Allister Heath once labelled Gordon Brown “a man who seems to love making simple things as complicated as possible”. A recent analysis of the benefit system by the Centre for Policy Studies shows that in this respect, Brown is in good company.
Suppose the government considers societal group X, recipients of X-benefits, as materially disadvantaged, and wants to give them a hand. It would then probably raise the level of X-benefits, right?
Wrong. In the UK benefit system, things are not that simple. To support group X, the government would probably add an “X-premium” to Benefit I, raise the income limit beyond which members of X face withdrawal of Benefit II, and grant them a special lower withdrawal rate for Benefit III. However, the higher amount of Benefit III would be partially offset by a reduction in the amount of Benefit IV, while Benefit II would be liable to income tax and National Insurance (NI). Benefit I is tax-exempt and not counted against other benefits, but recipients of Benefit I lose entitlement to Benefit V, which is a necessary precondition for the receipt of Benefit VI and VII. Needless to say, the agencies administering these benefits use differing definitions of terms like “additional earnings”, “income” and “gainful employment”.
The CPS report argues that apart from the time and effort it takes to find one’s way through the labyrinth, the uncertainty created by the complex pattern of benefit interaction contributes to trapping people in poverty. Consider the case of a single mother in part-time employment, who receives multiple benefits, say Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, and who is at the same time liable for income tax and NI contributions. For her, increasing work effort slightly can have repercussions on each of these variables. If the net effect is not straightforward to see, and if she may well be indiscernably better off than before – why bother?
The report proposes a four-step-plan for a radical simplification of the system. Variables like the definition of income, the tax treatment of benefits and personal allowances would be standardised. The chaotic relationship between benefits would be replaced by a situation in which one redistributive instrument serves one redistributive purpose. Benefits with similar aims would be merged, withdrawal rates aligned, and all benefits would be administered by the same agency.
Not bad at all for a start. But if we really want to break up the poverty trap, simplification can only be the trailblazer (as the CPS report readily acknowledges). Even a very simple benefit system can make it economically irrational for its dependants to seek work, and discourage those who have taken the first step to go further. Even a very simple system can be hugely wasteful, by redistributing large amounts among the middle classes instead of targeting the poorest.
A full-blown reform would clear the way out of the pit. It would end the current no-strings-attached welfare provision along the lines of the Wisconsin model, stop paying benefits to reasonably well-off people, and substantially raise the personal income tax and NI allowance to boost work incentives. Simplification, and the transparency that comes along with it, may well be the conditio sine qua non.
Richard is correct here, and this is precisely the reason for a separate housing allowance system. The issue, however, is largely restricted to London, in that rent differentials across the rest of the UK are much smaller. Dealing with this issue is not predominantly a problem of system design, but rather a matter of housing markets and the planning system. The best we might be able to achieve in terms of benefit reform is to move towards notional payments based on average market rents that therefore break the link between a tenant’s benefit entitlement and rent levels.
Bruno,
I’m not opposed to such a solution. But it would not automatically solve the basic dilemma. If b = £1000 per month and a = 1-0.33, then anyone with a gross income below £3000 would be a net transfer recipient. And from the perspective of the individual it makes no difference whether they receive a means-tested benefit that is withdrawn, or of a basic income that is taxed.
Richard rightfully mentions the incorporation of HB: If b was lowered to, say, £500, it would not even cover the rent in the South-East.
The only short term solution I see is to attach conditions to the receipt of b, lower it drastically in one step as the recipient enters work, but tax the remainder at a low rate.
I am entering this debate rather late and I have not been able to read everything fully. However, we should not necessarily assume that it is best to have a uniform withdrawal rate for benefits plus marginal tax rate right across the income span. There might be certain points in the income range where incentives matter relatively little. It is not clear to me, for example, that moving to a situation in old age where two thirds of pensioners are on a marginal ‘tax’ rate of (say) 60-80% is better than the system where a very small proportion had a 100% tax rate.
I cannot see any justification for higher levels of housing support in London or anywhere else. London differentials preserve the London bubble. If people want to live and work in London, let them pay the cost. That will include the cost to wealthier Londoners of paying for those who provide their services to live there or commute in. As we’ve all pointed out, these costs can be kept down by permitting more development. But I seem to be the only one who has suggested how the system could be constructed to give authorities (and their voters/taxpayers) an incentive to permit development. Saying it should be done is not enough.
