Three campaigns against cuts, and their consequences have come to my attention today.
38 degrees have a campaign against forest privatisation, and against NHS cuts. Both are recommended, and high on my list of priorities, whilst those who want to highlight tax issues have a new opportunity at False Economy - who are ow looking at tax matters.
PS Whilst on the forest issue - I note the Guardian has picked this one up this morning - massively misquoting me on the way. They report me saying:
This is about creating a massive opportunity to ensure that less tax is paid, which undermines the whole cause of selling off the forests. If I had a million pounds and I thought I have some risk of dying in the next few years, as part of my inheritance planning I could put it into forests. Then when I keel over, I can pass that on to the next generation without inheritance tax, so the government would lose out £400,000 in inheritance tax. I think an awful lot of people are going to be tempted to buy forests
I was of course speaking figuratively. But somehow that didn't get across. Oh well, you live and learn. It's interesting I am not alone in seeing this though. They also report Jon Whiting at the Chartered Insutite of Tax (and Office for Tax Simplification) saying:
Some of the increase in value in farmland and forestry [in the past few years] has been driven by people looking to take advantage of the inheritance position. I think [forestry] is coming back on the radar scheme. It has got a tax sweetener – you're not going to go into it purely for tax reasons, but the fact is that is has got a tax sweetener
And if that's true a major reason for sale is undermined - the message I always intended to convey, and which despite the misquote is the one that I think is delivered.