The Telegraph is continuing its attack on parliament, the rule of law and HMRC's actions in upholding that law today, reporting that:
Britain's major political parties should be stripped of their tax free status because they misjudged the country by backing Remain ahead of the European Union referendum, two Leave donors say today.
Jeremy Hosking, a City fund manager, and Stuart Wheeler, a spread betting millionaire, blamed HM Revenue and Customs' attempts to levy inheritance tax bills on "dark forces" and said they were “un-British” and evidence of “a counter referendum-result witch hunt” by the Establishment.
This is, of course, all about the inheritance tax charges that have been levied on large donors to the EU Leave campaign, which as I have explained, are wholly legally appropriate and which it would be illegal for HMRC to ignore given that parliament has passed a law that it is upholding.
There remain a number of very deep and really unpleasant aspects to the Telegraph's comments. Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that the paper is run by two tax exiles. Let's also leave aside the way they dominate Sark and its legal processes. They do not much matter in this context.
What does matter is that a national newspaper is suggesting that it is "un-British" to tax the wealthy on their use of their wealth when that gives rise to a legitimate tax bill.
And it does matter that it is suggested that this is the consequence of "dark forces" at work when it is nothing of the sort. It would be the work of "dark forces" to apply the law with discretion and only on those whom the Telegraph thought appropriate. It is enlightened to apply it with an even hand.
Let me also be clear: I too am a critic of HMRC. But I criticise it for not upholding the law and being too pragmatic to wealth and the interests of large business at cost to society and the rest of us who might make additional tax payment as a result. I think it fair to cast my criticism as being unambiguously pro the upholding of the rule of law and in favour of the use of democratically determined legislation.
Here though we have a national newspaper opposing the use of that democratically decided upon law so that the interests of a wealthy elite might be favoured whilst implying that to do so is pro-British.
If taking back control means returning to a feudal era where society is structured for the benefit of the wealthy then clearly the Telegraph is right in its call. But if it was about restoring British democracy, as some claimed, then it is very wrong indeed. I think we can be quite clear on which side of that line the Telegraph falls, and it is the wrong one. The trouble is a Tory faithful readership will lap this up as evidence that the world is not as their masters think it should be, and will agree with them.
To describe this as irresponsible journalism of the type last seem in the thirties in this country is to be kind to the Telegraph. Let's call it the fundamentally anti-democratic demand that it is.
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:
In citing dark forces, witch hunts and making accusations of being un-British, these irate Leavers neatly (and, I assume, unintentionally) illustrate their lack of any actual argument. As with so many on the political right. the best way to deal with them is to pass them the mike and let them talk themselves into oblivion. More please, and louder – you were saying, fellas?
“Let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that the paper is run by two tax exiles….etc” I disagree Richard – one cannot leave this aside. The rich want special treatment both politically and in everyday areas such as tax. The Telegraph is one of the mouthpieces lobbying for special treatment (because it reflects its owners wishes). Lobbying can take many forms – the Telegraph editorial is one of them. I guess my disagreement is one of nuance – not substance – I’m guessing that if the Telegraph was not owned by a pair of right-wing tax exiles the editorial would not have appeared. That it has makes the Telegraph a propagagnda opinion sheet promoting the views/needs of the 0.0001%.
Mike perhaps a good argument for saying that the editorship and control should vest with the papers readership, not the owner.
John Adams says:
January 8 2018 at 10:27 am
“Mike perhaps a good argument for saying that the editorship and control should vest with the papers readership, not the owner.”
The owners would cite circulation figures as evidence that is currently the case.
Nobody has to buy a newspaper it is a customer choice. People buy what they want to read and the papers supply it.
Regulating a free press is a can of worms. (With vipers in it)
I don’t think it is possible to redress the balance without redressing the wealth inequality issue. I (and presumably others: I don’t think I’m unique) simply cannot afford, currently, to offer financial support to the press organs I would wish to encourage and reward for presenting current affairs coverage in a manner which I approve.
So being “un-British” is a bad thing?
Just wondering…
Marco Fante says:
January 8 2018 at 11:16 am
“So being “un-British” is a bad thing?
Just wondering… ”
Once upon a time you would probably have felt that remark merited a smiley icon.
I agree it doesn’t.
‘Jeremy Hosking, a City fund manager, and Stuart Wheeler, a spread betting millionaire’ – says it all really. The ‘new money’ Establishment?
Perfect example of ‘anti-democracy’ and ‘unfairness’ in action
This comment may seem “off-topic”, but in a broader context it perhaps suggests a pattern may be discerned.
BBC TV Panorama and BBC Scotland Investigates have scheduled a programme on BBC One tonight (8.30pm) with the title ‘Millionaire Bankrupts Exposed’. The programme description provides this information:
“Bankruptcy was once a source of shame, but for some of the country’s millionaire bankrupts it seems to be little more than a mild inconvenience. In this investigation, reporter Samantha Poling goes undercover to reveal the tactics being used to hide assets and retain wealth, leaving those they owe with nothing. She exposes the bankrupts making a mockery of the system and discovers serious flaws in the government’s ultimate sanction for the dishonest debtor, which allows them to get away with it.”
