Press Releases

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, has today published a new report commissioned by its high-profile cross-party, cross-sector Tax Commission, entitled Energising enterprise: reforming business taxes. As the Chancellor prepares to deliver the 2022 Spring Statement this week, the report sets out how to reform the structure of business taxation to increase productivity, incentivise investment, and repair the public finances after Covid-19. 

The report is guided by four principles for reforming business taxation:

• Neutrality. The tax system should preserve a level playing field between businesses of different sizes, different sectors, and different investment strategies. 
• Simplicity. Excess complexity makes the tax system more difficult to administer, opens up more opportunities for tax avoidance, and disproportionately burdens smaller firms. 
• Equity. All things being equal, a shift in the tax system towards economic rent will be progressive as workers and consumers would benefit relative to shareholders. 
• Revenue. Any package of reforms should not worsen the UK’s long-run fiscal position, particularly as the public finances are repaired after the pandemic. 

At this critical moment for the economy, the report proposes 14 new policies to improve business taxation across three areas: reforming Corporation Tax, reforming Business Rates, and reforming business  tax reliefs, with the overall progressive objective of shifting the tax burden away from the normal return on investment and risk-taking and towards economic rent.

Reforming Corporation Tax

• Recommendation one: Move to the full immediate expensing of capital investment in new plants, machinery, and industrial buildings when the investment super-deduction expires in 2023. We estimate that this reform will increase investment by 10.85%, GDP by 4.5%, and wages by £3,200. This would be a significant tax reduction on investment, reducing long-run corporate tax revenues by 0.61% of GDP (or £13.5 billion) on a static basis. However, on a dynamic analysis this fiscal cost would be partially offset by higher tax revenues elsewhere resulting from higher output.

• Recommendation two: Eliminate the bias in favour of debt-financed investment by excluding interest from the corporate tax system. Instead, debt interest payments should no longer be deductible expenses, but interest payments received would not be taxed either. This would increase revenues significantly, offsetting as much as a third (£4.5 billion) of the static cost of moving to a system of full expensing.

• Recommendation three: Allow corporate losses to be carried forward with a factor that adjusts for inflation and a safe rate of return on capital. The 50% annual cap of loss carryforwards should also be eliminated. The impact and cost of this policy is likely to be small in the short-term as interest rates are low, however if interest rates rise in the future a lack of interest factor for losses could have a significant deterrent effect on risk-taking.

• Recommendation four: The UK should lobby internationally for the OECD’s proposed agreement on a 15% global minimum corporate tax to use a cashflow base. This would ensure tax competition would focus on pro-investment and positive-sum reforms to the tax base, as opposed to zero-sum competition on headline rates. It would also dramatically simplify the taxation of cross-border investments.

Reforming Business Rates

• Recommendation five: Business Rates should be replaced with a Business Land Tax levied on commercial landowners, based on unimproved land values. Investments in commercial property improvements would no longer lead to increased tax burdens.

• Recommendation six: To discourage tax motivated shifts from commercial to residential property, a new levy on commercial-to-residential transfers should be introduced. Commercial landlords converting their property would be forced to make up the difference between Business Rates (or Commercial Land Levy) and Council Tax. Payment would be flexible, allowing landlords to pay the discounted value of the tax advantage upfront, or alternatively to pay it annually.
• Recommendation seven: Responsibility over Business Rates reliefs and exemptions for Small Businesses, Charities and Agriculture should be devolved to local authorities. This would mirror local authorities’ existing discretionary powers to top-up Charitable Rate Relief from 80% to 100%. Councils may choose to limit the rate of relief available and retain revenues to spend on local priorities, such as funding business incubators or providing assistance to SMEs operating in co-working spaces.

Reforming business tax reliefs

• Recommendation eight: The Patent Box should be abolished. This would raise at least an estimated £1.8 billion per year from 2023 onwards.

• Recommendation nine: The Film Tax Relief and High End TV Tax Relief should be abolished. This would increase tax revenue by an estimated £0.8 billion.
• Recommendation ten: The Employment Allowance should be phased out over the next five years. This would raise an estimated £2.6 billion. In future, employment support schemes should be targeted more directly at groups with high risk of unemployment, as is the case with the Kickstart scheme.

