Tax revolts and the BBC

Jonathan Pearce at Samizdata points to an article by Charles Moore in the Tellygraph who is trying to foment a tax revolt against the BBC. Having read exactly what it was that Messrs Ross and Brand said, (the details of the whole affair had previously rather passed me by), I'm inclined to think that he's right. I'm struggling, in fact to think of any saving grace that the BBC has. Maybe it is time that we all just said "Enough".

I can hear it now, the masses in the streets chanting:

Remember Ross! Remember Sachs!

And then don't pay your TV tax!

Sends shivers down your spine, doesn't it? Viva la revolucion!...errm, old boy!

Today is....

TAX FREEDOM DAY!!!

(Via the ASI) 

This is what they mean by fairness

Taxation Web reports that the government is set to reduce the period in which taxpayers can claw back overpaid tax. Currently six years, a clause tucked away at the back of the Finance Bill is set to reduce the period to four years.

It goes without saying that there is no similar reduction in the time in which government can pursue taxpayers for underpaid tax.

Taxation Web notes that the people who usually end up paying too much tax are pensioners. As I noted in an earlier posting, Labour party people aren't that bothered with pensioners, so it may be that they have considered and discounted the fact that this is not actually not be very equitable.

Socialists mean something different to you and I by "fairness". To them it's something along the lines of "pay up".

The madness of King Gordon

I've commented a couple of times on how the Labour party just doesn't seem to understand why it has become so unpopular, as demonstrated by their failure to come up with any sensible suggestions for new policies to regain the initiative.

There's no suggestion that the higher echelons of the government have twigged the problem yet either. Take a look at this article from the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which is a pretty clear example of the madness which has become the stock in trade of Labour government. It tells the story of a hypothetical French student called Henri who studies in the UK and works at home in his summer holidays. Having a bit of cash to spare at the end of his hols, he buys himself a pair of new trainers to impress Les Anglaises.

At this point, Gordon Brown, or more to the point, his tax policy on non-doms steps in:

The new Finance Bill proposes that if Henri lands at Dover wearing his new trainers, he should declare that fact to HMRC and be charged to tax on their cost.

We should also add that if Henri needs to buy some books to study in the UK and uses his French debit card to buy them, he will also have to declare that to HMRC and potentially pay tax on those as well.

These are what are known in tax law as “remittances”.

Henri could declare all his income (including his earnings in France) like a UK student and avoid the charge on remittances, but that would mean completing a Self-assessment tax return, reading around 100 pages of HMRC material about double taxation agreements and residence, as well as corresponding with the French tax authorities.

Whatever he does, he is in a fix. Henri may not pay any UK tax at the end of the day; but he will probably have to spend half the year studying tax law in order to satisfy the requirements of HMRC.

If you spend six months finding out how to pay your taxes and the rest of the year earning enough money to pay them, you wonder why anyone gets out of bed at all. But these are the facts of life in Brown's Britain.

Richard Murphy

Tim W's favourite accountant, Richard Murphy, wonders what the fuss is about Aberdeen Asset Management's rumoured departure from these shores.

Guess what? Here we have another company threatening to leave the UK that is not only not paying UK tax in 2007, it’s such a seasoned UK tax avoider that it’s downgraded its previously stated UK tax liabilities by £7.8 billion in two years.

Michael Meacher refers to our Dicky as one of the UK's foremost tax experts. Its a pity then that Mr Murphy has such trouble telling the difference between millions and billions. This is probably the same affliction from which Gordon Brown suffers.

Richard's argument is a bit dicky too (it always is). Why should their 2007 tax bill be the criterion used? What happened in 2006? Well, the comparative figures show that last time round they had a tax charge of nearly ten million and, adjustments aside, that's not an inconsiderable sum. And never mind the charge - what did they actually hand over in cash in 2007? The answer, according to the cashflow statement, is £9.7m and the year before that £6.7m.

So in simple cash terms, a company which has handed over £16.4m in cash in the last two years is, according to our Dicky, "contributing little or nothing".

You can see why they'd want to leave, can't you?

Something interesting from Belgium

No, really!

Inadvertently, the Region of Flanders in Belgium is positioning itself as a retirement haven for retired entrepreneurs from all over Europe.  In reaction to a decision of the European Court of Justice, Flanders has changed its inheritance tax legislation so that these businessmen can come and live in Flanders and save on inheritance tax on their estate.

This looks like it's going to be a scheme which is open to all but the smallest business owners, and once you're in, the rate of inheritance tax applied is Nil.

Flat tax in a developed economy

Via the ASI, the Cato Institute has a piece reporting that one Swiss Canton has introduced a flat tax with a rate of 1.8%.

Yes, you read it correctly, 1.8%. That's One Point Eight Percent.

The new tax regime in Oberwalden was introduced following a referendum in which 90% of voters voted in favour of the change.

One of the main barriers to the introduction on flat tax regimes in the developed world has been the argument, supported by bodies like the OECD, that this kind of system would not work in developed economies. We're about to see this argument tested empirically for the first time, and I've no doubt that the naysayers are going to be proved resoundingly wrong.

Where's a nice place to live in Oberwalden?  

Quote of the day

In the UK we have 8,300 pages of primary tax law, second only to India with 9,000. Even the US - thought by many to have one of the most complex tax regimes - has only 5,100.

Andrew Green, of accountancy firm Mizars. 

Thanks Gordon. 

3rd March 2007. A good day.

Trip to the seaside with the family today. Lots of bracing East Neuk fresh air in glorious sunshine while the baby Bishops exhausted themselves in running amok and disturbing the peace.

The news is looking good too.

The faeces are bespattering the air conditioning in the cash for honours department. Blair can surely not last much longer. If, as seems to be the general conclusion among the blogosphere, this is an attempt by the government to deliberately prejudice a trial and so get themselves off the hook, then Yates of the yard has done a fantastic job to keep the lid on it. It also suggests that Blairistas are very desperate indeed.

Iceland has a flat tax - the first developed country to adopt one. This could be the start of a revolution.

Spring is in the air and the government are in retreat. More wine please missus.