Kris, 1. The basic dilemmas I thought we were talking about were (a) keeping METR as low as possible across the curve, and (b) avoiding bureaucratic inefficiencies. You can achieve (a) in other ways, but all at a greater cost of (b) and no additional benefit.2. It makes a big difference to the efficiency and intrusiveness of the system whether the individual receives a means-tested benefit or pays tax on his income and receives a basic income. For all but zero-earners, BI+FT can be handled through PAYE. I am not proposing that the basic income be taxed, by the way ( y = ax + b, not y = a(x+b) ). The difference is largely academic, but Occam’s razor should apply once more.
“The only short term solution I see is to attach conditions to the receipt of b, lower it drastically in one step as the recipient enters work, but tax the remainder at a low rate.”…which creates a massive disincentive to enter work. My priority (I believe it is the right one) is to minimize disincentives to work at all points along the curve (of Earned Income vs Disposable Income). It is abrupt or aggressive withdrawals that create the many poverty traps in the current system. There is no point at which creating a high hurdle to self-improvement is a price worth paying for looking tough.
Philip,(a) I think it’s unlikely that strong disincentives are irrelevant at any point on the curve,(b) If (a) exists for some individuals, I think it is unlikely that each person’s subjective evaluation is the same and that we can therefore identify a point at which strong disincentives are universally insignificant,(c) A Flat Tax has many efficiency-benefits, including the thorny issue of exchangeable allowances. My relationship status and partner’s income are irrelevant to the taxman under a BI+FT system. With multiple tax-rates, a single-earner couple pays more tax than a two-earner couple on identical combined income.Complexity. We have got to kill complexity.
Bruno, I agree with you about the situation in London – we all choose where we live, and even though it is a constrained choice that does not mean that we shouldn’t bear the consequences. After all this is what most working homeowners in London actually do. The problem, however, is to get a common acceptance of this position in conditions of an elective democracy. The ‘London problem’ has allowed serious reform to be put off for decades. This is because it is not an issue of system design but rather of a cultural shift about the role of the state and responsibility of individuals. Only once you have achieved this can you seriously start to design new systems of welfare.
Peter, To be brutal, London’s population is only around 12% of the total population. Even if we include the Home Counties as being in a similar situation, it is still a small minority. If those outside London understood a change to be both fair and in their interests (and some in London will also understand this point), it is not necessarily the case that a democratic mandate could not be obtained. It’s more a question of whether politicians had the stomach for the fight. The London bubble is a serious problem for the country, which, if not corrected by removal of distortions like this, will make the UK an ever less pleasant place to live, until the imbalances correct themselves painfully.
We ought also to be careful to compare apples and apples. The £30,000 extreme case that Richard mentioned would not be for a single person. I don’t know exactly what he has in mind, but that probably represents a larger household. We should be careful not to compare support per person with support per household.
Bruno – You are, of course, correct that the £30,000 case is for a three bedroom property. Nevertheless, I believe single claimants are entitled to around £20,000 per year housing benefit in some of the most expensive London boroughs. And even in the cheapest parts of London a one bedroom flat rents for about £7,000 per year. A single person could struggle to get cheaper social housing, unless he or she had some kind of disability. I completely agree that people who wish to live in London should bear the costs. Accordingly, the ‘local connection’ criteria that entitle families to be housed in a particularly borough should be reformed to encourage people to move to cheaper areas.
Richard, I agree with you regarding ending ‘local connection’ (which incidentally is to be strengthened under new rules announced recently). However, the major way into social housing, and what excludes most households, local or otherwise, is ‘priority need’. This too would need to go allowing for an open choice based system to be developed.More generally social housing is a hidden benefit which has similar disincentive effects to welfare benefits in terms of economic dependency.
Bruno,
as a third priority, next to simplicity and constantly low EMTRs, I would add that the circle of net recipients should not be too large. I see the merits of your proposal in terms of the first 2 points. But BI+FT could mean that a lot of people, who could easily be completely self-sufficient, would choose to live on a combination of BI and a few hours of extra work.
In-work benefits, with their contingency on a minimum number of hours, avoid this to some extent. They are better targeted towards those who do their best, but simply do not have the skills to earn more than the minimum wage. I’d rather support those than high-skilled people with a high preference for leisure.
