Tory members are unpersuaded by arguments for green taxation

In the most recent ConservativeHome survey we asked which tax you would like to be cut first.  You chose inheritance tax but income tax wasn't far behind:

• Inheritance tax: 27%
• Income tax: 20%
• Council tax: 18%
• Tax on married couples: 15%
• Stamp duty on house purchase: 8%
• Corporate tax: 5%
• National insurance: 4%
• VAT: 2%
• Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes: Less than 1%

The most unpopular tax amongst the whole population - according to an ICM survey for the TaxPayers' Alliance last summer - is council tax (but inheritance tax wasn't far behind).

We then asked for your general views tax.  84% of respondents agreed with the supply-side argument that "the right sort of tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting economic growth".  Almost as popular was the contention that "tax simplification is as important as tax reduction". 79% agreed with that.

Mr Osborne can take comfort from the fact that 49% of the 1,274 members who answered the August survey, agreed that "we should not promise tax cuts before the election but should reduce the tax burden when in Government as and when economic growth makes it affordable".  That's effectively half of members endorse the 'sharing the proceeds of growth' formulation.

More concerning for the Shadow Chancellor is that only 34% said that they were "happy to pay green taxes if other taxes fall by the same amount".  Perhaps we believe a politician when they say they'll raise taxes but don't believe them when they promise a cut?  Just 16% agreed that "green taxes are vital to tackle environmental problems."  A previous ConservativeHome survey showed that members would prefer a technology-led approach to environmental challenges.

Although 87% agreed that tax was likely to be important in moving people's votes at the next election only 7% thought it would be the number one factor.

My guess - partly based on David Cameron's Yorkshire Post interview - is that tax relief for married couples will be announced when some or all of the Gummer-Goldsmith green taxes are embraced by George Osborne.

Comments

[William W]

Interesting but predictable. While Cameron may still rightfully advocate green taxes publicly, grass root members and ordinary people just don't want to pay them. Cameron should look at better ways to argue for tax cuts (even if they are 'neutral') using Redwood's proposals.

[Adam]

Where did this idea that technology is an alternative to taxation arise from? Technological change is driven by the incentive to avoid having to pay your green taxes. The taxes make it worthwhile. If there's little or no cost to carrying on burning carbon-based fuels, why would anyone invest in research to provide an alternative?

The only other way is to dole out dirty great big government subsidies to companies R&D programmes. Unfortunately, that requires Whitehall madarins to start 'picking winners' - deciding say that biofuels rather than hydrogen cells are the way forward for cars, that Maglev trains rather than single-wing aircraft are the solution to aviation emissions etc. - which hardly fills me with confidence.

I would agree that the right sort of tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting growth, but fail to see how inheritance tax or council tax are those sort of tax cuts. Corporation tax certainly is, but unfortunately that only got 5% support for a cut...

[Mountjoy]

As Iain Dale pointed out yesterday, it was John Gummer who ate that burger. I'm an environmentalist, but there is political reality too; so I don't see these green taxes ending up in the manifesto.

[David]

"Tory members"

Conservative Home readers, actually.

[Oddball]

People vote with their wallets. Introduce Green Taxes? Pah! Vernon Voter is not a total imbecile he will not like new taxes. Turkeys never voted for Christmas.

[Editor]

David: please click here for why you can trust CH surveys.

[Yet Another Yet Another Anon]

"84% of respondents agreed with the supply-side argument that "the right sort of tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting economic growth"."

You can increase revenues by cutting spending and tax at the same time, to the degree that one can recover up to about one half of a cut, but the deficit-funded tax cut which magically pays for itself is pure fiction.

[Anthony Broderick]

Didn't one of the surveys show that about half of those surveyed didn't read CH much but just get the emails? Those that did read it were more pro-Cameron as well.

[215cu]

Conservative green taxes are to discourage personal behaviours, they are tax neutral, raise in one area, cut elsewhere.

Aviation if left unchecked will consume ALL the savings made in reducing CO2 emissions elsewhere by 2050.

All that pain and difficult decision making elsewhere for an aviation industry already very lightly taxed to carry on regardless. That includes going nuclear, getting petrol cars off the roads, etc, etc.... aviation will devour the lot if something is not done to curtail such frivolous use.

Green taxes are replacement for taxation levels elsewhere, they are also transitory not designed to snowball into large receipts but diminish in time.

Looking at transport in general, motorists and haulage pay £30bn+ a year in taxes and pay multiples of the cost on keeping the road infrastructure. It's cited as and environmental tax already such is the lack of justification on running the infrastructure.

If CH members don't like green taxes why isn't tax and duty on petrol amongst the top of the list there?

Personally, if we want to encourage more responsible use of energy and high emission activities, then fiscal measures have to be used but as carrot and stick.

Carrot as in, save energy at home (25% of UK CO2 is at home) then save on your council tax. Recycle your rubbish, pay less to have the stuff taken away.

Stick as in, incandescent bulbs are double VAT charged, low energy, VAT exempt.

The same is true for internal flights, put the CO2 cost as a tax on the ticket. Get people onto trains as the alternative.

There are many, many supply measures that need to be put in place for aviation as well as any taxes. Getting the slot system sorted must rate very highly as well as introducing real competition into the domestic market. That should include breaking up BAA's South East monopoly of airports.

