IFS - Revenue from fuel duties down by nearly 1% of national income (£19bn) since 2000; £28bn still to be lost if we don’t act soon
Prime Minister Boris Johnson is said to be pressing for fuel duties to be cut by 2p per litre in the upcoming Budget. This would cost £1 billion a year in lost revenue on top of the £5.5 billion lost since 2010–11 arising from the failure to increase rates in line with CPI inflation.
Revenue from fuel duties now stands at £28 billion a year, which is 1.3% of national income. Revenue peaked at 2.2% of national income in 1999–2000. Had it remained at that level, the exchequer would currently be getting an extra £19 billion.
In any case, the government’s commitment to reaching zero net emissions by 2050 means that revenue from fuel duties will completely disappear over the next few decades. This is a huge long-run fiscal challenge for the government.
This also presents a further economic and social challenge. Taxes on motoring help to correct for the social costs generated by people’s driving. These include congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollution, noise, accidents and damage to infrastructure. By far the biggest of these – estimated by the government at around 80% of the total social cost – is congestion, a cost which will remain after the transition to electric cars.
We need to design new taxes which can gradually replace fuel duties. These should reflect at least distance driven, and ideally vary according to when and where journeys take place. Those driving in busy places would pay more, but the majority of journeys would be taxed less heavily than at present.
There is an advantage in acting quickly: it will be much harder politically to introduce such taxes only after revenue from fuel duties has fallen much further and many people are driving hybrid or electric cars in the expectation of paying little tax on them.
These are among key findings of a chapter from the IFS Green Budget, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and Citi and pre-released today. Other key findings include:
- Fuel duties are not regressive as is often claimed. They take about the same fraction of the budget of low-, middle- and high-income households on average. However, looking only at households with a car, fuel duties take more of the budget of low-income drivers;
- Fuel taxes account for more than 10% of the (non-housing) spending of about one household in 20. This is a heavy burden for those who have little choice over how much they drive;
- The only justification for retaining the annual vehicle excise duty (VED) on car ownership is if the government rules out using fuel duties to raise revenue in its place. Similarly, company car tax should not be linked to emissions if the government can set fuel taxes and the VED ‘showroom tax’ appropriately.
- To effectively correct for the social costs of motoring – particularly as we move to more efficient and electric cars – we need to look beyond existing taxes. The ideal approach would be a system of road pricing with charges varying by time and location. Failing that – or, better, as a stepping stone towards it – there is a case for introducing a flat rate tax per mile driven to supplement reduced revenue from fuel duties and help correct for the social costs of driving.
Rebekah Stroud, co-author of the report and a Research Economist at the IFS, said:
“Cuts to fuel duties over the last two decades have contributed towards revenues’ being £19 billion a year lower than they would have been. Another 2p cut, as reportedly mooted by the Prime Minister, would cost a further £1 billion a year. The bigger challenge is that revenues are now set to disappear entirely over coming decades as we transition to electric cars. The government should set out its long-term plan for taxing driving, before it finds itself with virtually no revenues from driving and no way to correct for the costs – most importantly congestion – that driving imposes on others.”
Latest News from
JRF - UK heading for the biggest overnight cut to the basic rate of social security since World War II27/07/2021 12:35:00
JRF issues stark warning to MPs about the looming cut to Universal Credit at the start of the parliamentary summer recess.
Civitas - Curbing of free speech linked to universities with inflated diversity grievance bureaucracies – half of all universities have some form of anonymous reporting service27/07/2021 11:35:00
There is a strong connection between universities with inflated diversity bureaucracies and those that limit speech more generally on campus, researchers at Civitas find in a survey of academic freedom at universities.
'These results should not make for complacency': The King's Fund response to the Office for National Statistics report into ethnic differences in life expectancy27/07/2021 10:35:00
Veena Raleigh, Senior Fellow at The King’s Fund, commented on the Office for National Statistics report into ethnic differences in life expectancy and selected causes of death between 2011 and 2014
Pay is important, but it is not the only factor contributing to high staff turnover: The King's Fund response to the NHS staff 3 per cent pay rise22/07/2021 14:35:00
Richard Murray, Chief Executive of The King’s Fund, commented on the government’s decision this evening to offer NHS staff a 3 per cent pay rise, as recommended by the independent Pay Review Body
IFG - UK government's Shared Prosperity Fund risks damaging trust in union22/07/2021 14:20:00
A new Institute for Government paper warns that the UK government’s post-Brexit UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) – replacing EU ‘structural funds’, to be launched in April 2022 – risks damaging trust between the UK and devolved administrations and undermining the UK government’s key objective of binding the four nations of the UK closer together.
IEA expert responds to ONS government borrowing figures21/07/2021 14:20:00
Julian Jessop, Economics Fellow at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on the government borrowing figures for June published by the Office for National Statistics
IFS - No relief for Rishi Sunak as he prepares for Spending Review: lower-than-expected borrowing likely to prove only temporary21/07/2021 13:05:00
Despite improving public finances this year, the Chancellor is likely to have very little room for manoeuvre in his forthcoming Spending Review. That is because while the economy is recovering more quickly than expected at the March Budget, this may not translate into a permanent improvement in the economic outlook.
Adam Smith Inst - National insurance hike: a crushing betrayal and attack on younger and poorer20/07/2021 15:20:00
ASI’s Head of Government Affairs John Macdonald, responded to reports suggesting the Government will increase national insurance to fund a social care expansion