Tax Freedom Day 2007 Will Be 1 June

Tax Freedom Day – the point in the year where average taxpayers have earned enough to cover all their taxes and at last can start earning for themselves – will fall on 1 June this year. That is two days later than in 2005, and over a week later than in 2003.

The Treasury now takes over 40% of the National Income in taxes – income tax, VAT, capital taxes, company taxes, inheritance taxes, and all the rest. That is 152 days’ worth of the average taxpayer's annual wages.

Despite Gordon Brown’s avowed ‘prudence’, the tax burden rose as soon as he took office, to near-record levels in 2000-01. Rapid economic growth then saw wages rising faster than taxes, but over the last four years, the burden has begun to rise rapidly again.

The tax burden is also a postcode lottery. Taxpayers in Wales work eight days less for the tax-collectors than the national average (until 23 May), but Northern Ireland residents have to work much longer (until 5 June). Taxpayers in England are spot on the national average (1 June) while those in Scotland enjoy their tax freedom earlier (26 May).
 
There are significant variations within England, too. Lightest taxed are Eastern England and Yorkshire & Humberside, with a Tax Freedom Day of 24 May, and the North East, on 29 May. The West Midlands is relatively lucky with a date of 31 May, while the North-West and South-West taxpayers have to work a day more, until 1 June. Highest taxed are the South-East (3 June) and London (5 June).

Slug path

tax-freedom-day-will-be-1-june

Joomla-id

1996

Call For An Independent NHS

Wednesday May 23th 2007

The NHS should be taken out of the political domain altogether, and run by an independent board, according to the Adam Smith Institute.  A YouGov poll taken on the subject shows massive popular support for precisely such a proposal, with 69 percent in favour and only 12 percent against.

The Institute's new Briefing Paper, Depoliticizing the NHS, published today, documents the bewildering and counter-productive range of political initiatives and interference which has wreaked such havoc on our nation's healthcare system.

"Politicians tend to think that the can improve the health service by simply giving orders, or setting targets. But such measures always have perverse effects, distorting clinical priorities and encouraging creative accounting."

The Briefing Paper highlights the shocking fact that "an answer to a parliamentary question revealed that 85% of the money spent by the government on new hospitals had been spent in Labour constituencies. Meanwhile, as hospitals and clinics close all over the country, the health secretary has been accused of intervening to prevent the closure of hospitals in Labour marginal seats." This, says the Institute, is a sign of something seriously wrong.

The Institute's proposal is for a distinguished panel of health professionals to be appointed to run the NHS, to allocate its budget, determine its priorities, and operate it according to medical needs rather than political aims.

"The panel should be appointed by the government after a period of consultation with various divisions of the medical profession to identify people whose professional standing and distinction commands widespread respect."

The NHS budget would be set by Parliament every five years, and up-rated each year in line with inflation.  The ASI's YouGov poll showed that this idea, too, enjoys widespread popular support, with 74 percent in favour.  The suggestion that "the NHS has become a political football" receives 72 percent backing.  The ASI points out that:
 

"It is not just the public that supports this kind of reform - the British Medical Association recently declared themselves in favour of an independently run NHS and Gordon Brown, the next prime minister, is said to be interested in the idea."

The Conservatives, too, are reportedly looking at ways to distance the NHS from political control and interference. " With support from the public, the medical profession, and from across the political divide, this is an idea whose time has come. The nation's healthcare is far too important to be left any longer in the hands of politicians," the report concludes.

Slug path

call-for-an-independent-nhs

Joomla-id

1997

New Judicial Body to protect Liberties

Wednesday May 16th 2007

The Adam Smith Institute today proposes a new body, composed of retired senior judges, to review that state of civil liberties in Britain following the recent spate of legislation.  In its Briefing Paper, Safeguarding Civil Liberties, the Institute itemizes how recent government acts have compromised or removed many of the legal protections traditionally enjoyed under common law.  These include habeas corpus, right to trial by jury, right to remain silent, freedom from double jeopardy, among many others.

The Institute proposes that a new judicial panel be established, independent of government, to review the effect of recent legislation on long-standing liberties, and to make recommendations as to how the impairment of liberties might be redressed.  While the body's recommendations would not have the force of law, it is envisaged that it would be so prestigious that governments would find it impossible to ignore or sideline their pronouncements.

"The liberties review panel would sit, hear witnesses, evidence and argument, and would deliver interim reports on various aspects of our traditional liberties," says the Briefing Paper, and "would establish the broad principles which apply, and under which newly proposed legislation could be challenged."  It is proposed that the new body, in addition to reviewing recent legislation, would include within its remit any new legislative proposals which might compromise long-standing liberties.
 
76 percent support

A YouGov poll was commissioned to ascertain popular support for such a proposal.  People were asked "Would you support or oppose a proposal to establish a judicial body, tasked with reviewing the state of civil liberties in Britain, the effect on them of recent legislation, and authorized to make public recommendations of ways to safeguard them?" The results were overwhelmingly in favour.  Of those expressing an opinion (more than three-quarters of those polled) 76 percent were in favour of the initiative.*

The ASI makes it clear that this would not solve all the problems faced by our traditional liberties, but it would be a good step towards the restoration and entrenchment of the liberties which were once our birthright.

Slug path

new-judicial-body-to-protect-liberties

Joomla-id

1998

69 Percent Back English Parliament

Monday May 7th 2007

In a new Briefing Paper the Adam Smith Institute has called for an English Parliament, but in a novel form. Unlike proposals which involve a new layer of representatives, a fresh set of elections, and a new building to house it, the ASI proposal uses existing institutions.  Under the ASI plan, following the next general election the MPs representing English constituencies should meet in the Palace of Westminster as the Parliament of England, having equivalent powers over health, education, policing and transport as the Scottish Parliament presently has.
 
They would elect a First Minister, as the Scots do, who would then put together a cabinet which would govern England in the designated areas of responsibility.  The UK Parliament would remain responsible UK-wide matters and would control the various departments in charge of them: security and immigration, foreign affairs, international development, defence, employment and social security, energy, constitutional affairs, and tax and the economy.
 
The English Parliament would meet and do its work in the same building as the UK Parliament, with each of the two bodies meeting at different times.  Part of the attraction of the proposal is that it does not involve the expense of a separately-elected body meeting in a separate building. Taxes would continue to be set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the revenues collected by HM Revenue & Customs and then divided between the home nations.
 
The ASI tested the popularity of this proposal by asking YouGov to conduct a survey.  That survey found a huge majority in favour.  When the 30 percent "don't knows" were eliminated, the figures showed 69 percent in favour, versus 31 percent against, a better than two-to-one majority.*  The Institute notes that there is a widespread feeling that the present asymmetrical devolution is widely perceived to be unfair and unsustainable, and suggests that an English Parliament, constituted along the lines suggested, would be the simplest way to redress that unfairness.

Slug path

69-percent-back-english-parliament

Joomla-id

1999