• Recommendation eleven: Venture capital reliefs such as Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) and Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs) should be maintained at current levels and the process for qualifying and accessing these reliefs should be streamlined in line with the Office for Tax Simplification’s proposals. These include administrative changes such as allowing applicants to save partially completed forms online, alongside allowing investors to benefit from the capital gains tax relief in years where they make an income tax loss.

• Recommendation twelve: Social Investment Tax Relief should be preserved, but more resources should be invested in promoting the relief. There is a sound economic rationale to allow investors in social enterprises to benefit from reliefs similar to the venture capital reliefs. However, to ensure the relief’s long-term viability more needs to be done to combat low levels of awareness among accountants and social enterprises, such as targeted information campaigns.

• Recommendation thirteen: The scope of qualifying expenditures for R&D Tax Credit should be expanded to include cloud, data, and User Interface (UI)/User Experience (UX) costs as announced at the 2021 Autumn Budget. This would correct a major bias against the types of research and development used by digital startups.

• Recommendation fourteen: In order to ensure value for public money, HM Treasury should adopt the German model for scrutinising tax reliefs. This would legally mandate biannual reviews of corporate tax reliefs based on a standard evaluative framework including: target accuracy; cost-effectiveness; necessity; and sustainability.

Ryan Shorthouse, Chief Executive of Bright Blue, commented:

“There is a Byzantine system of business tax and reliefs in Britain. We need to properly and repeatedly evaluate them to ensure they are increasing both the equity and efficiency of our changing economy. In particular, we need to ensure our tax system encourages risk-taking and investment, and properly taxes income derived from luck and rent-seeking.” 

Sam Dumitriu, Research Director for The Entrepreneurs Network and report author, commented:

“The Chancellor has rightly made the link between the tax system and our consistently low levels of business investment. It’s vital then he puts his money where his mouth is by radically reforming the way we tax businesses. 

“Moving to a system where businesses are able to deduct in full the costs of new investments from their corporate tax when the super-deduction expires, and fixing business rates so they no longer punish investment in commercial property, would be a powerful signal that the UK is open for investment.”

The Rt Hon Sir Vince Cable, former Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, commented:

“This paper has recommendations for business reform which are eminently sensible and practical but would go a long way to provide consistent incentives for investment, modernise the discredited commercial rate system and sort out the mess of an overcomplicated, inefficient system.”

ENDS

• This report is part of Bright Blue’s project on tax reform, which is kindly supported by the Joffe Trust and Social Enterprise UK. However, Bright Blue retains complete editorial control over the report. The views in the report will not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.
• This report has been commissioned by a high-profile cross-party, cross-sector commission established by Bright Blue to advise on reforms to the tax system in the years ahead to support the post-pandemic economic recovery, the restoration of the public finances, and the achievement of better economic, social, and environmental outcomes. Bright Blue has commissioned independent experts to provide original analysis and policy recommendations in four areas of tax policy: carbon taxation, property taxation, business taxation, and work and wealth taxation. The commissioners do not necessarily endorse the findings of this particular report.

Evidence given by Bright Blue’s Senior Researcher, Anvar Sarygulov, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, has been published by the Welsh Affairs Committee as part of their investigation into the benefits system in Wales.

The submission is available here.

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, and Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the German centre-right think tank, have today published a new essay collection entitled Fast track? European climate diplomacy after COP26, which includes contributions from 10 prominent and expert UK politicians, Members of the European Parliament, academics, and thought leaders.

Fast track? follows the COP26 summit in Glasgow last year, and addresses three key areas of European climate diplomacy that the UK and the EU must cooperate on, despite the UK’s departure from the bloc: security, migration, and innovation. It continues the conversation among European friends and allies about how best to work together to decarbonise and achieve net zero in the crucial decades ahead.

In his essay, Tom Tugendhat MP, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said:

“Many refer to climate change as a necessary area of cooperation with China that should be siloed off from the confrontation over human rights and competition between strategic rivals. But, as things stand, the response to climate change is hard to detach from questions about political differences and strategic dependence …

“In this new era of mass adoption of renewable technologies, the road to net zero will become increasingly inseparable from questions about the resilience of supply chains, human rights and strategic rivalry.

