CHANCELLOR Jeremy Hunt announced two major tax cuts in his Autumn Statement and claimed the economy had “turned a corner” – but analysts have cast doubt on whether the measures are sustainable.
There are also questions over whether the crowd-pleasing tax cuts signal a General Election is more likely to take place in early 2024.
The main announcements
The two biggest announcements from the autumn statement were a pair of tax cuts billed as the biggest since the 1980s.
For employees, the Chancellor cut National Insurance from 12% to 10%, while the self-employed also received a cut in National Insurance in what amounts to a £10 billion tax giveaway.
For businesses, the decision to make the “full expensing” regime permanent delivers a tax cut of around £10bn in the hope that it will promote investment.
Despite pre-statement rumours, Hunt confirmed that benefits would be uprated by September’s inflation figure, not October’s, while the pensions triple lock will be maintained.
READ MORE: Jeremy Hunt's Autumn Statement is a ‘Tory con trick’, says SNP
The Chancellor also confirmed that the minimum wage would rise by almost 10%, along with changes to benefits rules intended to reduce the number of people deemed unfit to work.
The verdict from finance analysts
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was more downbeat than the Chancellor, saying it was still forecasting the largest fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s, with disposable incomes 3.5% lower in the election year than they were before the pandemic.
The OBR has revised down its growth forecasts for the coming years, partly thanks to inflation remaining higher for longer than anticipated and not returning to its 2% target until the second half of 2025.
Despite the tax cuts, the OBR also expected the overall tax burden to continue rising over the next five years due in part to the decision to keep personal allowances frozen. The tax burden is now forecast to reach 38% of GDP by 2028/29 – its highest level since the Second World War.
Public services lose out to tax cuts
The Chancellor provided very little extra money for public services, choosing instead to spend his extra “headroom” on around £20bn in tax cuts.
In the context of persistent inflation, this means an effective squeeze on departmental budgets that some commentators have described as “implausible” and “unsustainable”.
The OBR said current plans suggested cuts to “unprotected” departments (budgets not including the NHS, schools, defence and overseas aid) of around 2.3% per year.
Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said of the squeeze on public service budgets: “There’s a material risk that those plans prove undeliverable and today’s tax cuts will not prove to be sustainable.”
Tory party divisions
Delivering two significant tax cuts is likely to have pleased restive Tory backbenchers who have long argued that overall tax levels are too high.
While the Chancellor has not given any faction everything it wanted, cutting taxes for both businesses and individuals will prove popular after last week’s reshuffle.
READ MORE: Jeremy Hunt confirms National Insurance cut in Autumn Statement
However, the OBR’s forecast that the tax burden will continue rising may limit any internal advantages that Hunt has secured and result in demands for further tax cuts.
A spring General Election?
The Autumn Statement may not have been purely a pre-election giveaway, but some measures will heighten expectations that an election could be coming in the first half of 2024.
Fast-tracking the cut in National Insurance to January instead of waiting for April means voters would already have begun to feel the benefit of it should the Prime Minister decide to hold a General Election in the spring.
The Chancellor’s announcements also gave a hint towards the argument the Conservatives could seek to mount as to why they deserve re-election.
Both Hunt and his deputy, Treasury Chief Secretary Laura Trott, have claimed the UK economy has “turned a corner” and will argue that replacing the Government could jeopardise that.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel