Tax Fairness

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

This is a debate about fairness, as well as a mansion tax. Unemployment in my constituency has been higher every single month compared with the previous year since the coalition Government came to power. There are 4,293 on jobseeker’s allowance, and many more want to work. My local authority, Stockton-on-Tees—we do not have many £2 million mansions—will shed 1,000 jobs before the current massive cuts are fully implemented. Councillors are working hard, but problems persist.

The Cleveland fire authority, which I met on Friday, faces tough decisions that could reduce the number of firefighters in the highest risk area in Europe because of the cuts and a funding formula that does not recognise the risk we face on Teesside. Other hon. Members have mentioned the unfairness of energy prices, train fares and payday loan sharks, and all are unfair, but it is the tax cut for millionaires that sticks in the craw. People see millionaires getting a tax cut at a time when working mothers face a £160 loss in their income. I could go on at much greater length about unfairness.

I hear from a friend of mine up on Tyneside, Ian Wilson, that Champagne Fever won the first race at the Cheltenham festival today. The partner of the horse’s owner earned £44 million in pay and bonuses last year. He is a banker. I am sure he can afford the mansion tax.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I have some suspicion about anyone who earns £44 million. They may have received £44 million a year, but they did not earn it.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is much skilled in these debates and I take his point entirely.

Time and again, Government Members have challenged us to make clear what tax changes we would make to rebalance the unfairness in the tax system. I am delighted, therefore, that the Labour Front-Bench team has backed the Lib Dem policy of a mansion tax, while going further by saying that the money could be used to fund a 10p tax rate, which would bring immense benefit to the lowest-paid in our communities. It would be a tremendous boost to many of the lowest-paid people across Teesside and the rest of the country, including all the people who have landed one of these low-paid, part-time jobs that the Government gleefully boast about. Those people are to be praised and helped. Their pay is derisory, yet they want to work hard and be in a job, so we should do something to help them. They already face the prospect of a cut in income from the changes to tax credits from the end of this month, and today the Lib Dems, and others, could join us in helping to correct that unfair tax change and in recognising their commitment to hard work.

We need action to tackle the unfairness in the system, to sort out the big six energy companies, to stop the rip-off rail fares condoned by the Government and to stop the poorest people—the most vulnerable in our society—being ripped off by payday loan companies and loan sharks. Let more of those with the assets, rather than those with none, pay the taxes. There is real poverty in our communities. One illustration is the increasing number of food banks. I will be opening another one on Monday at the New Life church in Billingham in my constituency. We should not have to be doing such things. We should not need food banks. I know that their use increased even when we were in government, but they should not be necessary.If we had a fair income tax system, we would not need food banks.

The mansion tax might mean £5 a week for some families. That would not buy a small glass of wine in a Canary Wharf bar, but it could make a huge difference to the people at the bottom of the earning scales. It would buy enough bread from Asda for a family of four for several days, yet the Tories—and, more shamefully, the Lib Dems—would miss the opportunity to put bread in the mouths of poor families by failing to send a message to the Chancellor that he should adopt this mansion tax in next week’s Budget. I am sure that people who own property worth more than £2 million could afford the extra charge to help the poor. If not, they can move to a less expensive property and dodge the tax. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), I see a parallel with the bedroom tax. Thousands of people in my area are facing a cut in their income. The answer, apparently, is to move to a smaller property. Those with homes valued at more than £2 million but who cannot afford a mansion tax should do what the poor have to do and downsize.

I am one of those who supports higher taxes, particularly when people can afford to pay, so I plead guilty as charged. Earlier today, a Minister said that the Government were focused on the causes of poverty, but all the time cash is being shifted from the poorest to the wealthiest, just as the funds available to local authorities in the north of England are being shifted to the richer areas in the south. I said that unemployment was not falling in my constituency, but in some parts of the south it has fallen, albeit owing to part-time, low-paid jobs. The Government’s austerity measures have devastated local authorities in the north-east, and the contractors who build roads and houses and promote and deliver other services are the losers, being forced to pay off skilled workers who want to work and support their families.

Next Wednesday, the Chancellor will deliver his Budget for 2013-14. It is probably his last chance before the general election in 2015 to come up with a set of policies that could make a real difference to people’s lives. The biggest difference he could make would be to abandon his plan A, under which growth has stagnated, unemployment in areas such as mine has grown and deficit and debt reduction has become even harder, but we know he will not do it. He is tied to his ruinous plan A because he has staked his credibility on it—but there is no credibility in it. The Tories still talk about what will happen if the economy turns around, but if we return to growth, will ordinary people suddenly stop feeling the strain of higher costs and less money in their pockets? I very much doubt it.

This ignores the fact that the Chancellor’s plan has already failed on its own terms. Not only is the national debt far higher than it was when he took office, but he has failed, and failed again, on growth. The reason is that without a good level of growth it is difficult to reduce deficits and debt, and as the Chancellor’s own Office for Budget Responsibility pointed out last week, cutting spending and hiking up taxes for ordinary people has slowed and stopped economic growth. As the ratings agency Moody’s pointed out when it downgraded the UK’s credit rating, the country’s lack of growth has made it nearly impossible for the Government to meet the only real goal they set themselves, which was eradicating the structural deficit.

