2009 年 4 月 22 日，英國財(cái)政大臣達(dá)林宣布了工黨政府的中期經(jīng)濟(jì)預(yù)測，以及他們的稅收和支出計(jì)劃。在達(dá)林宣布的變化中,大量的稅收措施與對"到 2012 年募集了超過英鎊60 億，，爭取經(jīng)濟(jì)的未來，在他們最需要的時(shí)候馬上為他們提供幫助"的展望。然而，它是一個(gè)的政策，特別是在公眾和媒體占主導(dǎo)地位的初步反應(yīng);

"去年 11 月，我宣布新的所得稅收入150,000以上英鎊-45%的比例給頂尖1%的納稅人。為了現(xiàn)在幫助人民支付額外的支撐，我已決定新率將為 50%，明年 4 月將開始實(shí)施，（比預(yù)計(jì)的）更早一年"。

Labour's decision to tax those with relatively high incomes caused controversy throughout the general public, the media and the political world. The government's move to increase income tax to a milestone 50% was a surprise to many, largely because it broke one of Labour's key manifesto pledges made in 2005, not to increase the top rate of tax. Because of this, and because of the nature of the policy, Labour has faced huge opposition to this particular area of The Chancellor's budget.

In order to understand the introduction of the policy it is first important to understand the context of which it was introduced. In January 2009 the United Kingdom was officially in recession for the first time since 1991, according to government statistics. This is based on two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, which economists generally consider the defining feature of a recession.

The economic climate has heightened government spending, and meant that it is necessary for the government to recoup some of this money from the taxpayer. With the UK economy set to shrink by over 3% in 2010 The Chancellor attempted to draw clear dividing lines between Labour and the Conservatives.

Mr. Darling also announced the intention to introduce a ￡1.7bn job creation scheme funded by the increased income tax. In doing this, The Chancellor is rekindling Labours socialist routes and 'taking from the rich, to give to the poor', a move that would contrast the traditional Conservative right wing view.

Political commentators were quick to question the government's move, with most pointing out that the projected revenues from this measure were small, in the context of the ballooning size of the public deficit. Another integral part of criticism related to the great symbolic nature of the 50p tax rate, with income tax alone meaning that the taxpayer's salary will be divided equally with the government. However, with national insurance and other contributions included, the taxpayer holds an unequal partnership with the state, with the government in fact taking home more than the taxpayer.

Opinion polls carried out after the Budget found widespread public support for the new 50p rate. The Times reported on a poll by 'Populus' showing 57% of respondents welcoming the change, with 22% against. However, with the new rate only effecting 350,000 people, and with the rest of the public hoping to benefit from the change, it is easy to see why this would be the case. It is therefore necessary to look how effective the change will be, and how the public may benefit from the move.

The Chancellor announced that the new 50p income tax rate will raise ￡1.13bn in 2010-11, rising to ￡2.52bn in 2011-12, however much of the criticism that the budget brought about was directed at these forecasts. Political commentators argued that Mr. Darling's budget would not boost government's income as expected, with an article in the Times the day after the budget commenting;

"The decision to raise the top rate of tax to 50 per cent will punish some bankers, but will simply send others scurrying to Geneva. The vast majority of the 350,000 people earning more than ￡150,000 will, of course, stay in the UK. They will not complain. They will call their accountants" (The Times, 23 April 2009)

Avoidance of taxes has always been an issue for the government, and a problem which was sure to be intensified by the new tax policy. The article above predicts many of those affected moving abroad in order to avoid the high rate of tax, something which appears to have become true "The number of directors of British businesses registered as living in the low-tax centres of Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man has risen by almost 500 to 6,729 in the past 12 months" (The Sunday Times December 13, 2009).

Those caught in the highest tax band are not only escaping to UK tax havens, but leaving the country altogether. However, the issue of those exiting the country is not only a financial loss but also an exodus of skill and knowledge that has led to it being labelled a 'brain drain'.

"Ten years of Labour has re-created the brain drain. High taxes and Government interference are driving people away" (Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister). The term brain drain was coined in the 1950s following the mass emigration of scientists and other experts to America. Tens of thousands of people also left the country to escape the industrial unrest and high taxes of the 1970s (The Telegraph February 21 2008).

A 'Laffer Curve' is the name given to a graph plotting total tax revenues against the actual rate of taxation. The economic theory behind the curve is that if nothing is taxed, there will be no revenue for the government; and if tax rates were set at 100% there would be no revenue, as there would be no incentive to work.

The curve above shows the simple Laffer curve with both rates of 0% and 100% generating nil revenue. Essentially, the equilibrium point or the point on the graph that provides the most revenue is not set at 50% or any other number. There is no way to be certain of at which point or rate of tax that revenue is maximised, although it is possible to estimate this parameter known as 'taxable income elasticity' based on previous behaviours and reactions to changes in tax rates.