[Matt Wright]

While I dislike IHT greatly and it needs addressing, I think I would prefer to see the first focus on lowering income tax on the low paid and encouraging enterprise and jobs by lowering corporation tax.

Matt

[Think about it]

David Cameron:
"I think people will have faith in green taxes if we say every pound on a green tax will come off a family tax."

Directly-linked, to the pound, offsets straight from the horse's mouth.

Which will mean that as the green taxes bite and revenue decreases (less people flying etc) then family taxes will have to go up again by the same amount.

In short, the more 'green' we become, the more family taxes will rise.

Bonkers. Completely bonkers.

[Think about it]

"The same is true for internal flights, put the CO2 cost as a tax on the ticket. Get people onto trains as the alternative"

Unfortunately the trains are simply too expensive. For some, by air is now the *only* affordable option, so remove that and they will not be able to travel at all.

The only way to solve this would be to give hand-outs to the railways to bring prices down, but to remain revenue-neutral it would therefore negate any tax cuts (as the green tax revenues would have to fund the railway handouts).

Cameron's tax plans are not really in touch with reality.

[David T Breaker]

"...as the green taxes bite and revenue decreases (less people flying etc) then family taxes will have to go up again by the same amount. In short, the more 'green' we become, the more family taxes will rise."

No one is actually suggesting the green taxes will reduce flying, at least I don't think so. The last time I checked it was to reduce the growth in flying. I don't think they'll cut it much anyway. I support tax on aviation as a less inefficient tax (i.e. slows economic growth less) than other taxes such as corporation tax.

How the burden of the aviation tax will fall depends on the elasticity of supply and demand (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence), making it likely to be split between the company and the consumer. The tax cuts of equal size however will benefit individuals entirely, as it is a cut to a direct tax taken entirely from the individual. Over the entire scheme, airlines will lose out and individuals gain.

[TomTom]

Canada apparently has no IHT and its per capita income is higher than Britain

[George Hinton]

Why green taxes?

Why not just tax travel, not only outside of the UK but internal. Do away with road tax and just ramp up the tax on fuel, you then get a user tax. The more econimical the vehicle the less you pay.
Put a tax on tickets for buses and trains and trams.
Tax fuel for aircraft.

Remove all tax allowances within the transport sector.

What we don't want is green taxes replacing something else, or a top-off slice. I am not convinced on the this Global Warming / Carbon Emissions thingy. I suspect a con from the eco/green-nazi's who are trying to scare us into more taxation and a life-style structured on their perverted ideals.

[215cu]

It's not a question on the science of man-made global warming, it's a question that the carbon economy will soon be here. CO2 emission will have to be paid for either in a regulatory form of credits/debits to industry or at a personal level. We've already got it in terms of VED based on g/km of CO2.

If we do not prepare for this, it will make our producers uncompetitive.

Energy prices alone are going to be a sufficient driver for energy saving as it is without taking into account the environmental lobby.

I agree with George, make all energy taxation usage based for all forms of transport, private and public and then the consumer decides. I would go further and include domestic gas and electricity.

At the moment it is a mess and a mess unfairly lumped on private car usage at present.

[Geoff]

The main point about (unnecessary and potentially hated) green taxes is that they are regressive, not based on ability to pay.
So the less well off will just have to jolly well stop going on holiday, leaving more room for the well-heeled, for example David Cameron and George Osborne, for whom regressive taxation is a boon.
Potential Conservative voters are also more likely to question the basis of the climate alarmism that underpins the green tax "narrative".
If Cameron thinks this will win him votes, he's even less in touch with reality than previously thought.

[Paul Biggs]

When Gordon Brown has a 100+ majority and Cameron has resigned, can we get the Conservative Party to provide a proper opposition and alternative rather than 'anything Labour can do, we can do worse?' Smaller Government means smaller taxes. Who wants policies formulated by the Etonian drop-out son of a billionaire, Zac Goldsmith - who just flew to the south of France when he could have gone by train, if he wanted to practice the nonsense he preaches?

I never thought I would see the day when the Tories were linked with anti-growth, anti-capatilist, anti-mobility, anti-humanity red/green groups who demonise CO2 as a tool for their agenda.

Cameron's only hope now is to fully reject Zac and Gum-Gums ridiculous 'Q of L' report - Gummer has a conflict of interest in all this with his 'Sancroft' company which might well benefit from Tory 'green' policies.

[Eric B-P]

A Conservative party proposing extra taxes (green, or any other colour) will confuse voters rather than reassure them. Our own waverers will be driven away more completely, and we are unlikely to attract sufficient replacements from environmentalists. It will not be credible, and will probably be a net vote loser. We should confirm that we will not reduce taxes in our first term, but seek to redirect them to better purpose.

Raising taxes, green or otherwise, is just too unConservative, even for most of us Cameron loyalists.

Please reject the idea as soon as possible.

[Eric B-P]

A Conservative party proposing extra taxes (green, or any other colour) will confuse voters rather than reassure them. Our own waverers will be driven away more completely, and we are unlikely to attract sufficient replacements from environmentalists. It will not be credible, and will probably be a net vote loser. We should confirm that we will not reduce taxes in our first term, but seek to redirect them to better purpose.
Raising taxes, green or otherwise, is just too unConservative, even for most of us Cameron loyalists.
Please reject the idea as soon as possible.