George Monbiot has an article on think tank funding in the Guardian today. He rightly says that think tanks should disclose who is funding them. I agree.
I seek to disclose my funding sources on this blog. But for the sake of clarity I expect my main sources of funding this year to be, in the order of their significance:
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust - a Quaker foundation - for core funding on work related to tax and poverty.
The Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development - in turn funded by the Norwegian government in the main - for work on country-by-country reporting.
The Socialist group of MEPs in the EU parliament for services supplied relating to the tax gap.
The TUC for services supplied on a range of issues.
The Tax Justice Network for services supplied, mainly for editorial issues.
Other bits and pieces such as BBC appearance fees, odd articles and reimbursement of expenses.
I also have a small income as a practicing accountant.
I wonder when the Taxpayers' Alliance will be as transparent?
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!
I agree. Following Republic’s recent spat with Prince Charles and his spat with property developers I tried to find out who funds the pressure group. Nothing doing.
Richard, aside from the ones mentioned by George Monbiot, are there any in particular you think we should put our blow torch to?
Taxpayers’Alliance
Adam Smith Institute
IEA
Other such right wing economic agencies
Why should anyone really care who funds the think tanks? It’s all nice and very PC to show who funds you, but I think we could really guess that on the whole it’s left leaning organisations, and I think we can probably guess that the TUC doesn’t provide funding for the Adam Smith Institute.
We care because many right leaning think tanks deny they are any such thing and claim they are politically neutral when that is a straightforward lie
You get income from a variety of sources for your personal services. You are a member of a couple of LLPs and director of a couple of companies.
It is almost inevitable under the current tax system that the total income from your personal services will result in less national insurance being paid than an equivalent full time PAYE employee (espcially employer NIC).
Is that fair?
Or do you think that all income from personal services should be taxed in exactly the same way?
But I’m not an employee
And do not get employee benefits from NIC
And that is the quid pro quo
So yes; I do think that fair. I’ve never argued otherwise. That’s the basis of the contributory system, which I also think fair.
But remember, I do pay thousands in NIC a year despite that.
And I have no income through a company and have not for quite a number of years, just to set the record straight. Nor have I ever disguised an employment. That’s what personal service companies usually do. And that’s what I and others object to.
So let’s also stick to the point of the abuse, shall we?
Does anyone actually care what think tanks do or say? Isn’t it amazing that I’ve never seen a report from the TUC calling for lower taxes and lower spending; and I’ve never seen a report from the CBI calling for higher taxes and higher spending.
When I see a report from the Joseph Rowntree or the Adam Smith Institute I can pretty much guess what they are going to say on a particular issue.
But does anyone actually listen? Why is it such a big deal? As far as I can tell there are the usual 3 or 4 suspects on the left and the usual 3 or 4 suspects on the right who all seem to crop up with relative frequency. The idea that they have no political axe to grind would be laughable, so no one on the street gives a damn who gives them money.
Respectfully, that’s just nonsense.
Only the right and people with things to hide say that.
Usually they’re the same people.
You are self-employed providing personal services. You are not an employee and you do not get employee benefits from NIC. However, I suspect the significant saving you enjoy from lower schedule 2 and 4 NIC compared with the class 1 NIC paid by an employee with similar income and their employer more than outweigh the loss of minimal benefits (even compared to an employee contracted out of the S2P). Over 20% of NIC goes directly to the NHS and I think about 50% goes towards current basic state pension payments. Both of which you benefit or will benefit from even though you are self-employed.
You could operate as a limited company and pay full PAYE on your personal service income, but you quite sensibly choose not to do that.
I would personally like to see class 1 NIC reduced and income tax increased, but those that don’t pay class 1 NIC might not agree.
If your argument that PSCs are used to disguise employment is true, then I presume one of the main benefits is taking dividends instead of salary and one of the main downsides is loss of employee benefits. “Quid pro quo”?
Respectfully, it’s the first time someone has accused me of not maximising my tax as if that should be my goal.
Note I have always said that tax compliance is seeking to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions undertaken coincides with the place and form in which they are reported for taxation purposes. That’s what, I suggest, I do.
And your assumptions are straightforwardly wrong: NIC does not pay for for the NHS, at all (although Gordon Brown suggested it did, incorrectly).
And you’re also wrong: PSCs allow payment of minimal salaries to keep benefits.
20.6 billion of the 98 billion NIC goes to the NHS
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04517.pdf
And the total cost of beenfits paid on a contributory basis exceed NI contributions so that is token accounting
The National Insurance Fund has had a surplus since the mid 1990’s (which was the last time “the total cost of benefits paid on a contributory basis exceeded NI contributions” and some money was needed from general taxation). In most years since then the amount collected has exceeded the amount paid out. The surplus has risen to £48 billion. It has been falling a bit in recent years due to the recession and in 2009/10 it fell by £4.6 billion.
What I was probably failing to explain very well, is that NIC from employment is much higher than self-employment even allowing for the fewer benefits the self-employed are entitled to. For example, a self-employed/LLP accountant earning £60,000 would pay £3653.00 class 2 and class 4 NIC, but an employed accountant earning £60,000 would result in £11,885.10 class 1 NIC.
Indeed, that is the law.
And I have argued for changes in the law.
As yet no one has introduced them.
But I am not sure why that means I must now seek an employment status I do not have.