Oct 202010
 

I feel I have a duty to find something good in what George Osborne said.

The spend on transport may be one such thing.

I fear the Green Investment Bank is not – it is so far neither a bank, nor new funding.

The cut in council budgets is incredibly bad news for so many social services, and the removal of budget ring fencing within councils is an invitation for abusers like Suffolk County Council to pile cuts on the most vulnerable. But maybe, just maybe, letting councils borrow is good news – but how paradoxical that this is how Osborne is to relieve pressure on local councils when he is saying for central government to do just that would be wrong.

And is it that instead he has closed down the Public Works Loan Board  – the traditional source of capital funding to local authorities? If he has I haven’t even found good news here.

It’s that hard to find a silver lining to what is a disaster for this country.

Oct 202010
 

George Osborne gave a nervous, cough strewn presentation of his spending cuts. And so he should have done. This was the delivery of the cuts we anticipated – up to 40% in the arts, 33% across Whitehall, 24% in justice, and 1% in education we anticipated.

Across Whitehall the people supposed to deliver them are now being told they’re being fired. And there is the first obstacle to their delivery. The prospect that those who know their days are numbered will deliver the cuts Osborne wants is remote. As the Guardian notes:

It’s important to remember that when Sweden, one of the government’s favoured models, cut state spending in the 1990s it specifically protected public administration, working on the basis that massive reform is extremely difficult to do if the workforce is itself under intense stress from redundancies.

That’s the same as the prospect of GPs delivering a fully effective alternative NHS management on top of their overpressed day jobs in just 14 months is remote.

And that the prospect that people who face benefit cuts, unemployment, an extended working life and a reduced state safety net are going to go out spending to deliver the record growth in the economy and employment rates on which Osborne is dependent if his assumptions are to work.

And come to that – the remote prospect that corporations who now make up 92% of private savings in the UK are going to rush out and start investing when what is for most of them their biggest customer has just announced its going to severely cut its spending.

This is a spending review built on a  myth – the myth that the state has crowded entrepreneurs out of the market, and now that the state is receding those entrepreneurs will rush in to fill the void.

There is not a chance that is right. It’s a myth. It can be made to work on a blackboard with the simplistic assumptions economists make. But in the real world it simply will not happen.

So 19% means nothing – because this was anyway 19% of a made up number – the spend that might have been – but in any event the reality is that first, even with cuts and limits benefits spending will sky rocket as the unemployed increase in number, and second the deficit will rise with that increase in spending which will thirdly be linked to a collapse in the economy.

Sure that makes me a bear. It also puts me in the company of the best economic thinkers in the world. I can live with being alongside Krugman and Stiglitz.

What Labour has to say now is that this is the case. That this is going to blow up in Osborne’s face. That as a result he’s also going to begin sucking more money out of the economy with tax rises way beyond that on VAT he’s announced: increases which will by the just make things worse.

Mervyn King says we face a sober decade. No we don’t.  We face a disaster. And I can’t think of the acronym yet!

Oct 202010
 

George Osborne gave a nervous, cough strewn presentation of his spending cuts. And so he should have done. This was the delivery of the cuts we anticipated – up to 40% in the arts, 33% across Whitehall, 24% in justice, and 1% in education we anticipated.

Across Whitehall the people supposed to deliver them are now being told they’re being fired. And there is the first obstacle to their delivery. The prospect that those who know their days are numbered will deliver the cuts Osborne wants is remote. As the Guardian notes:

It’s important to remember that when Sweden, one of the government’s favoured models, cut state spending in the 1990s it specifically protected public administration, working on the basis that massive reform is extremely difficult to do if the workforce is itself under intense stress from redundancies.

That’s the same as the prospect of GPs delivering a fully effective alternative NHS management on top of their overpressed day jobs in just 14 months is remote.

And that the prospect that people who face benefit cuts, unemployment, an extended working life and a reduced state safety net are going to go out spending to deliver the record growth in the economy and employment rates on which Osborne is dependent if his assumptions are to work.

And come to that – the remote prospect that corporations who now make up 92% of private savings in the UK are going to rush out and start investing when what is for most of them their biggest customer has just announced its going to severely cut its spending.

This is a spending review built on a  myth – the myth that the state has crowded entrepreneurs out of the market, and now that the state is receding those entrepreneurs will rush in to fill the void.

There is not a chance that is right. It’s a myth. It can be made to work on a blackboard with the simplistic assumptions economists make. But in the real world it simply will not happen.

So 19% means nothing – because this was anyway 19% of a made up number – the spend that might have been – but in any event the reality is that first, even with cuts and limits benefits spending will sky rocket as the unemployed increase in number, and second the deficit will rise with that increase in spending which will thirdly be linked to a collapse in the economy.

