FT.com / UK / Politics & policy – ‚ÄòWhat banker wants to be in the UK?’.

The FT notes:

Bankers were fuming. One investment banking chief said the “contract between government and business is broken”, and warned that up to 40 per cent of the City’s activities were “mobile” and would move overseas to more welcoming jurisdictions, such as Switzerland and the US.

“I can’t tell you how many people have called me from London asking to move,” a senior Wall Street banker said. “The question all the banks have now is: who the hell wants to be in the UK? Some businesses will definitely leave.”

That’s the good news. The result will be less pressure on house prices, less pressure for greater wage differentials, less pressure on London infrastructure, less dependence on finance: all good news.

Here’s the bad news: not many of them will leave. The reality is that to make money banks need to be near banks. That way they create a critical mass of staff who know and trust each other, not only in the bank but between banks. Leave the cluster and profits will fall. You’ll save tax but you’ll make less.

That’s why this threat is hollow. The bottom line counts and London is the bottom line. Everything else these people say is straightforward bribery.

 

FT.com / In depth – Tax dodgers face fresh Treasury clampdown.

Lots of accountants government bashing in this FT article, like this:

The Treasury also unveiled plans to extend its disclosure regime by requiring tax planners to register lists of clients taking up certain schemes.

Francesca Lagerberg, head of tax at Grant Thornton professional services, said this would cause further uncertainty in the tax system, potentially deterring some rich people from staying in Britain. “If the aim is to frighten high earners, the government has succeeded,” she said.

Poor little darlings: they’re frightened of paying tax. More likely the accountants are frightened of losing out on business.

Either way though accountants have this one seriously wrong: I heard a lawyer last night talking about bankers and claiming they were entrepreneurs. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear I thought: how wrong you are and how willing you are to abuse ideas to promote greed.

Entrepreneurs are not motivated by money, and are not especially worried by tax. real wealth creators know paying tax is a residual consequence of what they do. Those bereft of ideas (a good description of many accountants) make money by looting it from others – a good description of modern banking. But that is not entrepreneurial activity, does not create wealth, and never will. So those doing it are welcome to leave.

 

Most things are clearer after a night’s sleep. I finished broadcast comments on the PBR after 10 last night (Radio 4’s The World Tonight about 11 minutes in) so it was a long day. What does the PBR look like this morning?

The most important point by far is that there are no serious cuts: if there had been these would have tipped us into depression. That’s the good news.

There is a tiny, quite inadequate Green New Deal. It’s better than nothing: it’s a long way from good.

There is good support for the unemployed. It’s good that those on benefit are not going to lose out. In Ireland they are being made to suffer, badly.

The public sector pay freeze makes little sense and will antagonise a loot of low paid people. The pension cap in the public sector is fair, I suspect.

The failure to say what will be cut in due course makes sense: the Tories aren’t saying anything either.

But there are worrying signs: the increase in national insurance is one. NI is a regressive tax: employee contributions are limited to earnings of about £40,000. There is no NI on investment income. So the high paid and those with unearned income benefit most. The incentive to tax avoid will increase as a result and the need for reform rises with it. This was the wrong tax to increase. The TUC and Compass have proven tax can be raised, fairly, in so many ways the the option taken was to increase tax on those in work and least well off. That’s wrong.

And welcome as the tax on banker’s bonuses is, and the 50% tax rate to follow is, the moves on tax avoidance were nothing like the £5 billion claimed. That was misinformation and unwise. Real measures to tackle avoidance – again from the TUC and Compass (both of whom I advise, I should add) would have made a lot more sense and raised more than the NIC charge.

There was no commitment to a financial transaction tax: that was a disappointment.

Nor were there increases in capital gains tax or inheritance tax – the latter was just held constant. Empty houses remain undertaxed and a massive waste resource as a result.

The measures on offshore are very welcome – but there was no sign of the reform needed to ensure companies also pay their tax – and the new low rate of corporation tax on patent income is a tax abuser’s charter.