The Institute for Fiscal studies (IFS) is an independent economic research body focusing on taxation and public policy. The IFS's primary focus is into the research of public finance and spending with an aim to create a transparent analysis of the government's procedures. During their research and analysis of Alastair Darling's budget and pre-budget report, the IFS contradicted the budget, claiming that in their opinion the new tax rate would not increase revenue. The graph below shows The IFS's estimate in red, along with the Treasury's estimate in yellow.

(Institute of Fiscal studies, Mike Brewer and James Browne, )

The Laffer curve above also shows in blue the rising revenue that the change in tax rate would generate, if there was no change in elasticity. The graph clearly shows the different opinions of the Treasury and the IFS. Whereas the IFS have predicted a 50% tax rate would significantly decrease revenue, the government have an opinion that is in complete contrast to this, expecting revenue to rise by almost ￡1billion. The IFS curve suggests that the peak yielding tax rate is about 42.5%, where as the government suggest the peak is beyond even the 50% mark.

The process of policies regarding taxation is based largely economic theory, and the estimates in the above graph. The IFS are very quick to point out the unpredictability of the actual response to changes in rates, but are convinced their own estimates are as accurate as possible. According to the IFS, the government may have implemented a change that will actually reduce revenue at a time when they are under great financial pressure to increase it.

In order to analyse government policies, it is necessary to understand how the decision to implement these policies are made, and explore the processes behind policy making. With taxation and budgeting being such a pivotal part of any government, it is no surprise that there is a committee entirely dedicated to the area. The Tax Committee is a sub-committee of the Executive Committee and is chaired by Dave Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for Tax for HMRC. Officially the tax committee has the role of "supporting the Executive Committee in pro-actively coordinating tax issues within HMRC across lines of business, Central Policy, Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence and wherever else they occur. 'Tax' for this purpose includes all tax, duties, credits, benefits and related matters dealt with by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)" ().

One problem that would have faced government in creating this policy is whether it is right and proper to further increase taxes of those with large incomes to a greater extent than those with lower levels of income. In case of progressive taxation, moral philosophies seem to support this particular issue in the sense that it puts the interest of the majority above the interests of the few.

Utilitarianism strived for what Bentham described as "The greatest happiness of the greatest number". Put simply, Utilitarianism is form of consequentialism that puts forward that the moral worth of any action is determined by its outcome and specifically the happiness or pleasure it creates. Karl Popper later put forward 'Negative Utilitarianism' (Popper 1952.) which differs as it aims to minimize suffering, rather than maximise pleasure.

As previously stated it is only a relatively small number of 350,000 people that will be affected by the new policy meaning that in terms of Utilitarianism, the unhappiness caused is minimized. People in the lower income bracket would be much more greatly affected by tax increases on a large scale, as money they make is spent on necessities rather than luxuries. Imposing higher income tax on them would greatly decrease their ability to afford necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

It could be argued that those with higher income can afford to buy the basic necessities and still have more to spare, which is spent on luxuries. A Utilitarian would argue it is only morally right that they pay more taxes, as their happiness would be less affected than if all taxes were increased to the extent that many families would struggle to maintain even a life without luxury. From utilitarianism viewpoint therefore, if the government necessitates it must produce more money through taxes, raising the highest tax band as much as possible would be considered right and just.

Although considered by many a landmark policy, largely due to the significance of the 50p tax milestone being reached, the policy is a development of the progressive tax system already in place, and by this measure is in no means revolutionary. Considering this, and considering the effects previously explored through negative utilitarianism, the process of creating this policy appears to fit into a rational model.

Simon's model (1957) consisted of investigating a number of alternatives, considering the consequence of each action, and choosing the best course of action to fulfil an objective. If the government's objective is to raise more money through taxes, and given that it is felt the ordinary family cannot afford to fund this tax increase, raising the income tax on the highest earners appears to be the most sensible action, or rational decision.

However, Simon's model is very simplistic, and fails to account for other mitigating factors that come into the decision making process. For instance, the fact the government is going against one of Labour's key manifesto pledges made only four years prior to the new taxation policy being put forward was surely an obstacle in the process as it clearly undermines any promises or pledges made in the future.

Another limitation of Simon's model is that not all the consequences of particular actions can be anticipated. There is often any number of unnoticed and unintended consequences that are outside the policy frame of interest. The limitations in the information that may be used in making a rational choice are captured in the concept of 'bounded rationality'.

Once it is established that rationality is necessarily bounded, the next step is to understand how the boundaries are drawn. One answer is that the policy process proceeds incrementally. Decisions always start from the existing situation and involve comparisons of possible small steps in various directions from the original.

The incremental model does allow for revolutionary changes, but suggests they will happen through several small steps, rather than in one instance. One advantage of incremental change is that the range of consequences that has to be considered for each step is kept low; however, a succession of small steps can lead to outcomes that were not envisaged at the time of the first step.

In the case of the new taxation policy, The Chancellor's original plan was to make incremental changes leading towards the 50p tax rate, however with the economic situation worsening, he chose to turn to the 50p rate much sooner, "a

本文編號(hào)：201387