Richard,I’d suggest that the “local connection” be retained in terms of responsibility and funding, but the local authority have some flexibility over the location where the actual housing is contracted/provided, so it need not necessarily be within the boundary. There’d have to be a limit, so Windsor could house people in Slough, but not in Skelmersdale. If you don’t have “local connection”, you will have a centralized system. In theory, there ought to be more pressure on people to get out and earn if they are supported by people they know and who know them. But I don’t have strong feelings on that point – it may be more theoretical than meaningful in modern “communities”.
Peter’s point about social housing being another poverty trap is important. It’s the 100% security of occupation and risk that this can never be regained once sacrificed (i.e. once you’ve moved out of social housing) that keeps people in these properties rather than risking getting out and looking for something better, work- and accommodation-wise. That’s why a system that you could always fall back on, but whose cost to the occupier could instead be used to contribute towards something better, would reduce the disincentive effects.
Kris, The radius of the circle of net recipients will be determined by the level of support for zero-earners and the combined effect of the tax rates and withdrawal rates of benefits. Whether a conventional, benefits-based system or BI+FT, you are still stuck with the unavoidable choice between high METR and lower numbers within the circle, or lower METR and higher numbers within the circle. The system only affects the bureaucratic overhead. To me, it is clear that high METR is a greater disincentive than low or negative effective tax rates. Our current system is based on exactly the fear that you express. And it doesn’t work.
The choice is whether it is better for people to work for however many hours of work that they can find and manage, or whether it is better for people to be unemployed unless they work a minimum number of hours. For me, that isn’t a difficult choice. As taxpayers, we are better off if the unemployed work a few hours than none. And the unemployed are better off. A few hours’ work may lead to more work, and more ambition.Yours is a pessimistic view of human nature – that people will scrounge unless driven to work. Mine is optimistic – that people will take the opportunities they are capable of if obstacles are removed. The pessimistic view has created the mess we’re in. Targeting doesn’t work
Incidentally, Kris, I was looking at some of your old posts last night, and I see that you agree with Mises and me that targeting doesn’t work. http://www.kristian-niemietz.net/wordpress2/?page_id=82
“Yours is a pessimistic view of human nature”
Not at all. I’m merely saying that people respond to incentives, and as far as that relates to EMTRs, we are obviously on the same page. But EMTRs are not the only incentive variable. EMTRs affect the substitution effect, but what about the income effect?
Under your proposal, the government would start handing out substantial lump-sum transfers to all sorts of people who simply do not need them. Suppose someone earns £1,400pm net – he’s not rich but clearly not ‘in need’. Suddenly, he’s given a BI of, say, £700pm. One option would then be to scale back the work week to three days, and have more leisure AND a higher income than before.
“the circle of net recipients will be determined by the level of support for zero-earners”
There’s a limit to how low you can go. The BI would, among others, be paid out to people who genuinely cannot work and who would stay on BI for a long time. I guess you would not want them to live on a mere subsistence level (ignoring the potential role for private charity, which is a different chapter). But I guess you don’t want a host of complex BI top-ups and premiums either.
Hence, I rather go for a BI (or whatever it’s called) which is not too low but which comes with strings attached for those who could work. High EMTRs would only apply over a very narrow range.
Kris, You are forgetting that BI goes with Flat Tax. You haven’t described his domestic arrangements, which are critical to the current system, but let’s assume he is single. His annual gross pay is £16,800. Currently he pays £2,065 of income tax and £1,219 of employees’ NI. He would be eligible for Working Tax Credit of £477, and quite possibly some other benefits too. That gives him a disposable income of around £14,000 against an earned income of £16,800, making an effective tax-rate of around 17%.
Sorry, just noticed you said £1400pm _net_ (£16,800 p.a.). So that’s around £21,500 p.a. gross earnings under the current system (no WTC at that level) – around 22% effective tax-rate.I am not proposing £700pm because that is more generous than the current system and unaffordable. But let’s take it for the sake of example. I will need to set a high FT to match – let’s say 58%, though it’s probably higher for that BI. So he has £12,470 of FT to set against £8,400 of BI, giving a disposable income under the equivalent BI+FT system of £17,430 – around 19% effective tax-rate. It’s not very different. I say again, the determinant is the profile, not the system. The system determines efficiency.
Post new comment