So what comes out of all this? First, a welcome commitment to keep spending to keep people in work, but second a lack of vision. The latter is worrying. Osborne got a lot of sound bites for saying the UK was no longer the place who wanted homes, pensions or aspiration to save. Each was very, very hard to justify unless you are very well off indeed – but then they are the only people he is interested in and the ones he will make sure benefit when he slashes benefits and public sector pay – as happened in Ireland yesterday. And despite that Darling did not make clear where he is going. If he is really going for cuts he must say so – although I think they are going to be very hard to find.

He has instead to make clear that this crisis is going to be paid for by those who created it or benefitted from it – who are the best off in our community. This is the logic of the TUC, Compass and Green New Deal programmes. They offer a clear vision of protecting the vast majority, as must happen. They are underpinned by the philosophy that all are better off in more equal communities. And they are underpinned with a genuine belief in community – which is wholly absent from Tory plans.

The PBR is done and dusted. The budget is the next challenge. The battle lines for an election are clear – and one thing seems obvious, which is that the choices will be stark and very obvious between left and right this time. I guess for that we should be grateful – because the Tory message can, surely, only appeal to a minority because only a tiny minority will ever benefit from it.

 

Alastair darling said the PBR included £5 billion of anti-avoidance measures.

The trouble is the PBR report makes no mention of such sum in its detailed calculations – page  10 – where I can find £480 million at most.

Which means he must think the Code of Conduct for Banks and the measures on offshore tax evasion are going to do the rest. All of which suggests that what I’ve always said about the cost of tax abuse is right.

 

I’ve just read the draft legislation on this, available here. It’s good.

It covers obvious tricks e.g. disguised employments and loans. It also has a very targeted anti-avoidance provision. The definition of a bank works – as does that of an employee, I suspect.

But the real sting in the tail is that not only will banks be paying this additional tax – they also get no corporation tax relief on it – something I proposed on Monday. This does provide a real sting in the tail to this charge.

Good for Darling.

 

Having spent the PBR tweeting furiously – which seemed to be picked up on over a wide audience – now is the time for first, calm reactions.

So, good news first:

  1. Spending is to continue;
  2. The young and those over 50 are to get special support to find work
  3. This is to be paid for by a tax on bank bonuses – which is welcome
  4. Front line services are being protected
  5. Benefits will rise despite there having been deflation – which avoids a bear trap and an injustice
  6. There will be some Green investment (but by no means enough)
  7. The government is saying now is not the time for Inheritance Tax cuts – so creating a distinct battle with the Tories
  8. Major attack on offshore planned
  9. Serious anti avoidance measures planned – including hard hitting stuff on abusive tax advisers
  10. No tax increase for small companies – politically wise
  11. New fund for small business – but not clear it is big enough at £500 million
  12. The Bank Code of Conduct will happen
  13. Borrowing remains in line with all other major economies

Now the bad news:

  1. Too little green spending by far – if it is £300 million in all I will be surprised – £200 million on insulation, £85 million on boilers and £10 million on electric vans
  2. 1% pay freeze in the civil service is incredibly unfair to some very low paid people
  3. Growth forecasts do look optimistic
  4. The commitment to halve the deficit is too rigid by far – no Chancellor needs their hands tied like that
  5. 0.5% NIC increase enhances incentive to tax avoid by use of limited companies

And the missed opportunities

  1. No mention of a financial transaction tax – despite the promise in the papers that it was going to happen
  2. VAT increased instead of creating a bank debit tax and VAT is more regressive
  3. No extra tax on bank profits
  4. CGT not increased – and it should have been
  5. No tax on empty houses
  6. No General Anti-Avoidance Principle
  7. No serious extra restriction on allowances for the very wealthy
  8. No plan to end the domicile rule
  9. No plan to change the rules on corporate residence to stop companies leaving artificially

So was it good? Yes: because it retained the commitment to spend and that is by far the most important thing to do right no. No, because the commitment to fairness was not strong enough and some public sector employees are going to lose out badly. And there’s just not enough for a Green New Deal as yet.