“We need a new approach. Perhaps a better way to think about geopolitics and climate change might be constructive competition. What might it look like if governments were to frame climate change as a race to capitalise on soaring demand for low-carbon industries, part of a competition for the prize of global climate leadership?”

In his essay, The Rt Hon Damian Green MP, former First Secretary of State, said:

“However we measure it, a cut in this part of the aid budget will not help us address climate change and associated migration. Also, it seems inconsistent to be paying extra for energy domestically because of green levies if at the same time we are not encouraging the rest of the world to fight climate change as well.

“Of course other parts of the aid budget contribute more generally to long-term economic growth in poorer countries, which is another way of alleviating the pressure to emigrate to the richer Global North.

“Another policy area which requires constant attention is the diplomatic element in controlling migration flows. For the UK this means better relations with France, and I have sympathy with our Government given the current French stance on a number of issues. But those cross-channel issues will in the end be solved better in France, or further south, rather than in mid-Channel or when the asylum seekers reach the UK. So gritted teeth and a determination to work with the French are needed.”

In his essay, Lukas Mandl MEP, Vice-Chair of the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Security and Defence and a Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, said:

“While climate change in itself might not be a direct cause of conflict and nation state insecurity, it can be considered as a threat multiplier, exacerbating existing insecurities. Aside from the security implications it causes, climate change may produce secondary effects such as weakened governments, political instability and conflict. This has a particularly strong implication for so-called ‘failed states’. Such states are those whose capabilities to adapt to climate change are limited, thus making them extremely vulnerable.”

The essay collection includes contributions from Tom Tugendhat MP, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee; Lukas Mandl MEP, Vice-Chair of the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Security and Defence and a Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; Sam Hall, Director of the Conservative Environment Network; Georgios Kyrtsos MEP, Member of the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee; The Rt Hon Damian Green MP, Minister for Immigration from 2010-2012 and former First Secretary of State from 2016-2017; Tomas Tobé MEP, Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Development; Tim Loughton MP, Member of the Home Affairs Committee; Dr Ayesha Siddiqi, Assistant Professor at the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge; Michael Stephens, Senior Associate and Policy Lead at Globesight and Associate Fellow at Bright Blue; and Radan Kanev MEP, a Bulgarian Member of the European Parliament.

The views expressed by particular individuals are not necessarily supported by other contributors to the essay collection.

Ryan Shorthouse, Chief Executive at Bright Blue, commented:

“As the Russian invasion of Ukraine shows, when faced with threats to global security and order, the continent of Europe – including those inside and outside of the EU – do and can come together.

Climate change is the biggest challenge this continent faces this century. COP26 was yet another milestone in demonstrating European support for and leadership on decarbonisation. But there is much more to do to enable a fair and realistic transition to a net zero world.”

Matthias Barner, Director at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, commented:

“Climate change has no respect for national boundaries, and no country can hope to counteract its worst effects on its own. The UK and EU are two of the most credible actors when it comes to climate action and have the capacity to lead and bring others onboard.”

ENDS

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, has today published new analysis, entitled Sustained pressure? The analysis reveals the extent to which benefit claimants, both those on Universal Credit (UC) and those on legacy benefits, experienced challenges to their financial, social, and mental wellbeing during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The original analysis investigates newly published data from the 2019-20 UK Household Longitudinal Study and provides a snapshot of the financial, mental, and social wellbeing of different groups of benefit claimants between January 2019 and December 2020, just before and during the first nine months of the pandemic.

It compares the experiences of six distinct population groups: UC claimants, Working Tax Credit (WTC) claimants, Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants, Employment Support Allowance (ESA) claimants, Income Support (IS) claimants, and the rest of the population. 

The main findings from this analysis are:

• A significant minority of benefit claimants reported not being up to date with housing and Council Tax payments in 2019-20. UC claimants were  the most likely group to report struggling with housing (29%) and Council Tax (29%) payments. Claimants of legacy benefits, such as WTC, JSA, ESA and IS, were  less likely than UC claimants to report not being up to date with housing (10% to 17%) and Council Tax (14% to 17%) payments, but still notably more likely than the rest of the population (6% and 5% respectively).

