to the big, fundamental economic argument that we have been having for some years on deficit reduction. I could deliver the standard speech that we give in such circumstances about how it is a strange way to deal with a debt crisis to try to increase borrowing. However, this is one of those rare occasions when the Opposition have put forward a policy and we have an opportunity to ask questions about it. I know that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) will be keen to enlighten the House on the policy she has set out in new clause 2, and if I may, I will ask a number of questions—[Interruption.] I am sorry; there seems to be some objection from the Labour party. New clause 2 is being proposed by the Labour party. I want to ask questions about the policy behind it, so let me ask those questions.
First—this is the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood)—new clause 2 states that VAT will be reduced until “strong growth” is achieved. What is strong growth?
Mr Gauke
I would give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he was not here for the early part of the debate. He may not have read the new clause, but the policy depends on the definition of “strong growth” and the Labour party has not provided a definition.
Secondly, the cost of this measure will be £12 billion to £13 billion a year. How will that be paid for—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson)? Will it be through higher taxes, a reduction in spending or—as we believe—an increase in borrowing? What consideration has been given to the impact on the cost of borrowing? A 1% increase in Government bond yields would add around £8 billion to annual debt interest payments by 2017-18 and result in an increase of £12 billion in households’ mortgage interest payments—the equivalent of £1,000 for a household with an average mortgage in its first year. Has the Labour party considered the consequences of that discretionary fiscal stimulus?
What is Labour’s view on the profile of deficit reduction? We believe that over the whole deficit reduction period, 80% should be achieved through spending cuts and 20% through tax increases. The Darling plan had two thirds on spending cuts and one third on tax increases. What is the view of the Labour party, given that it has put in front of the Committee a proposal for a £12 billion or £13 billion tax cut? Does it suggest that the ratio should lean more towards public spending cuts rather than tax rises? What assessment has Labour made of the impact of different taxes on the economy? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham mentioned the fact that VAT is, as many economists would argue, less harmful to growth than other taxes. Is that the view of the Labour party? Why has VAT been picked as a particular issue?
The Labour party does not come forward with policies often, but I am pleased that it has done so today so that Labour Members have the opportunity to tell the Committee exactly what their policy is. They can explain that policy, and if they would care to answer those questions the Committee will be able to judge whether it should support new clause 2. My advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends is that this is just more of the same from the Labour party. It is more borrowing and more debt, and it fails to get to grips with the fiscal situation and the mess in which the Labour party left this country and which we, the coalition Government, are addressing.
Cathy Jamieson
It is an interesting experience to see Ministers ask a whole range of questions without addressing why we introduced the proposal. The Minister failed to recognise work that shows how VAT hits those on lower incomes disproportionately hard. He shakes his head but we can point to research which backs that up and businesses that say—I have spoken to people personally as I am sure have other hon. Members—that a temporary cut in VAT would help to stimulate the economy and growth. The Minister asks what the definition of strong growth would be. It certainly is not what this Government have provided.
Mr Gauke
The Opposition propose a new clause that depends on the definition of “strong growth” but do not tell us what that means. They object to questions being asked about what the new clause means. It is the hon. Lady’s new clause, so will she tell the Committee what she is getting at, why she has chosen VAT, what the fiscal implications will be, and what will happen if borrowing goes up by £12 billion or £13 billion?
Mr Gauke
Clause 3 sets the basic rate limit for income tax for the 2013-14 tax year. Let me make it clear at the outset, as I did in the previous debate, that we understand the financial pressures faced by households. As a Government, we have taken action to reward employment and to support hard-working families. That is why we have increased the personal allowance. I endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) in support of the policy we have pursued. Budget 2013 announced that we will go further, with the personal allowance increasing by a further £560 to reach £10,000 in 2014-15, meeting the Government’s commitment a whole year early. These changes will benefit 25 million individuals and will take 2.7 million people out of income tax altogether by April 2014.
Clause 3 reduces the basic rate limit by £2,360 to £32,010 in 2013-14. When combined with the £1,335 increase in the personal allowance provided for by clause 2, the higher rate tax threshold for 2013-14 will be reduced to £41,450. This allowance increase will benefit all taxpayers with incomes below £116,000 by £200 a year on average in real terms. About 30% of the gains from the personal allowance increase for 2013-14 will be shared with most higher-rate taxpayers. The national insurance upper earnings and profits limits remain aligned with the higher rate tax threshold.
It might be helpful if I set out the reasons for this change. I have explained that this coalition Government are committed to creating a fairer tax system that rewards work, with real-terms progress every year towards increasing the personal allowance to £10,000. We are meeting that target one year ahead of schedule and the final step towards it will be legislated on in next year’s Finance Bill. For now, the £1,335 increase in the personal allowance, introduced by clause 2, represents a major milestone on the journey to £10,000. The changes that we are making for the 2013-14 tax year will lift an additional 1.1 million individuals out of income tax altogether and give 24 million taxpayers an average real-terms gain of more than £200 a year. For the typical basic rate taxpayer, that will mean an extra £267 of cash in their pocket for 2013-14, which is an extra £5 a week since the start of the new tax year.