I’ll take it, but it could have been better still.

 

Labour opens new front in battle with the City | Politics | The Guardian .

Two policies I’ve helped promote look like getting prominence in the PBR today. As tghe Guardian notes:

Alistair Darling will use tomorrow’s pre-budget report to impose a one-off tax on this year’s bonus round, but No 10 will further step up the squeeze on the Square Mile on Thursday with a 60-page report making the case for a so-called transactions tax on all City trading, and an insurance scheme to stop taxpayers being forced to foot the bill for any future banking crises.

The TUC has been the only body to call for a financial transaction tax in the UK alone. It’s been criticised for it, but the timing is undoubtedly right. I advise the TUC on tax.

And I have long argued for an additional tax on banks to pay for the effective insurance of their deposits.

I hope we get both.

 

FT.com / UK – TUC seeks tax relief cuts for the wealthy.

The chancellor could raise £10bn a year by capping the amount of tax relief that can be claimed by those earning more than £100,000 a year at £5,000, Brendan Barber, Trades Union Congress general secretary, said yesterday.

The move, he believes, would make a significant contribution to reducing the fiscal deficit.

Mr Barber said Britain’s economy was still too fragile to start cutting the deficit, but when the time came to do so, it would be unfair to make those who did the least to cause the financial crisis pay the price.

The TUC argues that rather than cutting public services or raising taxes that hit poorer families – such as value-added tax – the government should repair the public finances by making those who did best from the boom pay a fairer share of tax.

The TUC says this should include a limit on the tax relief for those earning more than £100,000 a year.

TUC analysis shows 3.1 per cent of taxpayers receive 31 per cent of all tax relief, averaging £18,750 a year each. It says that, for those earning more than £100,000, the tax system is only mildly progressive.

After allowances, the effective tax rate on income for those earning between £100,000 and £150,000 is 27.1 per cent. It is 30.5 per cent for those earning between £150,000 and £200,000, and 31.8 per cent for those earning more than £200,000.

This should be the direction of travel announced t0day.

Disclosure: I advise the TUC on tax policy

 

This letter was in the Telegraph this morning:

SIR – With the pre-Budget report due on Wednesday, the Government must put in place measures that secure the recovery.

There are signs that the decline in gross domestic product and employment are reversing, but we must not risk a “double dip” recession by slashing public spending prematurely.

Such action could result in a second recession, increased unemployment benefits and a lower tax take – worsening the deficit in the long run. We therefore call on the Chancellor to:

• Make the Keynesian case for budget deficits;

• Ensure that any deficit reduction plan is flexible and based on cautious growth projections;

• Outline how it will return government receipts to at least 38pc of GDP over the medium term;

‚Ä¢ Help those most in need by finding the £4bn needed to meet the 2010 child poverty target and protecting the labour market interventions already in place;

• Gear growth policies towards investment, for example, in infrastructure, social housing, and green technologies.

Dr Stephanie Blankenburg (University of London, SOAS)

David Coats

Tony Dolphin (Senior Economist, ippr)

Prof George Irvin (University of London, SOAS)

Stewart Lansley (author, Unfair to Middling)

Dr Adam Leaver (Manchester Business School)

Adam Lent (Head of Economic and Social Affairs, TUC)

Martin McIvor (Editor, Renewal)

Richard Murphy (Tax Research UK)

Sophia Parker (Women’s Budget Group)

Howard Reed (Landman Economics)

Rachel Reeves (Labour PPC, Leeds West)

John Ross (Editor, Socialist Economic Bulletin)

Prof Jonathan Rutherford (Editor, Soundings Journal)

Krystian Seibert (Policy Network)

Prof Prem Sikka (Essex Business School)

Clifford Singer (The Other Taxpayers’ Alliance)

Will Straw (Editor, Left Foot Forward)

Ducnan Weldon (Partner, Senhouse Capital LLP)

Prof Karel Williams (University of Manchester)