An interesting article by Stephanie Flanders, the BBC’s Economics editor. She asks just how much (or how little) the pound in our pocket is now worth. With inflation above target, growth very slow and tax and benefit changes to cut the government deficit, everyone is feeling the squeeze. A key fact that Flanders identifies is that only those in the highest income quintile have actually lost from changes in the tax and benefits system: everyone else has (or will) gain. A very interesting read!
The shrinking pound in your pocket BBC News, Stephanomics (21/3/11)
Questions
- What are the main factors that have contributed to lower living standards this year? Explain how each factor works.
- What changes to taxes and benefits have occurred and what changes can we expect over the coming months and years? Who is likely (a) benefit and (b) lose from each change?
- Is it right that the richest families have been affected the most? Find an economic argument for both sides of the debate.
- Why have pensioners lost relatively more than other groups?
The pensions problems facing many of the developed world are well documented and are largely caused by changing demographics, including rising life expectancy, more people in education, retiring earlier and the ‘baby boomers’ nearing or entering retirement. All of this has contributed to unsustainable pension systems and hence a need for reform. The latest review is by Lord Hutton and looks at public-sector pensions. It makes a number of recommendations about reform. The main thing to come out of the report is that public-sector workers will have to pay larger contributions. work for longer and may receive less in their pension.
Many public-sector pensions have been based on a final salary scheme, which gives workers an extremely generous pension on retirement. The proposal is to change these to career average pensions, which will reduce the generosity for some and hence play a role in reducing the pension deficit. He suggests that public-sector retirement age should be increased in line with the state pension age, which will simultaneously increase the number of workers and hence output, but also reduce the number of years spent in retirement and hence reduce pension payments.
The government will now consider the recommendations laid out in the Hutton Review, but will need to bear in mind potential reactions by the unions, which have already hinted at strike action if the proposals go ahead. As the TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said:
‘Public-sector workers are already suffering a wage freeze, job losses and high inflation. They are now desperately worried that they will no longer be able to afford their pension contributions, and will have to opt out.’
With such concern about these proposals, and yet an unarguable case for pension reform, this is certainly an area where we will undoubtedly see significant media coverage.
Articles
Hutton reveals his pension plan – and is blasted by unions Guardian, Polly Curtis (10/3/11)
Pensions anger from unions following Hutton review (including video) BBC News (10/3/11)
High-wire act fails to balance public and private Financial Times, Nicholas Timmins (10/3/11)
A fairer pension deal that is long overdue Telegraph (10/3/11)
Hutton: This changes the basis on which I accepted the job, says teacher Guardian, Jessica Shepherd and Jill Insley (10/3/11)
No winners over public sector pensions if ministers or unions rush to battle Guardian, Polly Toynbee (10/3/11)
Career-average pensions: How do they work? BBC News, Ian Pollock (10/3/11)
Hutton pensions review: Q&A Telegraph, Harry Wallop (10/3/11)
Tackling the intractable The Economist (10/3/11)
Trade unions: pension reforms are unfair and misguided Guardian, James Meikle (10/3/11)
Report
Independent Public Service Pensions Commission: Final Report Pensions Commission, Lord Hutton, HM Treasury, March 2010
Independent Public Service Pensions Commission: Interim Report Pensions Commission, Lord Hutton October 2010
Questions
- Identify the main causes of the pensions problem. Explain how each issue has added to the pensions deficit.
- To what extent is it equitable that public sector workers should pay more in contributions and retire at the same age as the state pension age?
- Who will benefit the most from a change from final-salary to career average schemes?
- How might higher contributions affect the incentive to work? What could we see happen to labour supply? Think about both income and substitution effects.
- What are the union’s main arguments against the proposals? To what extent Is striking likely to solve the problem?
Ahead of Lord Davies’s report on Boardroom equality, he will be somewhat alarmed by the survey results carried out by the Institute of Leadership and Management, which found that 73% of women felt that they still face barriers to top-level promotion. Quotas are a suggestion to break down this barrier. As Sheelagh Whittaker, a non-executive directive of Standard Life said:
‘I am a big supporter of quotas. I believe that we will only have true equality when we have as many incompetent women in positions of power as incompetent men.’
