The sentences being given to those who have looted are offensive. I’m delighted so many are saying so.

I do, of course, agree that crime must be punished, but what we’re seeing is a rash of sentencing that reflects what might be called ‘moral outrage’ – and very candidly, politically directed moral outrage at that.

But it’s curious - because it least it shows that judges (for many of the magistrates courts handing out these sentences are in fact being staffed by judges at present) can and do use moral judgment.

There is however complete reticence to do so in the case of tax avoidance. Then it is argued that such moral judgement would be wrong.

Why the dual standard?

I think you know the answer to that. After all, we all know that only ‘nice’ people avoid tax, just as only ‘little’ people pay tax, and loot.

And yes, I do find that duality sickening. So should anyone with a sense of justice.

 

I saw Cabaret at the extraordinary Westacre Theatre last night.

The production was stunning. I spent many years in London, and for much of them saw a great deal, for example, of all that was produced at the Royal Court. But there was as much, in very many ways, as notable about this production in a tiny studio theatre in Norfolk as those major London productions.

And the musical could not have been better chosen for the moment if Westacre had been able to choose it with a few days notice.

For those who have not seen Cabaret for a while I recommend doing so. It’s about 80 years since the events that it tells of. It almost 40 years since the film was made – when maybe it felt safe to do so.

Its relevance has, perhaps, never been greater.

The audience, stunned to shocked awe in appreciation of an amazing cast, seemed to think so.

It provides excuse for anther piece of music. but as it is refusing to embed a link will do.

 

Since I seem to have caught a musical bug at the moment, one of the best songs about our current economic situation that just happened to be written thirty years ago as we hit an economic crisis (when I appreciated it as much as now):

Used to like to go to work but they shut it all down
I got a right to go to work, no work here to be found
Yeah and they say we’re gonna have to pay what’s owed
We’re gonna have to reap from the seed that’s sowed

Full lyrics here.

And yes – I do think people have a right to go to work. And that the government that fails to deliver on that promise has failed. Full stop.

You might also wonder why this happens a year or so after Tories come to power.  Or maybe not. But I do.

 

Bob Dylan:

Steal a little and they throw you in jail,

Steal a lot and they make you king…

Been popular on this blog today

Hat tip: Isobel

 

This was posted as a comment on my blog by some using the name Juggzy Malone. It seems original and as poetry works for me I thought it worth reposting:

The law doth punish feral youth
Who take to the streets to steal the goose
But lets the greater thieving pass;
The tax avoidance by the monied class.

 

David McNair of Christian Aid has an article under the first part of the above title in the Guardian today.

David is right to draw attention to the toxic nature of a new deal between Germany and Switzerland – but the UK is also set to sign such a deal very soon.

I wrote about this in May, saying the following, and nothing has changed since:

The FT reported today that the UK is to shortly sign a new tax deal with Switzerland. As it said:

Britons with billions of pounds hidden in Switzerland will pay tax at 50 per cent under a groundbreaking deal that will legitimise their undeclared assets, according to a source familiar with negotiations between the Swiss and British governments.

The agreement, which is expected to be announced this month, marks a shift in emphasis in the international crackdown on tax havens. Over the past two years, the focus has been on lifting bank secrecy and exposing evaders.

Under the deal, £3bn is expected to be raised over the course of this parliament and investors will also pay a one-off retrospective levy in recognition of past unpaid tax.

I’ve been talking to some people about this. I think that the FT has got this story very wrong.

First, if a 50% tax rate is applied anyone who is not a 50% taxpayer in the UK will either a) tax their move out of Switzerland and suffer the lower withholding rate of 35% available in places like Jersey or b) give up secrecy and declare their tax personally in the UK and so save money. Either way the Swiss lose out and their banking secrecy is compromised so there’s no way they’ll agree a 50% withholding rate.

Alternatively, I gather the Swiss think that withholding rates applicable in the UK should be used and argue that whatever this rate is that should settle the full tax bill due on the Swiss source income so that they do not have to tell the UK’s HMRC who was paid and the recipients need not declare the income on their tax returns so that their right to Swiss banking secrecy is not compromised.

But that would mean the UK would have to agree that the de facto top rate of tax on investment income would now be 20% or every higher rate taxpayer would win by closing their UK deposit accounts and shifting them to Switzerland – after which HMRC would be entirely dependent ion the goodwill and probity of the Swiss for returning any tax that might be due – with all the accounts in question being off limits for any UK tax investigation for evermore henceforth.

Now, as  I said of this deal when it was first announced last October:

In a quite astonishing move it seems that the UK has today announced it is to give up British tax sovereignty and has granted power to determine UK taxes to Switzerland instead.

As I explained then:

In other words … the UK has … done the following:

1) Granted Switzerland the right to set the effective higher rate of tax on investment income in the UK;

2) Granted Swiss banks an everlasting competitive advantage over UK banks – because it will pay all higher rate tax payers to bank in Switzerland henceforth;

3) Denied the UK tax authority the right to make enquiries of their own choosing about the tax affairs of a British person – the Swiss now being granted the right to decide how many enquiries may be made and whether they are appropriate or not.

4) Granted criminal immunity to Swiss bakers who sell tax evasion – so allowing them to commit ongoing crime in the UK.

