General election 2010: Vince Cable attacks 'billionaire tax dodgers' | Politics | guardian.co.uk .
There's not a lot of courage on display in the election campaign. Vince Cable offers an exception:
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable has attacked "billionaire tax dodgers" who attempt to influence government fiscal policy.
Addressing the Institute of Directors' annual meeting, Cable warned against "scaremongering" over the prospect of a hung parliament, remarking that far from being a "disaster" for the economy, it would instead force an end to political tribalism.
Cable has offered withering criticism in the past of businessmen who have signed a Tory endorsed letter attempting to block a planned increase innational insurance. He described himself as "a critical" friend of business.
"I have no time for billionaire tax dodgers who step off the plane from their tax havens into the country where they make their money and have the effrontery to tell us how to vote and how to run our tax policies," he said.
"If some of them came onshore and paid their taxes it would make a useful dent in the budget deficit."
Honest. Candid. True.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Cable has overreached himself and has become a bit of a bar-room bore. It all very well saying:
“I have no time for billionaire tax dodgers who step off the plane from their tax havens into the country where they make their money and have the effrontery to tell us how to vote and how to run our tax policies. If some of them came onshore and paid their taxes it would make a useful dent in the budget deficit.”
1. If they were actually making their money in the UK, they would be subject to tax in the UK – tax illiterate Vince.
2. How does Cable actually intend to curb tax avoidance through tax havens? Don’t believe we have had a meaningful policy in this regard,
Justin
Nonsense
Cable is spot on
I’ll add we can
a) Change UK residence laws
b) Abolish domicile rule
c) Create a General Anti-Avoidance Principle and apply it to offshore transactions on multinational corporations
d) Apply withholding to payments to offshore
e) Create country-by-country reporting to increase reputational risk
f) Massively increase transparency
g) automatic information exchange
h) Regulate trrusts
And on and on and on
We can do it
Don’t you doubt it
Hi Richard
Some Green Party candidates are seeking evidence that poorer people are
paying proportionately more tax than rich people. I have had a look at the Missing billions document, showing that the corporations are paying around 20%. Do you have a source for the proportion paid by the lowest decile?
I have googled about, and looked at HM Treasury, but getting nowhere.
Regards
Richard
The work is by Sally Ruane and David Byrne for Compass
See also John Hills work for the LSE
And the government’s inequaility report
Richard
In this, as in other areas of policy (E.g Trident, electoral reform) it strikes me that the Lib Dems are the only one of the three main parties that are even remotely near the kind of policies that would benefit the majority of people in this country.
Given that the mess we’re in was caused by the neoliberal mindest in the banking sector, and that the Tories started this and NuLabour went along with it, why is anybody with the exception of super wealthy tax dodgers and mindless party loyalists going to vote for Labour or Tory?
@Richard Murphy
Creating a General Anti-Avoidance Principle is a lot easier said than done and even then it isn’t a panacea for the perceived abuses committed by taxpayers.
The first thing that needs to be done is balance the concepts of tax evasion and legitimate tax avoidance. After all the UK courts have continuously confirmed that taxpayers are entitled to arrange their affairs in manner that results in them paying less tax even if the HMRC (and other taxpayers) may not appreciate the result.
If one takes the GAARs in operation in countries like Canada, Australia, South Africa and Hong Kong – these are widely considered to be less than satisfactory as the courts and revenue authorities apply these provisions inconsistently (even arbitrarily) and the provisions often tend to completely miss a taxpayers actual purpose and instead apply objective conclusions. The result is often bad law.
The USA on the other hand apply fairly robust judicial doctrines designed to counter tax avoidance schemes without resorting to a GAAR.
Is the current UK approach of having developed broad anti-avoidance rules that look at the totality of steps in an arrangement and the ultimate outcome (and denying taxpayers benefits that arise from artificial steps) really so bad?
GAARs depend on judicial interpretation which can ultimately be a lengthy and costly exercise for both parties – although the lawyers are unlikely to be too unhappy.
@Justin
Read my comments in here (about page 10) on jurisprudence
We need to change the basis of legal interpretation of tax too
Then this would work
Sorry
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/TaxCodeofConductFinal.pdf