However, others say that quotas are not the answer, as they don’t actually change the fundamentals. Forcing compliance for equality in the workplace is not the same as equality in the workplace. There are a number of other reasons behind fewer women in top level positions, including less confidence and ambition, a more risk-averse attitude to promotion, as well as more women than men aspiring to run their own company, rather than seek promotion within a firm. So does discrimination still remain in the workplace or are there other explanations for the fact that only 12% of FTSE 100 directors are women?
Women still face a glass ceiling Guardian, Graham Dnowdwon (21/2/11)
Female managers say classing ceiling intact – survey BBC News (21/2/11)
The ‘glass ceiling’ is all in the mind: women lack confidence and ambition at work says new survey Daily Mail, Steve Doughty (21/2/11)
Women hit glass ceiling while report rejects boardroom quotas Independent, David Prosser (21/2/11)
Poll: Glass ceiling still a barrier The Press Association (21/2/11)
Men not to blame for the glass ceiling The Australian, Jack Grimston (21/2/11)
Questions
- How are equilibrium wages determined in perfect and imperfect markets?
- Is it efficient for a firm to pay men more than women or to hire/promote more men than women?
- Illustrate the concept of discrimination against women in the labour market. Think about the effect on the MRP curve and hence on equilibrium quantity and wage. How does this affect the MRP curve for men?
- What are the other causes of less women being FTSE 100 directors besides ‘the glass ceiling’?
- To what extent would a quota be effective in achieving gender equality in the workplace?
- Are there any other policies that could be used to tackle discrimination of any kind? What are the pros and cons of each?
One of the key areas discussed in the election was welfare and in particular what to do about those who remain long term dependent on welfare. How can the UK government encourage people back to work? A key issue is the poverty trap: some people are simply better off living on benefits than they are getting a job. Here, we’re talking about the marginal-tax-plus-lost-benefit rate. When you start earning, you get taxed, pay national insurance contributions and lose some of your benefits. All this leads to a situation where work doesn’t pay.
In a paper ‘Escaping the Poverty Trap’ by Lawrence Kay, he considered how much better off people are moving from different benefits into work, taking into account the high costs of actually finding a job and then starting work. He found that after 16 hours of work, someone on Job-seekers’ allowance would be £15.07 poorer and someone on Employment and Support Allowance would be £39.35 worse off. In many cases, people were facing a marginal effective tax rate in excess of 100%. Given this, it’s hardly surprising that Lawrence Kay found that ‘Long term welfare claims have been Britain’s blight for many years’.
However, the Coalition has plans to change this and make sure that those in work are paid more and are better off than those on benefits. By making working life a more attractive option, this should encourage those for whom work doesn’t pay to enter the labour force. This will obviously benefit them, increase the potential output of the economy (hence growth) and improve net taxes, as tax revenue rises and benefits expenditure falls. While this may not lead to tax cuts for those in work (as benefits spending falls), it may mean that more tax revenue is devoted to areas such as health and education or that the government can close the budget deficit.
The ‘universal credit’ aims to simplify the current system and make work pay, by re-introducing a culture of work in households. There is also a plan to place sanctions on those turning down work and place a cap on benefits to any single family. There was also be tax changes aimed at helping those moving into work keep more of their money, thereby removing, or at least reducing, the poverty trap. However, some families will lose out – as the IFS noted, any reform ‘creates winners and losers’. However, the reforms are a step in the right direction. As David Cameron said:
“I think that will, over time, solve the whole poverty trap issue that has bedeviled governments of all colours.”
The Labour party does back some of the changes, but questions whether there is enough help for people finding work. Another issue that must be considered is while it is undoubtedly a good plan to encourage more people to move into work and off benefits, which jobs will they move into? With unemployment still high, now is not exactly the best time to be looking for a job. However, whatever the state of the economy, providing incentives for people to move from benefits into work is definitely a good plan, but of course the methods used will be under constant scrutiny.