Although a return to growth would be welcome, only strong growth would be enough to make up for the lost years of economic stagnation under this Government and to keep up with the growing and ageing population. Unless economic growth is above population growth, we are all getting poorer. Add to that the fact that the Government are redistributing from the bottom to the top by cutting the top rate of tax for millionaires while capping welfare, increasing VAT and cutting public services, and the scale of their failure becomes all the more apparent.

In Stockton North, we know all too well the impact of the Government’s policies. Long-term unemployment has more than doubled in the past 12 months and youth unemployment remains stubbornly high. Next Wednesday, the Chancellor has a chance to change course, cut spending less quickly and focus on taxing obscene wealth in order to invest in young people. He is very keen to point to the past and the failures—as he sees it—of the Labour Government, but he has been in his role for nearly three years and has failed abysmally. There will be much for a Labour Government to do in 2015 to address the unfairness built into our country by the Conservative-Lib Dem alliance. I have talked about energy, rail fares and housing, and we are already making clear some of the things we would do. Today, Government Members can help us get our fairness agenda under way by backing a mansion tax and helping to fund lower taxes for those who need them most—I hope they will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

First, I apologise for arriving late for the debate. I had another commitment that was inescapable, but I want to make a contribution to this important discussion. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) on his election victory. I heard his maiden speech yesterday, and a very fine speech it was, too. Unfortunately, he left the Chamber—no doubt for a celebratory drink—before I had a chance to congratulate him, as it was my turn to speak. I remember that, on the day of the election, I was knocking on doors for the Labour party, as he would expect. We were delivering leaflets that said that it was a two-horse race. Sadly, Labour was not one of the two horses, but I was slightly comforted by the fact that the Conservative party was not one of them either.

Tax fairness is the subject of this debate, and I very much welcome the moves that our leadership is making in that direction. The decisions on the mansion tax and the 10p rate are important. They might be straws in the wind, but the wind is blowing in the right direction. The mansion tax is perhaps something of a slogan—an eye-catching, or thought-catching, idea—but I believe that property taxes are appropriate in a civilised society. Property has the advantage that it does not move, so we can always find it. As long as we can also find the owner, we can collect the taxes.

Property taxes, as with all taxes, have to be carefully designed. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, we have to be careful to ensure that such taxes are equitable. If there is inequity between regions, that should be looked at. The taxes have to be carefully designed to ensure that equity. Personally, I would like to go further and talk about a wealth tax. My party used to talk about that some years ago, and I would like to see a more general tax on wealth in order to do something about the grotesque inequalities in our society. Those inequalities have grown enormously during the time I have been active in politics. Had I been told when I was first active in my party in the late ’50s and early ’60s that we would be in this position now, I would not have believed it. We have moved in this direction, however, and it has been a retrograde step.

No doubt some hon. Members will have read a book entitled “The Spirit Level”, which identifies a strong correlation between income inequality and a whole range of social ills. I want to see a society that is much more equal in income terms, in order to reduce those social ills and because it is right in principle. It is interesting to note that that correlation applies in all societies, whatever the income levels. It does not just apply in rich societies or poor ones. In any society, income inequality correlates with greater social ills. I hope that when my party gets into office at the next election—that is when, not if—we will seriously address that question and try to make Britain a much more equal society again.

Tax has to be progressive. We have to tax the better-off, and we should tax the less well-off either very little or not at all. I have to say that I was disappointed in the previous Government. I was one of a small number of Labour Members—I think there were six of us—who voted against the abolition of the 10p rate, and I am delighted that our leadership has now chosen to reverse that decision and to put us back onside when it comes to looking after the less well-off. That decision is very welcome indeed.

Income tax is the most progressive form of tax. It is adjustable and, in the case of most people, it is collectable. Most of us are on PAYE, so there is no problem with collection. There is a problem, however, with collecting taxes from those who try to evade or avoid paying what is rightly due from them. We have heard from the tax justice movement, and from Richard Murphy in particular, an assessment that the tax gap is something like £120 billion. Some suggest that it could be even more than that. Even the Government accept that the figure is in the tens of billions. Small advances have been made in collecting that tax, but if were really to make inroads in that area, we would not need to look at changes in the tax rate because there would be so much more income to enable us to solve our problems.

[Sheila Gilmore]

We have heard a lot of the language around dealing with tax avoidance and with high-income earners. Does my hon. Friend not find it disappointing that, at almost the first opportunity to take action, the Chancellor went to Europe to argue against a cap on bonuses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Yes, that was absolutely regrettable. I know that my party will commit to introducing a cap on bonuses in our first few days in power after the next election.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman always makes a powerful point. Having served on the Public Accounts Committee and on the ongoing inquiries into tax avoidance, I concur with him. I am a defender not of crony capitalism but of popular capitalism. He might not agree with me on that, being slightly on the left. In order to tackle corporate tax avoidance, we need to look at multilateral, bilateral, international and domestic legislation, but would he acknowledge that the previous Government flunked every opportunity to look at those issues over 13 years?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We have seen successive Governments going in for what is called light-touch regulation on all fronts. I have never believed in light-touch regulation; I believe in tough regulation. I believe in employing thousands more tax officers to ensure that we collect the taxes. At the beginning of my time in Parliament, I visited our local VAT office, and the inspectors there told me that if they had more tax inspectors, they could collect billions more in tax. Each of those VAT inspectors collected more than five times their salary. I wrote about this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, and got a letter back from a civil servant saying that the Treasury was trying to reduce costs by reducing staffing levels. That was a completely illogical non sequitur; it was complete nonsense. Reducing the number of tax officers will reduce income by more than the amount of their salaries.

