This is a thoughtful and considered contribution, and I wanted to respond with why I agree with almost everything Dan says but arrive at a different conclusion - that the government should cut VAT for the sector.
👇
The simple version is that the government consistently tell us that unwinding the complexity of wider taxes leaving hospitality overtaxed is too complex. VAT is a Gordian solution.
*Unequal burden* - pre the first Reeves budget, it was estimated that the hospitality paid 66% of pre-tax profits in tax. Finance more like 32%. That inequality has grown materially since, in the ways Dan sets out. The issue isn’t how to pay for a hospitality tax cut, but why hospitality should be expected to pay more in the first place. I therefore dispute the framing of opposition to hospitality asking for help (Dan’s piece is of course far more nuanced and considered).
*Cost shock* - Dan kindly validates our estimation of the cost shock of Reeves budgets, and compares the VAT proposal against it. But that only extended the existing inequality. As above, the underlying situation was already unequal. The VAT proposal doesn’t just aim to redress the harm of the past two years, but to secure a wider rebalancing of the burden.
*Complexity* - business rates is a good example of this. The government couldn’t adjust business rates seriously in a way that would have delivered the manifesto commitment, because of the impact on US tech firms who underpay and the risk of retaliatory tarrifs. The tax code has evolved in a way that places a disproportionate burden on place-based businesses (about to get worse with the Holiday Tax), and the grown not build element of that creates policy complexity. VAT is an imperfect but operationalisable solution.
*Sector not size*. Dan rightly says that large businesses will benefit too. To me, that is not a weakness in our argument. Dan says that 45% of hospitality firms pay no VAT - that’s literally true, but not particularly meaningful. That 45% includes significant numbers of lifestyle and essentially dormant businesses. By definition [almost] anyone business with premises will pay VAT. Another metric using Dan’s footnotes to build the data is that something like 92% of jobs in the sector are with VAT registered firms, so really we’re looking at a support for the vast majority of jobs. Equally, unVATable businesses already receive generous support, so it’s not unreasonable to look elsewhere for where fairness is needed. The issue is that it’s the hospitality business model at all sizes which is suffering. It’s not SME vs Large. You’d rather be an SME fintech than a large restaurant chain from a tax perspective. Or indeed a large fintech than a small hospitality firm. One large holiday business has removed a million hours as a result this year. This is a sector problem and needs a sector solution.
I don’t dispute much of Dan’s analysis but I land in a different place. Vat is an achievable solution to the problem Dan and I agree exists.
#VATsTheProblem.
The hospitality industry wants their VAT cut to 10%. It will cost £12bn
Who benefits?
❌ The smallest most vulnerable businesses? Nope. 45% get nothing.
❌ Consumers? Nope - prices won't fall.
✅ Nearly half the cash goes straight to large chains. McDonald's gets £400m.
🧵: