MP demands details of deal to let Goldman Sachs avoid tax

something sounds a little odd here.
I'm very willing to take a pragmatic stance here and listen to the Treasury's reasoning, but it would be nice to be able to hear the Treasury's reasoning:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/13/mps-demand-details-of-deal-to-let-goldman-sachs-avoid-tax

"Umunna said Goldman avoided £10.8m in unpaid tax when the case was dropped last year. The satirical magazine Private Eye, which has written extensively about the case, claims to have seen documents that show HMRC boss Dave Hartnett failed to follow standard guidelines applied to other tax disputes when he settled the dispute with Goldman.

Umunna said: "It is clearly in the public interest for HMRC to put more information into the public domain in relation to the Goldman Sachs case and settlement."




"The lack of disclosure in the long-running dispute with the US investment bank meant there was a danger the public would think there was "one rule for some companies and another for individual taxpayers", said Labour MP Chuka Umunna."



Tweet

the royal wedding‏

Personally,
I care only so far as I’m footing the bill. If a single penny of tax payer money goes on that wedding it will be disgusting. Why should a pair of spoilt brats who are not exactly short of a penny or two take taxpayer money at a time when things are so tight and jobs are being lost?

I hope Labour’s focuses on this to show it’s more on the side of working people than royal glitz and glamour. Given Clegg and Cameron’s backgrounds there may be some political capital there

Royal wedding: critics urge Windsors to fund ceremony‏

It's an odd day when I'm in agreement with the Taxpayers' Alliance, but they agree with me so fair enough.

"July it was revealed that it cost the taxpayer 62p per person to keep the Royal Family.

The total cost of keeping the monarchy was £38.2m during the 2009-10 financial year, a drop of 7.9% (£3.3m) on the previous year."

That's a lot. Too much.

Martin Wolf agrees with Bearded Socialist Again Part II of many, many, many

"Taxation of property should be heavier, not lighter. But it should also be less regressive"
yep.

"Property taxes are economically desirable, though the best such tax is on site value, rather than on completed development. What makes such taxes attractive is that they bear not on effort, but on “rent” – value over and above the economic costs of production. Income tax, by contrast, bears on successful effort."
could not put it better myself

Which government takes the biggest bite out of an income of $100,000?

tax rates across the world:
we have lower tax rates in this country than Croatia, Hungary, India, Germany, France and Turkey but higher than Brazil, Mexico, Japan, China, USA, Pakistand, South Korea, Switzerland, Russia and Bahamas according the The Economist and KPMG.
I feel pretty relaxed about that i do

Andy Burnham's Land value tax

a good idea, I quite like it. I don’t agree with removing inheritance tax though

BBC News - Chancellor George Osborne promises business tax reform‏

So far we've had employers being excused from a National Insurance rise which will be played by employees and a corporation tax rise.
To be fair, they have (or at least proposed to) raise capital gains tax so that it's in line with income tax, which I agree with.

""Our aim is to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20, while protecting manufacturing industries"."
'most competitive' means lowest

BBC - Peston's Picks: Will Osborne cut and simplify corporation tax?‏

"It's true therefore that a policy of reducing the various business tax allowances would have the effect of pushing up the tax burden on the kind of companies that make and export things deemed vital to the UK's economic future, even if the headline rate of tax were reduced - whereas the tax burden on banks would tend to be reduced in these circumstances."

It does seem mad that once again the Tories have pursued a headline when the devil in the detail means they would actually be doing the opposite of what they're claiming they want to do.
But then I don't think they ever said they wanted to improve the lot of manufacturers at the cost of the banks, but I may be wrong

capital gains tax increase

"The 18 per cent rate of tax on gains on non-business assets will be increased to close to the 40 per cent"
very interesting, the Tories putting capital gains tax increaseq

BBC News - Labour peer to end non-dom status‏

Good. No-one should be able to be a part of parliamentary process of making laws and policy unless they pay full UK taxes.

He also looks like he's from Bo-Selecta!, one of the big rubbery faces

BBC - Nick Robinson's Newslog: 'Non-dom' donor Lords‏

"It's partly because he hid his tax status for almost a decade after being forced to give undertakings to secure a peerage which his critics claim he never met."
Well exactly. I don't know how many people are Ashcroft's friends or enemies, but Robinson makes a good point about the realities of politics. The problem with Ashcroft is the dishonesty

Peter Hain lends support for 'Robin Hood tax' on banks | Business | The Guardian‏

Arguments about the tax itself aside, some good work on naming it the Robin Hood tax. The names and associations of things is so important in politics, the difference between 'death tax' and 'inheritance tax' being prime examples.
'Robin Hood' is a good, if entirely hollow, name for this tax.
On the tax itself - yeah, me is socialist so me likey taxes. I studied Tobin tax proposals some time ago at uni, and it's a good idea if implemented universally.