I have made the point many times—and I shall continue to make it—that we need more tax officers and more rigorous regulation. We need more control over what the corporates and the fat cats get away with. The reality is that ordinary working-class people have to pay tax through PAYE. They cannot escape paying their tax, but the corporates and the fat cats can. So, I have agreed with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on one or two issues, and I am pleased about that, although we have different philosophical views when it comes to economics.

I want to talk about the deficit problem, because that is what taxation is about. I do not think that we actually have a deficit problem. We do not even have a spending problem. We have a revenue collection problem. That can be addressed either by collecting tax in the way that we do now, or by changing tax rates, as proposed in today’s motion.

Tax collection is a serious problem, and we could make serious changes there, but I want to look back to a time when taxes were more progressive. During the previous Parliament, I made suggestions in this Chamber about the kind of tax changes that I wanted to see. I went beyond what our leadership is now suggesting, although I welcome its proposals. I think we should go further, however. In the 1970s, Denis Healey was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that he wanted to

“tax the rich until the pips squeak”.

I cheered him for that, and we did not lose any votes because of his statement. In fact, a lot ordinary working-class people said, “Quite right too! We want those who can afford to pay more to do so. Those who can only afford to pay less should pay less.”

[Mel Stride]

Was Denis Healey the same Chancellor who had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund in the 1970s because this country was bankrupt?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

He did indeed go to the IMF, but I think it has now been recognised that that was unnecessary. We did not need to kowtow to the IMF or to impose those strictures. In fact, remarkably, the economy survived quite well during that time, although a mistake was made at the end. I shall not go into that now, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you would call me to order if I did, but it was the reason why things went wrong in 1979. Nevertheless, we survived the 1970s, although the oil price rose by five times in a very short period, which affected the whole world including Britain.

At that time, I was working for the Trades Union Congress and then in the trade union movement. I was an economist, and was lobbying the Government. I was at the TUC General Council when the £6 pay policy was agreed to. That was an historic moment. I thought it amazing that the trade unions had agreed to a cap on pay increases for everyone, but the reason they agreed to it was that it was fair. Everyone would receive a £6 pay rise. For someone with a low income that was a big rise, while for someone with a high income it was not very much, but it was fair, and was seen to be fair across the board.

Other Members are too young to remember this, but in those days the top rate of tax was 83p in the pound, and there was also a 15% surcharge on unearned income. Some of those whose income was entirely unearned, perhaps in property, were paying a 98% rate on the top part of their income. I thought that was pretty fair, but of course we cannot go back to those days.

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend has been revisiting the 1970s. A remarkable statistic is that in 1979, the inequality gap in this country was at its narrowest since the second world war. Perhaps, if we think that reducing inequality is a good thing, something was right at that time.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Absolutely. I remember writing papers about the massive increase in inequality that occurred subsequently, during the 1980s, when there were big tax cuts for the rich along with rapidly rising unemployment. That resulted in the inequality for which we have not really been compensated since.

[Mark Reckless]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken of persuading Labour Front Benchers to adopt his policy on the 10p tax rate. Does he have similar hopes in respect of the 98% rate?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

No, no. I live in the real world, and I suspect that even my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will not start considering 98% marginal tax rates.

George Bernard Shaw, a witty man but a socialist, who was paying 98%, said, “I consider myself to be a tax collector for the Government, in return for which I receive a 2% premium.” I thought that that was one way of putting it. Shaw was, as I said, a socialist, who no doubt accepted that wealthy people such as himself should pay substantially more than the poor.

I realise that we will not return to that rate, but I will say that during a Budget debate in the last Parliament, on a cold Thursday afternoon when it was raining and there were about six people in the Chamber, I suggested that we could consider a 50% rate for those on £60,000 a year—this was then!—a 60% rate for those on £100,000, and a 70% rate for those on £200,000. That would have taken us nowhere near where we had been in the 1970s, but it would have been a substantial change from where we were then.

I did not get much of a reaction in the Chamber, but the Deputy Speaker spoke to me privately afterwards. I am giving away no secrets, because she is no longer a Member of Parliament. She said, “I do so agree with you. Why do the Government not just do as you say?” Well, if only; but I had said what I thought, and I thought that would be a reasonable move. I suggested the 50% rate for those on £60,000 because at least it would mean Members of Parliament paying a tiny bit extra on the top part of their income. I thought that was right then, and I still think it is right.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman has run out of time. Much as I was enjoying his speech, I must now call Catherine McKinnell.