Sure that makes me a bear. It also puts me in the company of the best economic thinkers in the world. I can live with being alongside Krugman and Stiglitz.

What Labour has to say now is that this is the case. That this is going to blow up in Osborne’s face. That as a result he’s also going to begin sucking more money out of the economy with tax rises way beyond that on VAT he’s announced: increases which will by the just make things worse.

Mervyn King says we face a sober decade. No we don’t.  We face a disaster. And I can’t think of the acronym yet!

 

Here we go: George Osborne is about to speak.

He claims we step back from the brink.

I say we fall over the cliff.

Sustainability is not what he’s offering: exploitation is what he’s going to deliver.

He says borrowing will end. But remember it was caused by banks – and by subsidies for the finance sector (half of all debt in 2007 related to pension relief over the previous decade).

So what we pay interest: 90% of it goes to people in the UK – 25% to the Bank of England!

And the net cost of interest is less than 1% a year – so much less than millions on the dole.

I’m not encouraged the Institute for Fiscal Studies – sorry the Office for Budget Responsibility have audited Osborne’s plans.

Yet again the claim we were on the brink of bankruptcy.

That is a blatant lie.

Repeat: that was a lie.

He says he will not waiver from the plan. This sounds like a suicide note to me.

He confirms spending totals – which he claims is a rise in spending. But it isn’t because of inflation. It is not because of real inflation being high in medicine. So he’s lying. Again.

He claims real spending will be at the same level as 2008 – but he ignores the analysis I offered last Friday. A percentage of different things is not the same outcome.

He claims we’re all in this together. I refer to Dispatches on Monday.

And he claims the changes are progressive – and yet it has been proven already this is a lie.

And he confirms 490,000 jobs lost. And there will be redundancies.

The lie that spending will be the same is blown apart – if it was a percentage of the same thing we would not need the same cuts. In other words – 38% in 2014 is of a much smaller economy than 38% was in 2008. That’s the reality.

I love the fact that this is a decentralisation plan – GPs hate the idea (I know – I talk to them) of being given budgets they have NO qualification to assess. And which will destroy their time with budgets.

Councils lose 7.1% but massive devolution of control – so they can use money for anything they like. But if you’re facing massive cuts, so what?

But at least local government can borrow now against specific future revenue streams – the first good thing – and how does this reconcile with his aim to reduce borrowing though?

New affordable homes – but at 80% of market rent of the private sector who are going to have to provide the properties. How does that work. Especially when new house buying is collapsing – as the FT announced this morning?

Substantial operational reform in police and fire and ambulance – but what does that mean? The end of nighttime services? What else?

Defence spending is now called aid. So the 0.7% GDP claim for aid is rubbish. And the focus is on conflict resolution- that is Afghanistan by any other name.

Police will face cuts – even though they all agree this is not possible. 4% cut each year. I simply do not believe that this will mean police are still available.

6% cut in justice – that’s the end of probation officers.

Law officers will be but by 24% – the end of fair access to justice. So much for fairness.

A business plan to be published by each department – so we can hold them to account. How?

The huge budget deficit was not Labour’s fault – not one iota – it was the fault of the banks. Osborne’s backers. Remember that.

Distributional analysis says high earners will pay more – but what has changed since June when it was shown this was not true – nothing as far as I can see.

He’s going to hit banks – some time in the future – because he’s frightened they will go abroad. So he’s going to ask for maximum revenues – £.30 I should think he’ll conclude.

But he’ll go for tax avoidance he says – only 4 banks signed tax code of conduct. He says he will demand all will now do it – none have while the ConDems have been in office.

HMRC will face cuts of 15% but given back £900 million to raise £7 billion in all.

What a pathetic total over four years of losses over that period which will total £360 bn.

Pension age goes up to 66 from 2020.

I can’t argue – but where will we find jobs for all these people aged 65?

Hutton review – fair, fair, fair‚Ķ..repeating it does not make it fair.

And how does a person contribute to an unfunded pension?

Welfare spending – one third of public spending. He will cut it. That’s the only interpretation we can infer. And I do not believe that one credit will work – or be fair – or encourage work except by institutionalising poverty.

Will time limit many benefits to 1 year – poverty after that.

Children now have to live at home until 35.

And most access rules are restricted.

And benefits are restricted to £25,000. There will be a real rise in child poverty. A big one.

Whilst universal benefits will take 2 years to introduce – massively increasing complexity.

Child benefit – higher rate taxpayers will get no marginal relief.