On the specific issue of gains for higher rate taxpayers, when increasing the personal allowance by £10,000 in 2011-12 we also had to make sure it was consistent with bringing the public finances under control. Therefore, higher rate taxpayers did not benefit from that increase. However, we decided that the benefits of later increases should be shared with higher rate taxpayers. This supports growth by increasing the rewards to work for a wide range of individuals.
The £1,335 increase from April 2013 was announced in two parts. For the increase of £1,100 announced at Budget 2012, rather than pass on the full benefit of the personal allowance to higher rate taxpayers, an equivalent amount of funding was provided to assist in the fair implementation of the child benefit reforms. However, gains from the additional £235 increase announced at autumn statement 2012 have been passed on equally.
At that time the Government also decided that the higher rate tax threshold—the point above which the higher rate tax starts to be paid—will increase by 1% in both 2014-15 and 2015-16. These will be cash increases, the first in this Parliament, and they will ensure that higher rate taxpayers will gain equally from future increases to the personal allowance. The Government recognise that these are below-inflation increases, so they also raise about £1 billion in revenue to support our efforts to deal with the large deficit we inherited from the Labour party. We make no attempts to conceal that and have been very open and up front about it.
Opposition amendment 10 calls for a report on the cost of living for basic rate taxpayers. As I have said, we recognise the pressures that households face and we are taking action to support them with the cost of living. Indeed, in our debate earlier this afternoon I set out some of the policies. I have touched in this speech on the personal allowance and one could also point to our policies on fuel duty and beer duty, which were announced in the recent Budget, and on council tax, which are all intended to relive households from some of the pressures they face.
The Government have taken unprecedented steps to publish a distributional analysis alongside each Budget and autumn statement document. Such analysis shows the impact of all the Government’s policies on household incomes and separates the impact of tax measures from their other policies. It is important to consider all the Government’s policies, not just their taxation measures. The distributional analysis published at the Budget shows that the top 20% of households continue to make the greatest contribution towards reducing the deficit, both as a percentage of their income and in cash terms. We believe that producing a further report to supplement that would be unnecessary and a waste of money.
We have debated the wider point of the cost of living in two debates this afternoon, although admittedly this second debate has been short. As I made clear, the Government recognise the considerable pressures, consequent on rising commodity, food and fuel prices, that our constituents have felt strongly in recent years. The Government have taken difficult decisions to try to reduce the deficit, and undeniably that has had an impact on people, but we ought to be straight with the British public: whoever is in government will have to take measures to reduce the deficit. Anyone in a position of responsibility has to recognise that we cannot continue borrowing 11% or 12% of our economy. [Hon. Members: “But you are!”] While in office, we have reduced the deficit by a third.
Having listened to Opposition speeches this afternoon, I do not for one moment doubt their sincerity, but there has been the temptation to ignore the fact that there is a very large deficit that has to be dealt with by raising taxes, cutting spending or a combination of the two, and to pretend otherwise is to not be straight with the British public. Some of this afternoon’s speeches have given every indication that Labour is content with being a repository for people’s anger. To use even stronger language, Labour often gives every indication of being simple fellow-travellers in sympathy, but not leaders. That is Labour’s approach.
Sheila Gilmore
Would the Minister not rather be understanding of people’s very real anger than just ignore it? [Interruption.]
Mr Gauke
As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury points out, people should be angry about the state of the public finances left to us by the Labour party. I described Labour as the “repository for people’s anger” and as a “simply fellow-traveller in sympathy”, not leaders, because those were the words of the last successful leader of the Labour party, Tony Blair. I am afraid that Labour is too often in its comfort zone. We know that there are pressures on living standards, but ignoring the deficit is no way to deal with them. The Government are prepared to take those difficult decisions, while Labour is failing to address them.
Cathy Jamieson
I am disappointed to hear the Minister resort once again to the same tired old mantra.
We have listened this afternoon to some passionate speeches from Opposition Members talking about the very real experiences of their constituents, and it is disappointing that once again the Government choose not to recognise them. They do not seem to recognise their responsibility for the deficit and debt now—for the fact that they have to borrow more, for the lack of growth, for the fact that people are not getting back into work in the way we would want and for the problems with living standards.
Sadly, we saw some crocodile tears from the Minister, who on the one hand wants to say, “Yes, we understand the impact on people”, but on the other is not prepared to do anything about it. Opposition Members are rightly angry on behalf of their constituents. They are angry about the bedroom tax and about the fact that the Government have chosen today not to do something on VAT that would have made a difference to people in our communities who will also be angry that the Government will not even accept a mild-mannered request, as I described it earlier, for a report on the impact of the Government’s policies on basic rate taxpayers. For that reason, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.