• A significant minority of benefit claimants reported not being up to date with at least some household bills, and reported not being able to keep their home warm during winter in 2019-20. UC claimants were  the most likely claimant group to report struggling with household bills (31%), while ESA claimants, who are disabled, were in fact the most likely to report struggling to keep their home warm during winter (19%). Claimants of legacy benefits were  less likely than UC claimants to report not being up to date with some household bills (13% to 20%). In comparison, the rest of the population were much less likely to report not being up to date with some household bills (4%) or not being able to keep their home warm during winter (3%) in 2019-20.

• Benefits claimants were  more likely to report poor mental wellbeing in 2019-20 than the rest of the population. All benefit groups were  more likely to report indicators of poor mental wellbeing, including those claiming WTC and JSA, in comparison to the rest of the population. ESA claimants were the most likely to report rarely having a lot of energy (67%) or feeling calm and peaceful (49%) or frequently feeling downhearted and depressed (37%) in the past four weeks. Only 21% of the rest of the population reported rarely having a lot of energy, 17% that they rarely feel calm and peaceful, and only 9% that they felt downhearted and depressed most of the time.

• Benefit claimants were  generally more likely than the rest of the population to report that they often feel lonely in 2019-20. 32% of ESA claimants, 28% of IS claimants, 19% of JSA claimants, 18% of UC claimants, and 13% of WTC claimants report often feeling lonely, in comparison to just 8% of the rest of the population.

• Benefit claimants were  generally more likely than the rest of the population to report that they often felt isolated in 2019-20. 31% of ESA claimants, 26% of IS claimants, 21% of JSA claimants, 18% of UC claimants and 11% of WTC claimants often felt isolated, in comparison to just 8% of the rest of the population.
  

• Benefit claimants were  generally more likely than the rest of the population to report that they have no friends in 2019-20. 22% of ESA claimants, 23% of JSA claimants, 19% of IS claimants and 15% of UC claimants reported having no friends, whereas only 9% of WTC claimants and 6% of the rest of the population reported the same.

• Benefit claimants tended to be slightly less likely than the rest of the population in 2019-20 to report being able to talk about their worries with someone in their social network, whether it is a partner, friends, or immediate family. JSA claimants and ESA claimants in particular were  more likely to report only being able to open up a little or not at all to their partner (32% and 22% respectively), friends (31% and 35% respectively), and immediate family (47% and 46% respectively). The quality of social connections of UC and WTC claimants is less poor, with 18% and 16% respectively reported not being able to open up about their worries to their partners. In comparison, 12% of the rest of the population reported the same sentiment about their partner, 22% about their friends, and 31% about their immediate family.

• Benefit claimants tended to be slightly less likely than the rest of the population to report being able to rely on a social connection in 2019-20 if they have a serious problem. ESA claimants were the most likely to report not being able to rely on their friends (33%) and immediate family (32%) if they have a serious problem, while it was JSA claimants that were  most likely to report not being able to rely on their partner (23%). When looking at the rest of the population, they were  more likely to report being able to rely on their connections if they have a serious problem compared to nearly every other benefit group, and only 19% reported being able to rely a little or not at all on their immediate family, 18% on their friends and 6% on their partner.

Ryan Shorthouse, Chief Executive at Bright Blue, commented:

“The pandemic hit hard. But it was those with modest means who struggled the most. Not only do they have fewer resources to support themselves through tough times, but fewer relationships too. Loneliness is both a cause and consequence of poverty – another ‘Giant Evil’ to add to Beveridge’s list.” 

To arrange an interview with a Bright Blue spokesperson or for further media enquiries, please contact Joseph Silke at joseph@brightblue.org.uk or on 07948 420 584.

• Bright Blue’s new analysis is entitled Sustained pressure? This analysis is part of a major Bright Blue project on social security, supported by Lloyds Bank Foundation and Trust for London. Bright Blue retains editorial control of all its outputs.
• The data used is from the 2019-20 UK Household Longitudinal Study.

Bright Blue: Reduce the rate of National Insurance on employers 

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, has today published a major new report commissioned by its high-profile cross-party, cross-sector Tax Commission, entitled Rightfully rewarded: reforming taxes on work and wealth. The report proposes reforms to the new Health and Social Care (HSC) Levy and National Insurance Contributions (NICs) to reduce the overall level of taxation on work alongside changes to Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax to increase the overall level of taxation on wealth.