NHS – will increase spending he says – over inflation – so why are £20 billion of savings pa needed?

I just do not believe anything he says when it comes to the NHS. All trendy spending get support. But what about the demand for services for depression for the unemployed and those who cannot keep their children when they are denied benefits?

Money found for bank failures and Equitable Life failures – sorry, but this is absurd: services suffer but wealthier consumers are protected. How is that fair?

Devolved governments suffer, I note.

Now he turns to business. Taxes do not give business the freedom to compete – does he know anything? Profit is a residual. BIS gets big cuts – but apprenticeships grow – 75,000  but that’s a drop in the ocean when it comes to the unemployed.

£1 billion for Green Investment Bank – peanuts

There is nothing here at all for economic stimulation. He’s relying wholly on his belief – his fantasy – that cutting the state will boost the private sector without saying why.

The Arts are hit. Massively. 15% at least. And blow the regions.

BBC to have a massive cut. Murdoch gets his way. 16% saving.

And that’s it

Been on air…now dashing

 

We know 500,000 state employees are to lose their jobs over the next four years, at a minimum.

We know that even the likes of PWC think more will lose theirs in the private sector as a result. Well over 1.3 million people will probably be unemployed as a result of today’s cuts.

There are at least 2.5 million seeking work in the UK now. Of course not all are recognised as unemployed – but remember their number is to be boosted by 500,000 from the ranks of those on incapacity benefit. So that’s 3 million, plus 1.3 million to come – making more than 4 million in all.

And yet apparently unemployment is to fall to 1 million.

What is the private sector going to do to to pick up these jobs? What will they be selling to people who will have less money in their pockets? And why will business invest when the demand for their services will be declining?

I can see no chance at all that the private sector will make many jobs in this period.

I’m not alone. Joe Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate agrees:

Britain is embarking on a highly risky experiment. More likely than not, it will add one more data point to the well- established result that austerity in the midst of a downturn lowers GDP and increases unemployment, and excessive austerity can have long-lasting effects.

If Britain were wealthier, or if the prospects of success were greater, it might be a risk worth taking. But it is a gamble with almost no potential upside. Austerity is a gamble which Britain can ill afford.

 

I note Mervyn King has promised us a ‚ÄòS.O.B.E.R.’  decade of savings, orderly budgets and equitable rebalancing.

He’s deluded.

What is equitable about 500,000 public sector job losses? And many more in the private sector?

What is equitable about cutting services for the poor, vulnerable, weak, disabled, the young and old?

What is equitable about cuts that hit women more than men?

What is equitable about cuts that hit racial minorities harder than the majority population?

What is equitable about cuts that increase division in society?

What is equitable about cuts that leave bankers – the people who caused this whole crisis – immune?

Only a banker could be so coldly indifferent.

But then, he is a banker.

A central banker maybe.

But a man wholly aligned with bankers, none the less.

Jeremy Vine today

 ConDems  Comments Off
Oct 202010
 

I am on the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 today at about 1.20 onwards talking about the cuts.

If I am, as a result, quieter than expected on the blog it will be because I am travelling to and from London.

And then my son’s school scheduled a parent’s evening for tonight of all nights!

 

They love John Christensen and me down in Cayman.

They’ve issued a press release that is so absurd I thought I’d reproduce it in full. Of course, I wasn’t sent a copy myself, despite requesting one, but several people were kind enough to send it to me.

After the complete fool former Cayman Leader of Government Business Kurt Tibbetts made of himself on the programme, denying Cayman was a tax haven, claiming there was no secrecy in the Island and saying it was a “mere facilitator” of international transactions and “tax neutral” – all euphemisms for an abusive regime of secrecy in which no tax is paid it -  may be hardly surprising they are annoyed with themselves.

But what follows is none the less would have been way below the belt if it was not so ludicrous:

Channel 4’s Dispatches documentary, “How the rich beat the taxman,” plumbed new depths in clich?© ridden journalism and the recycling of hoary old myths.

When a director is reduced to showing long lingering shots of his reporter doodling at his keyboard, you know immediately they don’t have many moving pictures to show the viewer.  This is doubly embarrassing as the reporter in question is Antony Barnett, an investigative reporter with a solid track record in print journalism. (That’s the medium where words matter more than pictures.)

Barnett relies heavily throughout the entire documentary on the opinions of Richard Murphy and John Christensen – the leading lights, correction -the only lights, in the Tax Justice Network. This organisation, however, is not the major institution it appears to be. Google Streetview reveals that TJN’s global HQ is nothing more than a semi-detached house in Chesham, Buckinghamshire.  More fool Dispatches for giving them so much prominence.

