Rory Meakin: How to abolish National Insurance

Rory Meakin is Head of Tax Policy at the Taxpayers Alliance and was lead researcher to the UK Tax Commission. Follow Rory on Twitter.

For decades, lancing the ugly boil of National Insurance from the none-too-pretty face of the British tax system has been on the wishlist of tax reform campaigners and payroll professionals. The complicated system of weekly ‘contributions’ has long since twisted out of its original insurance shape into the current reality of being just another tax on income. Different rules on things such as when it’s applied, who is liable, what is ‘employment’ and what’s allowable as an expense make for a nightmarishly fiddly system that’s a major headache for employers and anyone trying to work out how much they have to pay.

Employer’s National Insurance, the so-called ‘jobs tax’, is particularly unpleasant due to its nature of ultimately being paid for by workers in the form of depressed wage levels while procedurally being a charge landed on employers. That disconnect between the employer who writes the cheque to HMRC and the employee who ends up being worse off because the economic burden is passed on to him via lower wages means it’s particularly lacking in the transparency and simplicity that taxpayers have a right to demand from the system that confiscates their money.

But which Chancellor wants to be the one to whip out the scalpel and do the deed? Many groups would potentially face a nasty tax hike from a poorly thought-through plan to merge National Insurance with Income Tax. Pensioners, the self-employed, people with two jobs or fluctuating incomes are among those who now benefit from advantages over regular employees in standard PAYE employment, who have to pay more. The status quo is certainly unfair on regular employees, but those who do nicely out of it have every right to object to being lumbered with any more tax.

Rory Meakin: Falkland Islanders' opinions on their own future are not worthless, Mr Carmona

Rory Meakin is a Research Associate at the TaxPayers' Alliance. Follow Rory on Twitter.

The Falkland Islands Government has announced an historic referendum on the future of the islands’ sovereignty, which David Cameron welcomed during Prime Minister’s Questions this afternoon following a question from Nigel Adams MP about British Government support for World Bank lending to Argentina. Although few are in any doubt that Falklanders will vote overwhelmingly in favour of remaining a British Overseas Territory, the move is expected to help repel attempts by Argentina to colonise the territory, either diplomatically or militarily.

Senior Argentinian politicians, however, are not impressed. Daniel Filmus, chair of the Argentine Senate foreign affairs committee said any referendum would make no difference to its claims on the islands, which rests entirely on a ridiculous interpretation of international law. Argentina’s position: 

"has always been based on the UN resolutions, indicating that sovereignty negotiations must always be resolved through bilateral negotiations with the UK"

Daniel Filmus is not alone in his contempt for self-determination, either. In an interview with Bueno Aires radio Guillermo Carmona, chair of the foreign affairs committee of Argentina’s equivalent of the House of Commons, was scathing about the value of the islanders’ opinions about their future:

"This has no value at all since Argentina rejects the possibility of self-determination"