This report is guided by two key principles. First, that the UK should lower taxes on an individual’s work to aid post-COVID economic growth and reward effort and enterprise. Second, that the UK should increase taxes on an individual’s wealth to some extent to offset in part the losses in revenue from lowering taxes on work, as well as respond to rising wealth levels and the increasing role of luck and inheritance in life outcomes.

The new Health and Social Care Levy that comes into force this year was a significant and surprising tax rise for a Conservative Government to implement. It cannot be abolished, but it can be made much fairer. Any detrimental impact on workers and employers can be mitigated.

The revenue implications of the policies we are proposing are uncertain; they depend on the rates and rules set by policymakers and the behavioural responses of those affected. But, overall, we are suggesting that reforms should aim for revenue neutrality in the short-term. But the long-term reward would be a tax system that makes the UK more efficient and equitable. 

Sam Robinson, Senior Researcher at Bright Blue, commented:

“Though the public finances need to be repaired in the wake of the pandemic, simply squeezing more money out of the tax system without improving its design would be a mistake. The Government should not pass up the opportunity to recalibrate the tax system to better reward work and effort while responding to the rising importance of wealth and inheritance in life outcomes.”

Ryan Shorthouse, Chief Executive at Bright Blue and co-author of the report, commented:

“A centre-right Government that is committed to ‘levelling up’ the UK should rebalance the tax system from income associated with work and effort and onto income associated with privilege and luck.”

Bright Blue’s key recommendations for reforming the taxation of work and wealth are as follows:

Taxes on an individual’s work

Tax-cutting

• The Government should prioritise significantly lowering the rate of the employer element of the HSC Levy from 1.25% on income above the existing employer NICs threshold as soon as possible. Then, if the public finances allow, the rate of employers NICs should then also be cut. This would likely result in economically beneficial outcomes in the long term, either through increased employment, higher wages among employees, reduced overhead costs for businesses, or a combination of these effects. Focussing on cutting the employers aspect of the Health and Social Care Levy first, rather than the self-employed and consequently employee aspects, will thus help to narrow this concerning discrepancy in total tax take between the two employment statuses, whilst also supporting – as the evidence suggests – the take-home pay of employees. 

Revenue-raising

• The Health and Social Care Levy should be broadened to apply to pensions and rental income. This is because the Health and Social Care Levy has widened several other dividing lines within the tax system. First, by exempting pension income, the measure has also increased the gap in tax rates between different age groups. Second, it further exacerbates the difference in tax rates that different forms of income attract. This is one of several reforms that could offset the short-term cost of reducing the employer rate of the Health and Social Care Levy.

• End the exemption from Class 1, 2 and 4 National Insurance Contributions (NICs) for those working above the State Pension Age (SPA). Continuing to exempt those working above the SPA from employee and self-employed NICs ignores a long-term structural increase in people working past retirement age. Raising revenue from this group will help offset the reduction in the employer aspect of the HSC Levy, but it will also address a structural anomaly in the tax system.

Taxes on an individual’s wealth

Revenue-raising

• To reduce the discrepancy between tax on capital gains and tax on earnings, the Government should narrow the gap in headline rates between CGT and Income Tax, by creating two main rates for all capital gains of 18% at the basic rate and 28% at the higher rate, with modifications only for assets that have already paid Corporation Tax. The distinction between standard CGT rates and rates applied on residential property or carried income should end, as well as Business Asset Disposal (BAD) Relief and Investors’ Relief. This would collapse the rate structure of CGT from four distinct rates to two rates: an 18% basic and a 28% higher rate. While this approach would narrow, and not eliminate, the discrepancy in tax rates between CGT and Income Tax, it would represent a simplification compared to the current system.

• The Government should end the CGT base cost uplift on death, meaning CGT liability will be assessed on the uplift in the value of assets from when they were acquired rather than their present value. If someone received an asset that was originally bought by the deceased at £100 but was now worth £300, under the current system they would be treated as having acquired the asset at its current market value of £300, thus making their tax liabilities lower. If the base cost uplift on death was abolished, then the person inheriting the asset would instead be treated as having acquired it at its original cost of £100. Therefore, if they were to sell it, they would be liable to higher CGT because of the higher uplift in value.