A death tax is the fairest one. Yet now no voter will buy it | Peter Wilby | Comment is free | The Guardian‏

Is it fair, though, particularly given the imbalance of assets between the generations, to put the bill on general taxation, when we know it will rise steeply as we all live longer? Why should young working families, struggling to raise children and buy houses, pay for old people who own property which remains empty while they reside in care homes? A levy on the estates of the deceased is surely the most just and humane solution

In other words, the "death tax" runs up against the same emotions as the requirement for old people to sell their homes to finance care while still alive. It would be the most socially just means of funding, as well as the most economically efficient, but it will be hard to convince the voters. That is a measure of how far the left in Britain and America have allowed the case for social justice to go by default.

The two quotes above are very interesting. Firstly, about the universality of taxation. I'm inclined to agree with the author because I go against the grain on home-owning. I'm sure it'll get me no-where near office, but I'm not as big into buying and owning a house as many. I rent, and I am happy to rent. When I have a family of my own I want a home for them, I don't really care whether it is bought or rented. If I buy, I will have more important things to worry about than the house price. I don't take out loans because I live within my means so I want to continue, meaning that the house price will be far less relevant if I'm not trying to take out new loans against it.

The second is about how what is objectively the best thing to do is often subsumed by political expediency, and that's a shame. But that's life. If a single, hypothecated tax upon death is the best way to go, it should be done. The elderly need caring for, but they are not necessarily better off at home.

Cable sets out economic vision, but tax policy could be more "radical"

I personally think that removing the poorly paid from any income tax is a great idea. I think anyone on minimum wage should pay no direct tax, and then every pound above this is then taxed accordingly.
I'd pay for this in a fiscally neutral measure whereby the tax rates above this level were adjusted in order to compensate for the lost revenue from the change.
I'd also stick some higher rate charges in there. I've done enough on here on capital flight to show that I'm at least aware of the arguments about it.
I'm not a fan of bureacracy, so the less of it the better as far as I'm concerned. Rather than buggering around with tax credits, I'd just not take it in the first place.

New York Times reports mass banker exodus unlikely

So apparently capital flight is not so much or as bad as some predict. In part this is because of the infrastructure fundamentals and language, and in part because not everyone is as fleet-footed as they claim.
Interesting

Mayor Boris Johnson says bonuses tax 'threatens London'‏

Looks like the issue of capital flight will continue to rumble on for a time yet.
Considering the actions of France and USA, I don't think you can properly call these unilateral actions.
"Mr Johnson said: "The bankers helped to plunge Britain into a terrible recession for which we are all paying the price and it was their behaviour that made recent taxes a political inevitability." that's about right, but the problem is that these financial institutions and actors are so powerful that government's are running scared. The parallels with the striking workers is there for all to see, and the miners' strike in particular. In that case the right backed the government over the miners, now they back the bankers over the government.
I personally don't think it's as bad as all that, that the rich and talented will be flocking overseas to escape a penny or two more on their taxes, but it's a very important issue.

What about 'banking fuck up threatens London' eh?

Capital flight

Capital flight is a very important issue for us on the left who have been known to advocate higher taxes, for whatever reason.
Since the introduction of the banker' bonus tax, bankers' representatives have been screaming blue murder and threatening to flee to every corner of the globe. So this is a live issue.
it is vital that any tax-rising lefties acknowledge this.
Now, i don't believe it's as big a threat as it's made out to be, partly because of the levels of infrastructure e.g. education which fundamentally underpin the ability of these people to make such amounts of money. There's a reason they do business here rather than Monaco.
Will Hutton, who may know even more than me about economics, has some level of agreement with me:
"No success story requires the estimated £850bn bailout. Bank lending is five times British GDP. If it carries on growing without substantial increases in the banks' capital base the next bailout would overwhelm the British economy and the British state. It is vital that banks build up their capital base, which has been declining proportionally for 30 years.This, along with very cheap money, is the chief reason for their very high margins – and extraordinary bonuses. The City is a national asset only if it is self-sustaining. Unless and until it operates with a great deal more capital to underwrite its lending it is a national liability."

Alistair Darling denies benefit rise pre-election 'con'‏

It's dangerously easy to be an opposition politician.
Previously, Osborne was attacking the tax rises, today the spending cuts. Despite him calling for both these things.
Both are viable options at the best of times, but the problems at the moment mean both are pretty much inevitable. Osborne is a very smart political operator, of that there is no doubt. But does he know the first thing about economics?

Are people stupid?

Can't do the whole post as i'm at work, but this is interesting:
"it was always called "a penny on tax" because a shockingly high number of voters appeared to think it meant they'd pay 1p more tax, not 1% more."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/11/a_taxing_subjec.html

Lib Dems urge 10% bank profit tax

"Banks should pay a new 10% tax on their profits in return for the support they received from the taxpayer, according to the Liberal Democrats."

Cool, let's have some of that.
"The tax would raise some £2bn a year".
Yeah, i'm in.
Capital flight? Bugger em.