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
NIESR Monthly GDP Tracker - GDP data better than expected11/10/2019 15:10:00
GDP Data better than expected
Scrap licence fee and create a “National Broadcasting Trust” says new IEA report10/10/2019 12:35:00
Broadcasting policy should be freed from the control of government and vested interests and the BBC transformed into a subscriber-owned mutual argues a new report from the Institute of Economic Affairs published today.
Adam Smith Inst - Don’t railroad it through — rethink HS210/10/2019 11:35:00
A new paper from the free market, neoliberal think tank the Adam Smith Institute says the UK Government should rethink the controversial HS2 project - and sets out a number of alternatives to save time, save money, and deliver an improved service for rail passengers.
JRF - Low-income voters could be a crucial force at the next election, according to landmark research10/10/2019 10:35:00
A landmark report by the independent Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) bringing together four years’ worth of political attitudes research shows how low-income voters could prove to be a crucial force at the next election.
IFS - Government on course to break its fiscal mandate while almost matching Labour 2017 offer on total day-to-day public service spending next year10/10/2019 09:35:00
Government borrowing is set to be over £50 billion next year (2.3% of national income), more than double what the OBR forecast in March.
JRF - Scotland needs new game-changer policies to meet its child poverty targets08/10/2019 10:35:00
The Scottish Government is being urged to bring forward new game-changer policies across housing, work and social security if it is to achieve its ambitious child poverty targets
IEA: Prime Minister must pay more than just “lip service” to free markets and fiscal responsibility03/10/2019 13:30:00
Mark Littlewood responds to the Prime Minister's party conference speech.
Adam Smith Institute – Boris Can Talk The Talk, But Can he Walk The Walk?03/10/2019 11:30:00
Boris set out a strong defence of free market economics as the UK leaves the EU. It's a positive vision but one that can't just be words, but needs deeds too. The Adam Smith Institute looks at what the Prime Minister’s speech to Conference said and what it should mean.