Institute for Fiscal Studies
 |
|
| Formation | 1969 |
|---|---|
| Legal status | Non-profit company |
| Purpose | To inform public debate on economics, via establishment of rigorous independent research, in order to promote the development of effective fiscal policy. |
| Location |
|
|
Director
|
Paul Johnson |
|
Main organ
|
IFS Council (President: Rachel Lomax) |
| Affiliations | Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) |
| Website | www |
The Institute for Fiscal Studies is an economic research institute based in London, United Kingdom, which specialises in UK taxation and public policy. It is politically independent and produces both academic and policy-related findings.
The Institute's aim is to "advance education for the benefit of the public by promoting on a non-political basis the study and discussion of and the exchange and dissemination of information and knowledge concerning national economic and social effects and influences of existing taxes and proposed changes in fiscal systems."
It is located in the Bloomsbury area of Central London, close to the British Museum and University College London (UCL).
The Institute was founded by four financial professionals – a banker and later Conservative Party politician (Will Hopper), an investment trust manager (Bob Buist), a stockbroker (Nils Taube) and a tax consultant (John Chown) in response to the passing of the 1965 Finance Act. In 1964, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer James Callaghan, had made a speech announcing his intentions to make changes to the tax system, including the introduction of a capital gains tax and a corporation tax. The group felt that the proposals were “half-baked”. Nils Taube had commissioned John Chown to prepare a professional analysis of the speech and its effect on share prices. Chown described what he thought the impact of the proposals would be if implemented but also treated the exercise as a “reductio ad absurdum” and suggested that “the government and its advisors had three of four months for second thoughts and, recognising some of the dire consequences, would modify their original proposals.” The Chancellor did not change his mind. This led to further discussion among the group about their views on tax reform and the Budget process. In Chown’s words, the group wanted to ensure that “never again should a government, regardless of its political colour and intentions, introduce far-reaching tax legislation without the benefit of deep and thorough analysis of second- and third-order effects.”
...
Wikipedia