The opinion that taxation is theft is now officially and even legally considered to be an extreme view. I can say this based on the new Guidance Notes to the General Anti-Abuse Rule, issued today.
When discussing what are reasonable views in Part C of the Guidance Notes it is said that:
[S]ome individuals may hold extreme views. These views may, for example, be based on the proposition that all taxation is state-sponsored theft, or that the Government cannot be trusted to spend citizens' money sensibly. Such views, even if held by individuals who would otherwise be regarded as reasonable, cannot be regarded as reasonable for the purposes of the GAAR. This is because the GAAR is based on the premise that taxation is the principal means by which the necessary functions of the state are funded.
I think that's settled that one then, once and for all.
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:
Um. Property is theft?
Well, maybe — but as I understand it these are explanatory notes to a draft statutory instrument/bill — not exactly the law of the land
And the fact that something is “official” doesn’t mean it’s “settled”, surely?
(I agree with what you’re trying to do, but just saying!)
When was the last time a Finance Bill was successfully amended unless flawed?
I don’t think you’;ll see this amended at all
As for “settled” – read the latest blog for why that is the case – and why these notes will have the power of law
‘Funding a necessary function of the state’ presumably includes using tax revenues to bail out failing casino banks while their bosses get off free. Don’t you even regard that as theft?
I thought the tax I paid all my life, and still pay as a pensioner, was for social security, schools, police, the NHS and roads etc., stuff that benefits me, my family and my community, not to also fund government underwritten Ponzi schemes run by the banks. This GAAR ‘premise’ suggests that the courts are now required to disregard what an individual might consider ‘reasonable’ about withholding tax, such as objecting to its use to subsidise bank shareholder bail-outs and bonuses, and rule that whatever the government does by way of taxation to fund such depredations is simply ‘necessary’, and presumably itself ‘reasonable’. Why was it they threw all that tea into Boston harbour again? Oh yeah, Representation. I’ll look for the radical and democratic tax and banking reforms in the next lot of manifestos.
I’m not defending tax abuse or avoidance. I’ve always paid what was due under PAYE or Self-Assessment in full and on time. But I call it a democratic right to hold my government and its advisers to account, not just for the laws and rules they enact and use to raise revenue, but also for what they DO with that revenue on my behalf. The same people control both. I do not dissociate the two. Call that extreme if you like.
That’s called democracy
Go out and take part
“to subsidise bank shareholder bail-outs”
Given that B&B and Northern Rock shareholders lost everything, RBS shareholders around 95% and Lloyds shareholders around 85%, it certainly didn’t bail out the bank shareholders. In the circumstances, it was the correct thing to do (though of course it should never have got to that point) and Alistair Darling got a good deal for the government, especially in terms of the fees paid by the banks for the insurance and funding that the government advanced.
And it wasn’t just the casino banks, given about 7 building societies needed rescuing too and even the Co-op bank needed a capital injection from its parent.
You’ll notice that most of those banks were brought under majority government control.
And Northern Rock was sold to Mr Branson for £400,000,000 less than what the government paid for it. Hardly the greatest deal.
Stevo!!: Majority government *ownership*. The government has failed to exercise *control*.