Murphy is a man who believes that we should all be taxed until our pips squeak and he has never caught up with the research that shows that high tax equals oppression and lack of incentive whereas low tax (or no tax) has the opposite effect. It’s not rocket science but as yet this enlightened philosophy has failed to penetrate the socialist fog surrounding Messrs Murphy and Christensen.

Richard Murphy maintains in the documentary that there is a “high degree of secrecy” in the Cayman Islands. Like a broken record, Murphy continues to peddle the common misconception that the Cayman Islands are in fact a tax haven. In reality, the Cayman Islands is an OECD white listed jurisdiction. Over the past two decades the Cayman Islands has as a matter of fact complied with every international initiative on transparency and is a stable, transparent, tax neutral jurisdiction with a secure, British legal system that is used by global financial institutions to access international capital markets.

Anthony Travers, OBE, Chairman of Cayman Finance has tirelessly fought against the sloppy journalism that has led to this common misconception. Cayman Finance has worked to dispel the common misconceptions of the Cayman Islands as portrayed in the British press. This has ranged from reports of bail outs from the UK government to current budgetary problems and supposed decline of hedge fund investment in Cayman.

Travers notes: “The British press appear to take their intelligence on the Cayman Islands from pot-boiler novels and Hollywood films. Cayman attracts hedge funds because it has relevant and attractive laws, a high standard of professional service, an effective Court system with ultimate appeal to the Privy Council and full IOSCO transparency. Having sensible judges a UK common law basis to your legal system and regulator to regulator disclosure matters.

“Cayman has been and remains highly attractive as a tax transparent but tax neutral jurisdiction in which relevant structuring can be undertaken to pool funds invested from the international capital markets.”

As for Cayman and the hedge fund industry being responsible for the global downturn, especially in the US and UK, this is yet another mischaracterisation. Despite being depicted as draining countries economies, trillions flowed into the US and the UK through Cayman Islands funds, providing a vital lift to the respective economies during the global meltdown.

Another star of Dispatches’ investigation, a piece of work that wouldn’t pass muster in the trashiest tabloid, was our former Minister for Overseas Territories, Chris Bryant.

I spluttered as the words “morally indefensible” emerged from Mr Bryant’s lips.

Is this the same Chris Bryant who claimed over £92,000 in expenses in the five years leading up to the 2009 MPs expenses scandal and flipped his second-home expenses twice to gain £20,000? Chris Bryant, AKA Captain Underpants, who left his life as a vicar to marry his gay lover?  Morality? Leave it out Chris.

We are also led to believe by Murphy, Christensen and Barnett that it is these offshore jurisdictions that are directly responsible for poverty in the Third World. This is yet another global myth endlessly promoted by high tax lefties that adds fuel to the fire and is, inexplicably swallowed by lazy journalists.

Even a journalist with half a brain would understand that the major problem facing Third World aid is the obscene amounts pillaged by unscrupulous leaders. Until that is sorted (don’t hold your breath) the problems surrounding aid cannot be properly addressed. Tax neutral regimes cannot be used as a band aid to disguise that sad truth.

In UK academic Richard Teather’s 2005 book, ‚ÄòThe Benefits of Tax Competition’ he points out that:“Tax competition brings great benefits, to all society and not just to those who directly take advantage of it. The only impact that ending tax havens would have would be to raise tax rates around the world, thus reducing economic growth and making the world poorer.”

He maintains that low taxes encourage wealth through entrepreneurship, savings and investment and work. He even points out a quote from the IMF that states that tax increases: “result in a net efficiency loss to the whole economy.”

Ploughing fearlessly ahead Dispatches showed the now infamous clip of presidential hopeful Barack Obama referencing Cayman- based Ugland House and the 18,000 companies registered therein.

Shortly after Obama made this statement, supported at the time by another high tax zealot, Gordon Brown, the British print media kindly pointed out that there was another much more interesting building closer to home. The address is 1209 North Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware which houses not 18,000 companies, but 217,000. Delaware is the Vice President’s state lest we forget.

Dispatches chose to ignore that but lest we forget the purpose of the programme was to lambast British Tories and their financial affairs, clearly reporter Barnett’s specialist subject.

In another surreal part of the programme Barnett walks around Jersey with a picture of Sir Phillip Green asking if anyone has “seen this man” to prove a point about offshore banking. Woodward and Bernstein this ain’t.

I walk past the Bank of England every morning and I have yet to catch a glimpse of Sir Mervyn King hanging about on the pavement or reading his FT in the Royal Exchange. I am willing to bet that if I stopped passers by and showed them an A4 picture of Sir Mervyn a considerable number wouldn’t recognise him. Top investigative journalist Barnett might find me naive but I’m pretty certain , despite this lack of recognition, Sir Mervyn is beavering  away at his desk in the bank most days of the week.