• Replace Inheritance Tax with a Lifetime Receipts Tax (LRT). The LRT should have a starting lifetime allowance of £125,700. The headline rates should mirror Income Tax rates from now, with the threshold set at ten times the Income Tax salary thresholds. This would represent a move back to the system that existed prior to 1986. A tax that applies to lifetime gifts, and not just gifts bequeathed after (or near) death, would end the arbitrary distinction between the timing of gifts. By reducing exemptions and reliefs, it would minimise the distortions currently present in IHT. This would also reduce the abilities of wealthier estates to minimise effective tax liabilities, thereby ensuring that inheritances are taxed more progressively.

• Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief in IHT, or the new LRT, should only apply where the donor had a significant working relationship with the business or farm and for at least two years after acquisition. Under this system the donor would need to demonstrate that they owned, worked for, or had significant control in the company or farm to qualify for tax relief on the assets in scope. Relief would be given upfront, but clawed back if the business was sold or wound down less than two tax years after it was inherited. This would aim to ensure that what is being passed on is genuinely a family business.

Tax cutting

• To ensure that CGT targets only the real returns to investments, and does not punitively target paper gains, narrowing the gap between CGT and Income Tax rates should be paired with the reintroduction of inflation indexation on CGT liabilities. Given the behavioural impacts that a rise in CGT rates could have on investment and on tax revenues, rate rises – which dampen investment incentives – must be paired with offsetting measures that improve the design of the tax base to protect the real value of investments. Indeed, a focus on targeting the real value of investments is especially relevant given recent spikes in inflation. 

• Capital losses should be able to be carried back for up to three years and set against taxable income with relief restricted to CGT rates. Investors are currently restricted in how they can offset capital losses. Capital losses can be set against capital gains in the current tax year, or carried forward to future tax years. Capital losses cannot normally be set against income, unless the loss was on shares in unlisted companies. In principle, there is no reason why capital loss offsets could not be extended to cover a wider range of assets and a wider period. A number of other countries, including Germany and Canada, allow capital losses to be carried back to previous tax years after they have been offset against the current tax year.

The Rt Hon Dame Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, commented:

“This important research from Bright Blue is a step in the right direction towards a fairer and more sustainable model for funding our creaking social care system. The Government’s new levy on National Insurance Contributions is one of the least equitable options for raising the necessary resources. Whilst I would advocate for even more radical reform, these new recommendations will rightly open up debate on how we could fairly taxing income from wealth as well as work.”

The Rt Hon Lord Willetts, former Minister of State for Universities and Science, commented: 

“There is a lot of debate on the total burden of taxation but whatever the total raised we also need to get the right balance between different forms of taxation. We may be taxing earnings too heavily relative to assets, whose value has surged. This valuable report puts forward some interesting ideas for getting that balance right.”

The Rt Hon Sir Vince Cable, former Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, commented:

“The fiscal ravages of the pandemic are going to require more tax revenue. Politics and economics alike will prevent reliance on spending cuts. Bright Blue has performed a valuable service by asking how a centre-right government could reform taxation in a way that incentivises work and risk-taking but takes more from undertaxed stocks of wealth.”

John Stevenson MP, Member of the Taxation APPG, commented: 

“This is a very interesting report with much to recommend it. In particular I firmly believe that the priority should be to reduce income tax particularly on the lower paid. To compensate I see no reason why there should not be changes to Inheritance Tax and the proposals are close to the changes I would like to see which would be fairer for all concerned”

ENDS

• This report is part of Bright Blue’s project on tax reform, which is kindly supported by the Joffe Trust and Social Enterprise UK.
• This report has been commissioned by a high-profile cross-party, cross-sector commission established by Bright Blue to advise on reforms to the tax system in the years ahead to support the post-Covid economic recovery, the restoration of the public finances, and the achievement of better economic, social and environmental outcomes. Bright Blue has commissioned experts to provide original analysis and policy recommendations in four areas of tax policy: carbon taxation, property taxation, business taxation, and work and wealth taxation.