I was out last night and so did not see the BBC programme The Town That Took on the Taxman when it was broadcast, but caught up with it on iPlayer this morning.
First, let me put this in context: I was very critical of this programme last year for what I thought then and still consider to be good reasons. But that was when the programme was going to be about The Town That Went Offshore. It didn't. And in fairness - and unbeknownst to me - my criticism did feature on the programme. I was surprised by that.
Second, in the broadcast by me that was featured in the programme I debated with Irena Kovaleva, the Crickhowell optometrist who withdraw from the programme for a period. I have no idea whether or not the debate with me - in which she seemed to agree with what I had to say - influenced that, although I would like to hope it did because when she returned the whole tone of the programme changed from 'we are going offshore to save tax' to 'we are going to try to change the law to stop people going offshore to save tax'. I also noted that a local business person was clearly important in that change process. It was key: it made what would have been a programme without logic into one that was useful, informative and of real value.
Third, it was good to see friends David Quentin, Tom Bergin, Richard Brooks and Jolyon Maugham on air. It was also good to hear that David sounded caution and that Jolyon gave sound advice, which was that they could try to implement their scheme but that their lives would be in lock down as a result for years to come. It was something I too had said.
Fourth, if this programme creates awareness, and it should as it was well done in the end, then I warmly welcome that and how it panned out.
I wish the Fair Tax Towns well. I think they could partner with the Fair Tax Mark to advantage, but I am obviously biased on that point. And I think a campaign that the Fair Tax Mark is involved in that is being launched next week could help those who want to pursue this issue further.
Anything else? Yes: if anyone wants to take a simple step in the right direction on this issue why not sign the Fair Tax Pledge? It's available here. That's a first, practical and real step in the right direction.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Does anyone know – have they actually started diverting profits to the IoM yet? Or is it still just a threat? At the end of the program, it implied they would, and that the next step would be to see HMRCs reaction.
I gather filming of the close was very recent
I suspect nothing has been done
I hope for their sake they don’t do it
I doubt they would even try to go ahead with it as the message they got from the lawyers was a long, costly uphill legal battle with HMRC if the ordinary small business person tried to get what the multinationals are entitled to.
Which of course is what the problem really is, one rule for the rich and another for everyone else!
I loved the quote from Irena Kovaleva when she said it was against her moral principles to avoid tax – because that is the difference between most ordinary people who care about the world they live in and most of the wealthy who have a different set of moral principles (i.e. look after number one at all costs to society).
Sadly, most lawyers and accountants and politicians who devise and legislate on these tax schemes also lack any sense of social morality and focus only on the establishment logic of the supposed “rights” of personal private property and wealth. The complexity of the tax laws merely enforces the social injustice which they seek to maintain, as to challenge them would be impossibly expensive for most people.
It is time for all of those “private rights” to be challenged in public by true left wing politicians where they threaten the well being of society as a whole.
Her position came out the best, I thought
She had a valuable role to play as a result
It has been clear to me for some time that we live in a massively corrupt society. The source of this corruption lies in the multinational corporations (and banks) which operate without regard to national boundaries and are not held to account by any democratic process. In this country (and I must suppose in others) they have corrupted the Civil Service through the “revolving door” process, and the Government through all-pervasive lobbying. In both cases they also use bribery through the scarcely disguised methods of lucrative directorships and other “jobs” for compliant politicians and cilvil servants, plus “entertaining” on an industrial scale. Not forgetting contributions to party funds without which the major parties would not know how to survive. The details of this corruption are known, much of it published in “Private Eye” for example, so the conclusion I draw is that the great majority of people who weald influence in public life are quite at ease with crapitalist morals and see no conflict with the public good. They therefore regard tax avoidance as morally neutral, or in extreme cases as a moral good. Please tell me I am mistaken!
Many think tax avoidance is a moral good
“crapitalist morals” – says it all!
The programme and the Fair Tax Towns movement were never about anything else than ‘try[ing] to change the law to stop people going offshore to save tax’. Why would the BBC make a programme to promote tax evasion or avoidance? It was always about raising awareness and questioning the fairness of the current situation.
In that light I found the critics, including Irena, a bit naïve. But of course their presence helped making it seem more real.
I have seen a few programmes on the issue over the years and I found this programme quite refreshing as it was not just pointing fingers at the big companies. I also thought it did a good job in explaining how going offshore works.
At one point they really did want to go offshore
That was the original title
I argued against doing that
Irena agreed, it seems
Sometimes you can only reform a system by breaking it. A lot of hot air has been wasted over the last 10 years pointing out that it is fundamentally wrong that a small company based wholly in the UK is not able to take advantage of the loopholes and concessions available to large ones. Unless people start to take action it won’t happen and hoping for shaming is only going to work every so often (as appears has done for Amazon- but we’ll see). The likelihood of mass consumer boycotts is similar to hoping we’ll actually do something about climate change.
To me the program always gave the impression that this was the ultimate aim (to further encourage the authorities to start listening to the small guys so coffee shops in the same street are playing under the same rules).
If as you say it set out only to avoid tax then that explains Irena’s strange actions 1/2 way through. Hopefully they’ll get help with lawyers like Jolyon to actually get the scheme accepted.
I think Jolyon would wisely tell them to not take the risk