In my newspaper days I would slap a reporter about the head if when tasked to carry out an investigation he produced what we call in the industry “a cuttings job.” In other words something purports to be news but is in fact just a rehash of tired old clich?©s and yesterday’s news.

What an opportunity an hour of prime time television could have afforded to an investigative reporter who had the tenacity to examine the complex issues of onshore and offshore taxation instead of resorting  to the same, tired old arguments fuelled by class prejudice and ignorance.

Ends

Note to editors: Jack Irvine is media and political adviser to Cayman Finance, the representative body of the financial services industry in the Cayman Islands.

A few comments for now:

Jack Irvine is based in London. How very odd that they have a London PR agent.

Richard Teather, as I have pointed out often, has come as close as it is possible for a chartered accountant to get in endorsing tax evasion.

Chris Bryant stopped Cayman borrowing because it had no proven capacity to repay – for all practical purposes it is bust.

And that puts it in the same position as other no tax regimes, like Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. As well as low and flat tax regimes like Ireland and Iceland.

But most of all remember who underpins the the risk in Cayman and the Crown Dependencies – and so remember who also ultimately paid for this press release given that Cayman is insolvent – it is the UK. Yes, the UK taxpayer pays for this place that promotes class politics by encouraging financial privilege and then promotes it as at right at cost to us all.

That’s who paid Mr Irvine to write this ludicrous release.

Well let me tell you Mr Irvine: I’m delighted to have been an irritation. Get used to it.

 

I have been asked to publish the speech I made yesterday at the TUC rally against the cuts.

This is, near enough, what I said:

I come here today for one reason and one reason only and that is to say that we do not need cuts.

I stress, I am not saying we only need some cuts: I am saying we do not need cuts.

And I am saying this to you as a chartered accountant, but as a chartered accountant who is delighted to have written many of the recent reports on tax published by the TUC and as the researcher of the report published by PCS and the Tax Justice Network on the tax gap in the UK in March this year.

The tax gap is real. HM Revenue and Customs admit that there is £42 billion of tax evasion and avoidance in the UK each year. But I know that their figures for tax avoidance and tax evasion are ludicrously low.

Tax avoidance in the UK is likely to be £25 billion a year.

Tax evasion could easily be £70 billion a year.

That’s £95 billion in all.

That’s more than the whole sum George Osborne says he wants to cut.

But yesterday I was on the radio with ConDem minister Lord Freud who was talking about the fact that his blood runs cold when he thinks about the £1 billion of benefit fraud there is in this country. But not a mention did he make of tax avoidance and tax evasion.

And last night I was on Channel 4’s Dispatches programme and if you watched it you saw evidence of the tax avoidance – legal I’m sure – of some of the ConDem Cabinet ministers.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not condoning benefit fraud. No one should.

But if we stopped the cuts in staffing at HM Revenue and Customs.

And if we spent another billion pounds each year on tax collection.

And if we had a general anti-avoidance principle in the UK.

And if we stopped the abuse that the domicile rule allows in this country.

And if we had a proper bank tax.

And if we spent the money that the government proposes to spend on tackling benefit fraud on beating tax cheats then I can tell you this with absolute confidence.

We wouldn’t get back £1 billion a year. We would get back £20 billion a year.

And that’s the annual investment that we need now if we want turn this economy round to create the jobs we so badly need – and which would create the wealth and generate the tax – all the tax – we need to clear the deficit.

Which is exactly why we don’t need cuts.

But the ConDems won’t do this.

I’ll tell you why.

They would rather the tax cheats of this country have this money than the pensioners of this country have this money,

Better that the cheats have it they say than the children of this country get the education they need.

And the better the accountants, the lawyers and the bankers have this money they say than the sick, the unemployed, the disabled, the public servants and the defenders of this country have it.

That’s their choice.

It’s the wrong choice.

You know that.

I know that.

Together we must fight them.

We must fight for fair taxation.

We must fight for the jobs of those who will collect tax.

And we must fight so that the honest people of this country can have the money that the ConDems will give to the cheats.

That’s the fight we have on our hands

And friends that the fight we must win.

And before the naysayers get in: no cuts does not mean change. And it does not mean seeking to find efficiency and saving. That should be ongoing.

But I am quite sure we need no cuts. None at al. What we need is regeneration.

And Osborne will as a result be delivering a disaster in the making today.

© 2005 - 2011 Tax Research UK.
Some rights reserved. Creative Commons License
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha