Giving a mayor a share of income tax isn't the same as giving them the power to set it. The difference matters if we are judging a reform by how much authority it transfers from Whitehall.
The government's plan to assign mayors a share of local income tax from 2028 can have real benefits. A region that gains revenue when its tax base grows has a stronger financial interest in growth than one relying entirely on a fixed grant. More predictable funding can also make planning easier.
But a share of receipts and control over the rate remain different powers. The government has confirmed in Parliament that mayors won't be able to change income tax rates or thresholds.
What can a mayor choose?
A mayor receiving assigned revenue still has decisions to make about spending. That isn't meaningless. It doesn't allow them to ask voters to accept a higher local income tax for a particular improvement, or defend a lower one alongside the consequences for services.
There is a reasonable case for withholding that power. People and businesses can move across boundaries. Poorer places can raise less even at the same rate. A national system can redistribute resources in ways a purely local one would struggle to reproduce.
Those are arguments to examine, rather than reasons to describe the distinction as unimportant.
Who controls the formula?
The share assigned, the grants it replaces and the support for areas with a weaker tax base all affect how much discretion a mayor gains. A settlement can be more flexible while remaining heavily dependent on decisions made centrally.
My preference is for meaningful local fiscal choices, with limits and a transparent equalisation arrangement to protect areas that can't raise as much. That would create difficult trade-offs, including the possibility of different local outcomes. A serious case for devolution has to accept them.
The current arrangement can be a useful step without being the whole transfer of power its most enthusiastic descriptions suggest. I would judge it by the decisions local voters can influence afterwards, including which financial choices their mayor is actually permitted to make.