Facts and figures about UK taxes, benefits and public spending.
Income distribution, poverty and inequality.
Analysing government fiscal forecasts and tax and spending.
Analysis of the fiscal choices an independent Scotland would face.
Case studies that give a flavour of the areas where IFS research has an impact on society.
Reforming the tax system for the 21st century.
A peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing articles by academics and practitioners.
Authors: Andrew Leicester
The publication yesterday of the annual report of the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, contains a controversial proposal to impose a minimum price of 50p per unit on alcohol, and follows close on the heels of similar ideas floated by the Scottish Government. At least in England, a minimum price looks unlikely to be imposed any time soon: Gordon Brown has indicated an unwillingness to cause "the responsible, sensible majority of moderate drinkers to have to pay more or suffer as a result of the excesses of a minority".
Sir Liam's proposals do merit some serious consideration: his report contains some compelling evidence on the impact that excessive alcohol consumption has not just on those who drink, but on other people. These 'externalities', to use economists' jargon, provide justification for Government intervention in the alcohol market as they are not taken into account when people make their private decisions about how much alcohol to consume, generating excessive consumption relative to the socially desirable level. In addition, consumers may not be fully rational in their alcohol consumption decisions (not taking into account the risk of addiction, say) which could provide more paternalistic reasons for intervention. If this is the case, it is not obvious that price represents the right policy instrument.
The "sensible majority of moderate drinkers" are already currently hit by existing alcohol taxes and plans to increase them. For typical strength drinks, these currently stand at 36p on a pint of beer, 157p on a bottle of wine and 622p on a bottle of spirits. The Government seems keener to use these taxes to raise alcohol prices than it is on introducing a floor price: Budget 2008 announced an increase in alcohol duties of 6% above RPI inflation, with a further 2% real increase in each year up to and including 2013. These tax increases will probably raise revenue for the Government at a time when the public finances are particularly stretched, unlike a floor price where the transfers involved are more complex.
One possible advantage of a minimum price is that in terms of the costs of alcohol abuse, the concern is presumably much greater for underage drinkers and those who binge drink than moderate drinkers, and these groups may be more likely to buy cheap alcohol. If this is the case, then a minimum price may be more directly targeted on these problem cases than a general increase in alcohol taxes for all drinkers. A report from Sheffield University commissioned by the Department of Health last year found that heavy drinkers also tended to be the most responsive to prices.
Would the "sensible majority of moderate drinkers" be affected by a minimum price as the government claims? If this group already purchases alcohol costing more than 50p/unit, then the policy would have no direct impact on them. There may even be indirect effects which reduce prices for some people. Retailers can use alcoholic drinks as 'loss-leaders', pricing aggressively below cost to attract customers into their stores. If this avenue is closed off by a minimum price, it is not clear how retailers would respond. They could choose to loss-lead on alcohol that currently costs slightly more than 50p/unit, bringing those prices down to the minimum: in this case, the policy becomes a transfer from those who currently pay, say, 40p/unit for alcohol to those who currently pay 60p/unit. Alternatively, the floor price could just act as a transfer from drinkers to alcohol retailers and manufacturers. Longer term, manufacturers who currently produce cheap alcohol may switch production to slightly higher quality drinks as a result of the change, further increasing competition and reducing the price of alcohol that currently retails just above the floor price.
There is, however, evidence that the majority of alcohol purchased from supermarkets and off-licences is currently bought at prices below 50p/unit, suggesting the impact on the priced faced by consumers would be quite strong. The Sheffield University study suggested that around 59% of off-licensed trade alcohol purchased was at a price of less than 40p/unit, compared to 14% of on-trade sales. This distinction between on- and off-trade is important. In recent years, real-terms alcohol prices (that is, prices relative to inflation in general) have been falling quite strongly, with this fall driven by off-trade sales. Since 1990, the price of beer and cider off-trade has fallen by around 30% and real terms, and of wines and spirits by around 20%, compared to increases in on-trade prices of 30% and 25% respectively. One effect of this shift in relative prices has been a decline in alcohol purchased in pubs and an increase of consumption at home which a minimum price may go some way to reversing.
Minimum alcohol prices are untried and their effects, relative to the impact of increasing existing tax rates, are unclear. The way in which consumers, retailers and manufacturers respond to higher taxes and price floors could be very different. Since it looks unlikely the Government will adopt Sir Liam's proposals south of the border, the UK could be set to embark on yet another public health policy experiment where Scotland and England try different approaches to a problem.
Click here to download 'Alcohol prices relative to allitems RPI inflation, 1990 - 2008'
View all Observations in the series
Cutting the deficit: three years down, five to go?
The UK is in the fourth year of a planned eight-year fiscal tightening. Following further announcements made in Budget 2013, this fiscal consolidation is now forecast to total £143 billion by 2017–18. The UK is intending the fourth largest fiscal consolidation among the 29 advanced economies for which comparable data are available. By the end of this financial year, half of the total consolidation is expected to have been implemented. However, within this tax increases and cuts to investment spending have been relatively front-loaded, while cuts to welfare spending and other non-investment spending have been relatively back-loaded.
The March Budget forecast that borrowing would fall by £0.1 billion from £121.0 billion in 2011–12 to £120.9 billion in 2012–13. On Tuesday, the Office for National Statistics is due to release its first estimate of public sector net borrowing in March 2013 and, therefore, for the whole of 2012–13. Borrowing could easily end up being higher or lower than it was in the previous year, either due to backwards revisions, the uncertainty inherent in forecasting borrowing even a month in advance, or both. However, whether borrowing is slightly up or down in cash terms is economically irrelevant. Either way, the bigger picture is that having fallen by roughly a quarter between 2009–10 and 2011–12, borrowing is forecast to be broadly constant through to 2013–14.
Women working in their sixties: why have employment rates been rising?
Employment rates through the recession have been remarkably robust, with today’s ONS figures showing employment remaining close to 30 million. The young have experienced historically low employment rates and high unemployment rates but the employment rate of women aged 60 to 64 has increased as fast since 2010 as it did during the 2000s. An important explanation is the gradual increase in the state pension age for women since 2010, which has led to more older women being in paid work. Without this policy change, the employment rate for 60 to 64 year women would have been broadly flat since 2010.