Many shops on the high street are struggling to make a profit and business rates are widely identified as one of the main causes of this slump.
On Monday, Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, joined the debate. In a column for The Times, he rightly pointed out that that there are many problems with the current system, including the infrequency of revaluations and the fact that business rates are not applied to agricultural businesses.
According to Johnson, abolishing business rates would not solve the high street’s problems, because any cut will simply lead to higher rents. Johnson asserts that this is basic economics. An increase in taxes leads to a decrease in rents and vice-versa.
He is right. And his logic should be extended to other economic issues.
Consider, for example, wages. When thinking of hiring someone, businesses take into account the combined cost of wages and taxes. An increase in taxes such as employers’ national insurance contributions leads to lower wages. Lowering taxes such as employers’ national insurance contributions means that wages can rise.
There is a great deal of evidence which demonstrates that employers’ national insurance contributions is effectively a tax on workers that results in lower incomes. A study looking at the US equivalent of employers’ national insurance contributions found results “consistent with the hypothesis that 100 per cent of the tax is borne by labor”.