TAX ALTERNATIVES: Deputy Camp’s targeted levies & spending controls

Policy & Resources (P&R) has repeatedly argued there are “no credible alternatives” to its own tax reform proposals, which includes a 3% GST.

So Express decided to test that claim, by looking at a series of proposals from other deputies.

Next up: Deputy Haley Camp and her plan to raise revenue through targeted levies instead of a local consumption tax.

The big idea

Instead of introducing a broad-based GST that hits every household at the till, Deputy Camp proposes an alternative package combining targeted levies on tourism, transport and corporations with strict spending discipline.

Her plan removes GST and its associated costs, replacing it with a mix of corporate levies, a visitor tax and transport charges, alongside some existing revenue measures.

“Focusing overwhelmingly on taxation leaves the other two responsibilities insufficiently addressed,” Deputy Camp argues, emphasising that raising revenue must go hand in hand with economic growth and expenditure control.

In her own words: What Deputy Camp says

Deputy Camp told Express: “Raising a tax is politically difficult, but it can be the easier institutional response… It can be the equivalent of handing your teenager money to tidy their bedroom before they even start the job and expecting the job will be done; as parents, we know the best motivator is to hand over the promised money once the job has been completed and approved. I don’t see government working any differently to that teenager.”

“My contention is that introducing a permanent tax without sufficiently developed and accountable programmes for economic growth and expenditure reform is a much greater example of kicking the can down the road.”

“I purposely kept my workings cautious and prudent so as not to risk over-selling or over-egging an alternative and to avoid misinterpreting the numbers made available by P&R.”

“Avoiding GST avoids its direct price effect and indirect inflationary impact; whilst I do not claim that the alternative levies would have no economic or price effects, I do feel that they would be more readily borne by our economy at this time than a consumption tax.”

The diagnosis: What is actually broken?

Deputy Camp rejects framing the tax review as a binary choice between introducing GST or doing nothing.

Her analysis of published government data indicates:

• The structural gap needs a multi-pronged approach: Taxation alone cannot carry the full load; government must get its own house in order through spending reform and economic growth.
  
  
• Inflation is already a local pressure: Adding a direct price shock through GST risks pushing local inflation further out of step with Jersey and the UK.
  
  
• Non-GST options exist: Existing corporate, transport and tourism channels can yield additional revenue without introducing a broad-based consumption tax.

How the numbers stack up

Deputy Camp’s spreadsheet calculations using published States figures outline an illustrative annual revenue yield:

• Corporate levy: £7.5m (based on the midpoint of Tax Review Sub-Committee estimates)
  
  
• Visitor levy: £2.0m (although Economic Development estimates have since suggested it could bring in at least £6.0m)
  
  
• Transport taxes: £7.0m
  
  
• Retained social security rate increases: £2.0m
  
  
• Corporate tax extensions & registry fees: £6.0m
  
  
• Gross revenue before costs: £24.5m

After an assumed £670,000 in ongoing administration costs, that gives a recurring net contribution of approximately £23.8m.

A further £600,000 implementation allowance means the contribution would be approximately £23.2m in a year bearing those costs, assuming a full year’s receipts.

Deputy Camp stressed that the figures are illustrative rather than a validated revenue forecast.

Combined with P&R’s existing £20m spending savings target, if that target is achieved in full, the package outlines a total recurring fiscal improvement of approximately £43.8m.

Express scorecard: Targeted levies & spending controls

Here is how Deputy Camp’s proposal rates against our six plain-English questions:

Question	Score	Verdict
1. How much could it raise?	★★★☆☆ (3/5)	Delivers approximately £23.8m net recurring revenue, falling to about £23.2m in a year bearing the assumed implementation costs. Combined with the separate £20m savings target, if fully delivered, that would approach £44m.
2. How fast can it be done?	★★★☆☆ (3/5)	Uses existing registration and levy arrangements where possible, though full corporate and visitor levy laws would need design, consultation and implementation work.
3. Will it help the economy?	★★★★☆ (4/5)	Avoids the direct price effect of GST and shifts more of the proposed tax burden towards visitors and targeted commercial activities, although Deputy Camp acknowledges those measures would also have economic and price effects.
4. Is it fair to working families?	★★★★☆ (4/5)	Avoids introducing a broad-based consumption tax on household purchases, although Deputy Camp acknowledges that alternative levies could have indirect price effects.
5. Does it stop government waste?	★★★★☆ (4/5)	Makes additional taxation part of a wider package that also calls for expenditure control and delivery of the £20m savings target, rather than treating tax rises as the entire solution.
6. Is it backed by hard data?	★★★☆☆ (3/5)	Uses published P&R and Tax Review Sub-Committee figures in a transparent spreadsheet comparison, but Deputy Camp acknowledges she did not have the data or resources to model behavioural responses or independently validate the underlying revenue estimates.

Note: We are testing the proposals at a high level, looking at what they propose, the evidence and assumptions behind them, and how they compare with the P&R’s stated position. We are not independently modelling each proposal or assessing its full economic impact, as we don’t have access to P&R’s underlying tax models or data, so our analysis should not be read as an independent economic assessment of the potential revenue or wider effects of any proposal.

The catch

Because Deputy Camp’s package generates roughly £23.8m net on its own, it does not close the structural deficit and produces less revenue than P&R’s overall tax package.

It also relies on the States actually delivering its separate £20m savings target if the two are to be combined into the approximately £43.8m figure.

The revenue estimates themselves are also explicitly illustrative. The corporate and visitor levies would need further work on their design, chargeable bases, administration costs and potential behavioural effects.

And while Economic Development has since suggested a visitor levy could raise at least £6m, Deputy Camp’s central calculation uses the more cautious £2m figure.

The bottom line

Deputy Camp’s plan is a targeted alternative to GST, combining additional revenue measures with a demand for spending control and economic reform.

It would raise less than P&R’s package on the figures currently available, but is designed to avoid the direct price increase associated with a broad-based consumption tax.

Deputy Camp is also clear that her figures are not a fully modelled alternative budget: they are intended to demonstrate that non-GST measures could make a meaningful contribution while the States tackles the wider problems of spending and economic growth.