In the process the UK is:

a) Promoting tax evasion by its citizens

b) Promoting Geneva and Zurich over London

c) Abandoning its right to tax

d) Abandoning its rights to enforce its laws

e) Alienating the OECD

f) Abandoning the fights against tax havens.

That’s not melodramatic: that’s what’s this announcement implies.

I stand by that. If we sign this deal and the tax withholding rate is anything below 40% the UK has ceded its right to tax its subjects to the Swiss.

I think some Tories will be annoyed about that.

The rest of us should be livid.

And those responsible need to be held to account.

 

This is George Osborne’s brave new world of tax – helping the tax evaders’ evade.

Brilliant, isn’t it?

That’s feral leadership for you.

 

 

Yesterday it was Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph realising that his right wing thinking had been wrong.

Today it is Peter Orborne. I quote at length because candidly this could have come from the blogs of the Tax Justice Network, Nick Shaxson or even here:

“It is not just the feral youth of Tottenham who have forgotten they have duties as well as rights. So have the feral rich of Chelsea and Kensington. A few years ago, my wife and I went to a dinner party in a large house in west London. A security guard prowled along the street outside, and there was much talk of the “north-south divide”, which I took literally for a while until I realised that my hosts were facetiously referring to the difference between those who lived north and south of Kensington High Street.

Most of the people in this very expensive street were every bit as deracinated and cut off from the rest of Britain as the young, unemployed men and women who have caused such terrible damage over the last few days. For them, the repellent Financial Times magazine How to Spend It is a bible. I’d guess that few of them bother to pay British tax if they can avoid it, and that fewer still feel the sense of obligation to society that only a few decades ago came naturally to the wealthy and better off.

Yet we celebrate people who live empty lives like this. A few weeks ago, I noticed an item in a newspaper saying that the business tycoon Sir Richard Branson was thinking of moving his headquarters to Switzerland. This move was represented as a potential blow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, because it meant less tax revenue.

I couldn’t help thinking that in a sane and decent world such a move would be a blow to Sir Richard, not the Chancellor. People would note that a prominent and wealthy businessman was avoiding British tax and think less of him. Instead, he has a knighthood and is widely feted. The same is true of the brilliant retailer Sir Philip Green. Sir Philip’s businesses could never survive but for Britain’s famous social and political stability, our transport system to shift his goods and our schools to educate his workers.

Yet Sir Philip, who a few years ago sent an extraordinary £1 billion dividend offshore, seems to have little intention of paying for much of this. Why does nobody get angry or hold him culpable? I know that he employs expensive tax lawyers and that everything he does is legal, but he surely faces ethical and moral questions just as much as does a young thug who breaks into one of Sir Philip’s shops and steals from it?

Our politicians – standing sanctimoniously on their hind legs in the Commons yesterday – are just as bad. They have shown themselves prepared to ignore common decency and, in some cases, to break the law. David Cameron is happy to have some of the worst offenders in his Cabinet. Take the example of Francis Maude, who is charged with tackling public sector waste – which trade unions say is a euphemism for waging war on low‑paid workers. Yet Mr Maude made tens of thousands of pounds by breaching the spirit, though not the law, surrounding MPs’ allowances.”

And then consider this (and I’ve chopped quite a lot that is just as good, but this is important stuff for the change in culture it represents):

The Prime Minister showed no sign that he understood that something stank about yesterday’s Commons debate. He spoke of morality, but only as something which applies to the very poor: “We will restore a stronger sense of morality and responsibility – in every town, in every street and in every estate.” He appeared not to grasp that this should apply to the rich and powerful as well.

The tragic truth is that Mr Cameron is himself guilty of failing this test. It is scarcely six weeks since he jauntily turned up at the News International summer party, even though the media group was at the time subject to not one but two police investigations.

These double standards from Downing Street are symptomatic of widespread double standards at the very top of our society. It should be stressed that most people (including, I know, Telegraph readers) continue to believe in honesty, decency, hard work, and putting back into society at least as much as they take out.

But there are those who do not. Certainly, the so-called feral youth seem oblivious to decency and morality. But so are the venal rich and powerful – too many of our bankers, footballers, wealthy businessmen and politicians.

Of course, most of them are smart and wealthy enough to make sure that they obey the law. That cannot be said of the sad young men and women, without hope or aspiration, who have caused such mayhem and chaos over the past few days. But the rioters have this defence: they are just following the example set by senior and respected figures in society.

Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.

The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.

The Tax Justice Network has been at the forefront of such arguments for a long time.

And yet we still see, only this week, the tax profession openly excusing abuse.

No, nothing excuses rioting. But nothing – and I mean it as much – excuses tax haven activity, tax avoidance and tax evasion either. Nor the abuses of corporate Britain.

We have a long way to go – and we must start at the top.

 

As Owen Tudor at the TUC has noted:

The IMF has issued a working paper which explores the practicalities of implementing Financial Transaction Taxes.

His analysis is well worth reading. But as he notes, the IMF concluded:

In principle, an FTT is no more difficult and, in some respects easier, to administer than other taxes.

As some of us have argued for quite a long time.

Now, please do it.

 

Now that’s what you call a speech.

And a right sentiment.

Hat tip: Compass

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