Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)

Assignment question
In 2006 the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) set-up a major review of the UK tax system known as the Mirrlees review, named after its chairperson, Sir James Mirrlees. The review was formally announced in 2008 and was published in two volumes. It suggested a number of improvements to the tax system.
One of the weaknesses found within the current UK tax system was that the present treatment of savings and wealth transfers is inconsistent and inequitable. The recommendations made in the Mirelees review suggest that different forms of savings should be treated in broadly comparable ways; the system should not introduce important incentives for individuals to consume earlier rather than later in their lifetimes, and should not have effects that are unduly sensitive to the rate of inflation. These issues are discussed in the second volume of the review entitled ‘Tax by Design’.
Requirement:
1. Read chapter 13 entitled ‘The Taxation of Household Savings’ (pp. 283 – 317) from the second volume of the Mirrlees review. A copy of the second volume can be found on Blackboard in the ‘Assignments’ folder.
A full copy of the report (volumes one and two) can be found by following the link below, but this is for information only and you are not required to read both volumes for the purposes of the assignment:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesReview

2. Evaluate the recommendation to provide a tax system with a neutral treatment of life-cycle savings for the vast majority of taxpayers (as described in chapter 13). Your evaluation should include:
a) A description of the current system (taxation of household savings in general);
b) a description of the proposed recommendations;
c) the purpose for providing a tax system with a neutral treatment of life-cycle savings for the vast majority of taxpayers.
d) your opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals; and
e) a description and explanation of the type of potential winners and losers of such a move (certain groups of individuals and organisations).

Additional marks will be provided for:
i. Strength of your evaluation;
ii. other relevant points made by you as part of your evaluation; PTO
iii. inclusion of relevant theories and concepts to support your work; and
iv. use of referencing to other academic research relevant to this particular topic.
Word count: maximum 2,000 words (not including bibliography)