Articles
Iain Duncan Smith sets out Welfare Reform Bill plans BBC News (17/2/11)
Bill ditches housing benefit cut The Press Association (17/2/11)
Life on benefits is no longer an option Mail Online, James Chapman (17/2/11)
Universal Credit welfare switch ‘to hit 1.4m homes’ BBC News (12/1/11)
Nick Clegg blocks housing benefit cut for jobless Guardian, Patrick Wintour (17/2/11)
It’s time to end this addiction to benefits Telegraph (17/2/11)
Report
Escaping the Poverty Trap Policy Exchange, Lawrence Kay 2010
Questions
- What is the poverty trap? Which factors make it worse?
- Why does the poverty trap act as a labour supply disincentive for those on benefits?
- If taxes of those in work have to be increased, what happens to their incentive to work more hours? Think about the income and substitution effects of a real wage change.
- Why is it that working may not pay?
- How does the Universal Credit aim to alleviate the poverty trap? Who are likely to be the winners and losers from the government’s proposed welfare reforms?
- What is a marginal-tax-plus-lost-benefit rate? How do you calculate it?
- Are there any other policies that could also reduce the poverty trap? How effective are they likely to be?
With the UK economy borrowing 11% of GDP, it is undeniable that spending cuts are needed. Of course, the big question is should they be occurring now or delayed until the recovery is more stable. However, another question is now being asked. Should taxes be cut to help the worse off? David Cameron says that this is out of the question. While he is a ‘tax-cutting Tory’ who ‘believes in tax cuts’, any significant cuts in taxes specifically aimed at the poor would simply make matters worse, especially as the Coalition government is already helping to move thousands of families out of taxation altogether, albeit by increasing taxes on the better off.
“It’s no good saying we’re going to deal with the deficit by cutting spending, but then we’re going to make things worse again by cutting taxes. I’m afraid it doesn’t add up.”
Those in favour of cutting taxes include John Redwood, the head of the Tory’s economic affairs committee, who argues that they would help to boost the economy, by ‘encouraging the wealth creators and the private sector’. By reducing the burden on residents, disposable income will increase, helping to stimulate consumption and investment, which should in turn boost aggregate demand. This would be a much needed stimulus following the latest data which showed: a shrinking economy once again in the last quarter of 2010, consumer confidence at its lowest level in the past 20 years, the possibility of unstable markets should the government be seen to ‘twitch’ on the austerity drive and 57% in a YouGov poll saying that the cuts are ‘being imposed unfairly’. Public approval for the Coalition’s budget deficit reduction strategy has fallen from 53% in June 2010 to 38% in February 2010. Add to this rising inflation and unemployment and the last thing people want to hear is surely ‘No big tax cuts’.
However, the budget deficit must be tackled: now or later. Whenever it happens and whichever party is in power, spending must be cut and/or tax revenues must rise and everyone will have to play their part.
Cameron: ‘Tax cuts impossible right now’ Sky News (6/2/11)
David Cameron says major tax cuts not possible BBC News (6/2/11)
Cameron vows ‘No to big tax cuts’ The Press Association (6/2/11)
David Cameron: Sorry, but we can’t afford tax cuts Telegraph, Patrick Hennessy (5/2/11)
George Osborne faces Conservative pressure for tax cuts BBC News (1/2/11)
Nick Clegg’s tax cuts will cost £4.3 billion, says IFS Telegraph, James Kirkup (2/2/11)
Doubts mount over Cameron’s austerity drive Associated Press (6/2/11)
Sorry it is so complicated BBC 2, Daily Politics, Stephanie Flanders (14/6/10)
Questions
- What is government borrowing? Who does the government borrow from?
- Analyse the impact of tax cuts on the economy. Think about which groups will be affected the most and in what ways.
- Which components of aggregate demand will be affected by cuts in spending and rising taxes?
- ’Cuts in taxation would boost the economy.’ To what extent do you agree with this statement?
- What will be the impact of tas cuts on the government’s macroeconomic objectives, given your answer to question 3?
- What are the arguments (a) for cutting the budget deficit now and (b) for cutting the budget deficit later?