While Labour continues to reverse its pre-election definition of “working people” to justify tax hikes, the Adam Smith Insitute offers another path for raising money from Capital Gains Tax. Scrap it…

Statistical modelling in the ASI’s new report suggests that national income would grow by £25.08 billion thanks to increased saving if CGT was gradually phased out. Further revenue increases from higher investment and productivity would more than replace revenue lost from CGT and boost growth…

Without Capital Gains Tax national income would, according to the modelling, rise by 0.9% annually, in perpetuity. That’s thanks to a 2.4% increase in national savings as a percentage of national income. Bean-counters will know that two-thirds of the lost revenue from scrapping the tax would be offset by increased revenue from other taxation as a result. Multiplier effects to growth would more than compensate for lost Treasury revenue while every family would be £1,000 a year better off…

Reeves should rule out a rise in CGT in the budget, and better still scrap it altogether. Talk about a rabbit…

New data from the Adam Smith Insititute won’t make happy reading for Reeves as she battles her officials over Labour’s manifesto tax hikes. The Treasury is already looking at watering down the non-dom tax raid by softening plans for inheritance tax on trusts and introducing a discount on bringing in foreign income. Yet another ‘loophole’ as tax-fanatics would dub it – otherwise known as an ‘incentive’…

The ASI finds that the 4.55% of British residents with over $1 million in assets will plunge to just 3.62% by 2028. They will leave thanks to increased day-to-day taxation, frozen inheritance tax thresholds and capital gains taxes set to rise…

When Transport Secretary Lou Haigh was asked on GB News this morning whether the government would reconsider its non-dom tax seeing as it is now predicted to raise no money at all she said “if people come here they should pay their taxes here… the OBR will properly assess and analyse the impact at the budget.” That famously accurate institution…

In 2024 the number of millionaires is set to fall by 9,500 to 593,000 – compare that to the 708,500 Britain had back in 2007. When the top 1% of earners pay 29% of all income tax receipts it is no wonder that Treasury officials are baulking at Labour’s plans to hemorrhage cash with tax hikes…

Rachel Reeves targeted planning in her first speech as Chancellor, and the reaction from the free-market think tanks has been unusually positive. The theme amongst the wonks is “we welcome the plans”. Cosying up to the new leading party…

The Institute of Economic Affairs spokesman hails the plans: “Rachel Reeves is right to emphasise the importance of growth in tackling Britain’s challenges…Undoubtedly, the most exciting part of the agenda is the government’s immediate plans to reform the planning system”. Labour pleasing the YIMBYs…

The Adam Smith Institute‘s Maxwell Marlow said: “We welcome the Chancellor’s plans to introduce supply-side reforms…Overall, this indicates a seriousness of purpose in fixing one of the greatest drags on Britain’s prosperity.” Though it’s correctly pointed out “plans must be based on results rather than intentions”…

The Taxpayers’ Alliance‘s CEO John O’Connell writes: “Taxpayers will welcome the chancellor’s commitment to delivering growth and her genuine grasp of the problems with the planning system”. They don’t point out that Reeves’ plan to hire 300 new planning officers will cost £20 million a year alone, which ultimately falls on…the taxpayer…

As Guido noted earlier, these promises have been made before. Actions speak louder than words…

As Labour announce its plans to nationalise railways, the free-market think tanks have already got the wheels rolling to warn against the socialist idea. Nationalisation stifles competition and innovation – a repeat of the 70s isn’t something anyone wants…

The Institute of Economic Affairs blasted the”lacking in detail” proposal, writing “the ritual denunciation of profits and the belief that ‘communities’ (or rather political bosses) have a role to play; but their role always seems to be to demand more money, resist closures, and open more lines, irrespective of any commercial discipline.” 

The Adam Smith Institute‘s Director of Research Max Marlow pointed out how nationalisation hasn’t worked in past: “Nationalisation would be completely counter productive. During the 47 years of nationalised railways in the UK, passenger numbers collapsed and service was abysmal, even shocking by modern standards”. Guido’s sure Labour would respond with something along the lines of “it’ll work this time”…

Leaders in the rail industry have also hopped aboard to attack the plans. Andy Bagnall, chief executive of Rail Partners, said that “nationalisation is a political rather than a practical solution which will increase costs over time”. Just this morning the Shadow Transport Secretary admitted it wouldn’t lower fare costs…

Meanwhile, details on just how much this would cost are scant. The House of Commons Library’s Economic Policy and Statistics clerk says: “The government would be taking on all the costs involved with running the services, which are significant, and would be responsible for generating revenues from the services… I am afraid I am not able to produce an estimate myself and have not found a reliable estimate made by another organisation.” Off the rails…

The Adam Smith Institute has carried out the first ever calculation of the costs of planning restrictions on the UK economy. It doesn’t make happy reading for NIMBYs – they’ve been found to cost up to 6.1% – or £138.5 billion – to UK GDP every year. The ASI’s new paper explains that, just by allowing for more dense housing in cities through townhouse-style upwards construction, more residents in Britain’s most productive cities would push growth up. Meanwhile, planning restrictions impose large costs on growing cities: the wonks have calculated that it currently costs the taxpayer £15,000 in public service costs for every new person who moves to a city. The paper shows that the extra growth can come without urban expansion or building on the green belt.

ASI patron Brandon Lewis, who last week joined anti-NIMBY pressure group “Priced Out” to push for more housing, said the paper shows “not only do we have a moral duty to build the homes we need in the UK- we have an economic duty too“. Gently building upwards in cities is a no-brainer for the economy…

Westminster’s eyes are moving onto housing as the election gets closer. While Gove waves the flag for his leasehold reform, the Centre for Policy Studies has been busy calculating how badly we’ve been doing on housbuilding in recent years. Now that net migration is at 1.1% of the population, a population equivalent to the city of Birmingham has arrived to the UK in the last two years. The housebuilding target for England remains set at 300,000 homes per year with an assumption of net migration at 170,500. At least the government have blown one figure out of the water…

The CPS has calculated England should be building 515,000 homes annually, 73% higher than the official target, and that we’ve underbuilt over the last decade by around 1.3 million homes. Meanwhile, the Adam Smith Institute has commissioned polling from JL Partners which manages to tease some support for building on greenbelt land out of the public. They’ve worked out that a policy in which a proportion of the profits from development from greenbelt land “goes back to the community” in some form has net support both among the general public and mortgage holders. The 18-24 age range is most in support, though monetary or “community” compensation will be needed to convince the public to build meaningfully. Prizes to be won for whomever can think up the right housing scheme to offer voters…