|
Yet another policy
mistake. Rate cuts are contractionary for many
Bringing back the 10p tax rate and increasing state
pensions would be a more sensible stimulus
by Dr. Ros
Altmann
(All material on this
page is subject to copyright and must not be
reproduced without the author's
permission.)
Today's cut in interest rates by the Bank of
England is a continuation of the Government's
misguided policy response to the global credit
crisis.
Cutting rates will not ensure more
lending: It did not work in Japan and it
will not work here. The problem is the availability
of credit, not the cost. Rate cuts seem to be a
desperate, scattergun approach to the cutback in
bank lending but the collateral damage they cause
has been overlooked. Clearly there is a need to
ensure that businesses can obtain working capital,
but bringing rates down so aggressively does not
ensure businesses will be able to borrow. Direct
Government intervention would be better.
Easing monetary policy actually also
tightens fiscal policy for many, so the effect is
not clear-cut. Sharp cuts in interest rates
have a negative effect on confidence. They are also
the equivalent of a tax increase on pensioners - who
generally have a higher marginal propensity to
consume. Their income is being cut and they can do
nothing about it. For example, a pensioner with
£25,000 savings would earn nearly £30 a
week when rates are at 6%, but this halves if rates
fall to 3% and at 2% rates their income falls by
two-thirds to just £10 a week.
Policymakers are ignoring millions of responsible
citizens who saved for their future, in the hope
that rate cuts might free up credit markets and
banks might lend more! This is a dangerously
unbalanced policy mix, especially in an ageing
population, and must be redressed urgently.
I have two proposals:
-
Bring back the 10p tax rate, which was so
shamefully abolished and damaged the lowest
income groups. This could help all taxpayers. It
would certainly be much more of a stimulus than a
2.5% cut in VAT!
-
Radically change the state pension and pay
£140 a week to all pensioners over age 75.
It will be taxed back from higher income
pensioners, and will have numerous benefits. It
would finally abolish poverty for the elderly, be
fair to women, remove the need to force people to
buy an annuity at age 75, save huge sums in
administering the pension credit means test and
remove the disincentives to saving that have been
imposed by state pension reform. The cost would
be £2billion a year - tiny in comparison
with the sums thrown at the banks. It could also
be funded near term by abolishing contracting-out
of the state pension.
The Government's handling of this crisis has
been woefully inadequate. So far, it has included
previously unimaginable increases in public
borrowing, pumping billions of pounds into banks,
cutting VAT (which will just add to deflation
pressure and will not increase spending) and sharp
reductions in interest rates.
We need broader thinking and less panic reaction
with far-sighted policies to help us onto a more
sustainable path of long-term recovery.
Dr. Ros Altmann - 07799 404747
ENDS
NOTES FOR EDITORS
Illustration of effect of falling interest rates on
income received from £25,000 savings:
|
Interest rate
|
|
Annual income
|
|
Weekly income
|
|
6%
|
|
£1500
|
|
£29
|
|
5%
|
|
£1250
|
|
£24
|
|
4%
|
|
£1000
|
|
£19
|
|
3%
|
|
£ 750
|
|
£14
|
|
2%
|
|
£ 500
|
|
£10
|
|