So George Osborne's done another U turn - on charity tax this time. Inevitably, by U turning he's called it wrong, but that's not my point this morning. That though is not my point this morning. The detail of this U turn, and that on pasties and caravans is not in the detail of what he got right or wrong, it's rather that in his opinion he got it wrong.
If this is a man who has lost command of the details of his policy agenda; who has failed to grasp the significance of the small stuff, and who is expending considerable political capital on such things as a result, what confidence can anyone have that he ever really grasped the big stuff?
It could be said (probably fairly) that my question is politically motivated, but when it is clear that a man has such a low ability to predict the consequences of his actions but acts anyway, why should we follow his leadership on such big issues as tackling an economy in recession?
Is it reasonable to think a man who can't see that cutting tax relief for charities might alienate both those who tax avoid by using such arrangements and those charities innocently caught in the cross fire should also decide it's worth creating record unemployment, of the young and women in particular, but also across society general, simply on the basis of his judgement that this will lead to private sector economic growth?
Or is it wiser to think that he simply can't predict the consequences of his actions?
Many will now think the latter.
And in that case millions in this country will now realise that they are now paying the price for his inability.
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:
“cutting tax relief for charities might alienate both those who tax avoid”
Charitable giving is not tax avoidance. Why do you lie? It does not become you.
It can be
And it has been
But not always
I’m not lying
I’m stating facts
Charitable giving is not tax avoidance it is argued. I am prepared to concede that for the purpose of the argument:let us say it is hypothecation. Since hypothecation is not allowed for the majority there is no reason whatsoever to allow it for the few.
But it is also used on occasion for avoidance for private foundations
Indeed. I do not actually agree there is no avoidance element: but, to me, even if that is granted the situation is still unacceptable. I think it is a mistake to concede that if those who support this view carry their point there is no problem. They are framing the terms of the debate in a way that distracts from the fact that no matter how it is sliced it exempts those who use this mechanism from their obligations to society and to democracy
Premature celebrations as the war is not over and here is why …
Fact Higher rate taxpayers are entitled to use the charity tax relief mechanism that is limitless and not subject to periodic review, analysis and challenge. This is an unheard of discretion in terms of accountability.
Point Where is the anyone’s evidence for continuing this entitlement as is?
Fact This charity tax relief mechanism indirectly gives unelected private individuals absolute discretion as how to spend tax funds on the registered charitable objectives including buildings and fishes.
Point Where is the government’s justification for this policy of absolute discretion noting that no form of reporting exists for transparency purposes?
Fact The government is not a charitable funder but a funder who would include charitable objective in it’s planning and budgeting as a matter of course.
Point In times of austerity, does the government have no charitable priorities for the indirect use of tax funds re higher rate taxpayers charitable relief? And does the public have no say in this matter but only the organised charitable sector?
There may yet be black swans out there as evidence for changing the conditions of limitless cap use.