Do we see in the signs of these activities, or in the protests in favour of the tax-free status of large political party gifts, or HMRC’s failings so trenchantly recounted on the pages of this Blog by Richard: the sign of that rare-as-hens-teeth feature of British Government in all its endeavours; “joined up thinking” by the Conservatives, in the exclusive service of tax avoidance, the users of tax havens and to render taxation sanctions unusable, by the simple expedient of depriving the investigatory authorities of the resources sufficient actually to do their job?
I am meant to be out tonight: looks like I will be on iPlayer when I get home
I think that a fascinating idea
BUT the key issue is – who are the bankruptcy professionals helping them
Please post details if anyhting becomes clear
Not having a TV licence, I won’t be able to watch that. I’m not confident it’s going to expose anything we don’t in essence already know – viz that bankruptcy law allows scoundrels to prosper. Not because it is inherently a bad idea, but because it is not policed effectively.
It’s only a variation on asset stripping isn’t it – extract the profit by remuneration packages before its made then whoops! we seem to be in financial difficulties. I expect there is a thriving market in recycling fancy office furniture and executive company cars at firesale prices.
Something will be done about it when the level of individual defaults on credit card debt, personal loans etc. becomes sufficiently widespread to impact the industry. I think that may take a while. Many more people will have to have written off their prospects of ever having a useable credit score again. And even then the levels of individual private debt may not be large enough to influence the market.
I think it unlikely this government will have parliamentary time to deal with it – they have an entire country to bankrupt.
A declared ‘bankrupt’ hiding millions is a fraud and should be charged with fraud.
Marco Fante says:
January 8 2018 at 4:24 pm
“A declared ‘bankrupt’ hiding millions is a fraud and should be charged with fraud.”
Of course it is, Marco, but the provisions to attribute the wealth to other bodies and or individuals makes a mockery of the process of justice in these sort of affairs. Much of this ‘fraud’ is legally endorsed.
Bung it the wife’s name(?). What’s that about? Set up a company as if it has a life of its own, so it can go bust without taking down the owners. We have company law which was set up to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation and risk ….and an entire industry of accountants and lawyers who are employed to milk those provisions for what amounts to theft.
It’s what the big four do for a living. Hoping to change this nonsense is why this blog exists. And presumably why you too read it.
Morally it’s fraud. Legally it ain’t. Like tax avoidance. It smells.
Re the original posting by Richard and the Telegraph canvassing for tax privileges for the wealthy (be they owners or readers).
A conclusion I came to just recently in response to someone’s blethering about the parlous state of ‘the economy’ is that:
We can have neoliberalism or we can have democracy, but we can’t have both.
Does that lack nuance?
No
It’s true
And the neoliberals know it
Sounds similar to this prophetic observation:
‘We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both’.
Louis D. Brandeis (USA)
More about the man here (lazy citation):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis
Louis D. Brandeis (USA)
An interesting and remarkable character. Lessons to be learned in patience and tenacity aswell as humanity.
Well spotted, Pilgrim. Thanks for the link.
‘Jeremy Hosking, a City fund manager, and Stuart Wheeler, a spread betting millionaire, blamed HM Revenue and Customs’ attempts to levy inheritance tax bills on “dark forces” and said they were “un-British” and evidence of “a counter referendum-result witch hunt” by the Establishment.’
This has to be sifted for Double speak:
1. Un-British -said by someone who is part of the global movement of capital and against the sovereignty of the state, in other words; ‘Un-British’ but scurrilously co-opting the expression to gain leverage with the duped public.
2. A spread betting millionaire -therefore a rentier, someone who extracts wealth and shuffles it around to no productive end from a social point of view. As a rentier they will be supporting the rent seeking economy that is the root cause of the very discontent they have used to get their support.
It precisely sums up the the condescending and manipulative ploys used by the leave campaign to rally public tensions whilst being part of the causes of those tensions.
As a ‘Lexit’ supporter, I was unable to vote in that referendum because of these ghastly morons who distorted and misrepresented everything -they know what they’re doing.
thank you for posting on this matter again Richard as comments were closed before I saw your last post on the subject. The timing of the Telegraph’s carping, from the date when the donations were presumably made suggests a compliance failure exposing these unfortunate millionaires to penalties on the tax due could well have arisen. Three cheers for whoever at HMRC was on the ball sufficient to spot this failure. The Telegraph and their carping readers are modern day imperialists. Once Brexit occurs the left needs to win the next election and cook their tax evasion and avoidance goose for good. From this Briton’s perspective that would be the British thing to do.
Simon Cohen,
It’s that classic thing of pointing the finger and there are three pointing back at the pointer.
It is the very essence of hypocrisy. Annoying isn’t it? We learn it in primary one.
I watched the programme. Dishonesty on display for all to see and probably rampant, costing honest citizens and the taxman a fortune every year. One protagonist laid on private jet travel for David Cameron.
The reluctance of the Conservatives to stamp out abuses that benefit their donors never fails to amaze me. It’s past time for root and branch reform of party funding. It’s the root cause of so much toleration of corruption in the UK.