Gary Barlow has apologised for using what many have considered to be aggressive tax avoidance schemes. According to the Guardian Barlow has said on Twitter:
"I want to apologise to anyone who was offended by the tax stories earlier this year."
And
"With a new team of accountants, we are working to settle things with all parties involved ASAP."
I think the appropriate question is whether that apology is enough. He apparently said no more.
Firstly, let me be clear, I accept apologies. They usually cost the person offering them quite a lot, and I therefore treat them as being significant. We all make mistakes. We all have to say sorry. Barlow has, and in as far as it goes the apology is clear.
But that still leaves me wondering if more could have been said? Like 'never again'? Why didn't he say that he and his companies would not in future use tax havens and tax avoidance mechanisms? Why didn't he even say he has committed to paying all the taxes he owes in the right place, at the right time and at the right rate in the future?
There was a win waiting for him. All he had to do was grab the initiative and set a trend by signing a tax pledge - to do the right thing from now on. Why hasn't he taken it?
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:
“Why didn’t he even say he has committed to paying all the taxes he owes in the right place, at the right time and at the right rate in the future?”
…why didn’t he say that he will pay whatever taxes that you consider he should pay?
Because there is no reason why he should
But if it is your aim to make such crass comments presume that they will be deleted in future without further explanation being offered
Do we need a fair tax mark for individuals?
I guess that’s where I am heading….
Alternatively, you could have an tax version of the ice-bucket challenge…
Mr. M., I’m going to be honest – if I had, through hard work and toil – amassed a fortune of millions, I’d pay every single penny in tax that I had too and not a penny more – and if that means using legal, yes, legal schemes I would.
As I’ve said before – and I doubt this will get through – I’ve no objection to paying taxes for doctors and nurses and kit for the NHS but I just don’t think taxes for the NHS should be spent on PR bods and graphic designers.
You very clearly do not understand government
Sorry, but it has to be said
And as a result you have a very distorted view of tax
“Mr. M., I’m going to be honest — if I had, through hard work and toil — amassed a fortune of millions, I’d pay every single penny in tax that I had too and not a penny more — and if that means using legal, yes, legal schemes I would.”
Millions through hard work and toil? Being a pop star is an example of “hard work and toil” now, is it?
The fact is, millions of pounds is rarely amassed through hard work and toil. It more often comes from moving numbers around on a computer in an investment bank!
Hard work and toil rarely come into it!
Millions are made through rent, in all its forms, not hard work
“I want to apologise to anyone who was offended by the tax stories earlier this year.”
A pseudo-apology at best. Sounds like he’s apologising for causing people offence rather than for abusing the tax system. It doesn’t matter if people are offended, he should be apologising to all those affected by his shenanigans — i.e. every British citizen.
Yes I think a fair tax is now needed. I think 10% tax of all income is a fair rate of tax but I would certainly not want to see it any higher than 20%. If successful countries like Singapore can manage with these kind of rates then surely the UK can also achieve this goal?
So, no NHS
No state eduction
No state pension
No defence
Do you really think that viable?
And you also ignore the significant role of state corporations in Singapore
Oh dear, oh dear, get over yourself Philip. Why don’t we get all benefits cheats to publicly apologise too; maybe one of the TV channels can give up a 1 hour slot every evening for people to give heart-felt apologies, tears and all (without any onions to help the tears along, lest you damn them for being insincere). The man did not need to apologise, but unfortunatly felt he had to because of people like you who are constantly looking for something to whine and get angry about. He tried to avoid tax, it didn’t work, he has to pay it all back, end of story. Vote for Labour, get them in, and make sure that they introduce a tax law saying “everyone will pay the right amount of tax” and then you can be happier.
You use a false name and can’t even get mine right
As comments go that reaches the ultimate in crassness
did we ever hear any apologies from the big banks who played with sub prime mortgages and passed them on as safe? Or politicians who constantly called for less regulation of the financial sector. I could have missed it, of course.
George Henry your comments suggest that you would be quite happy with a two tier system with the rich and powerful not held to account, while the poor are pilloried and subject to the full force of the law.
If that is so what happened to your sense of fair play?
Barlow is a tax cheat and like so many of his ilk is greedy freerider grasping the maximum possible benefits of a decent stable society while contributing the least amount possible to it.
The pseudo-name leads me to think that Mr Henry is a supporter of the Single Tax – the cure for all ills.
“George Henry your comments suggest that you would be quite happy with a two tier system with the rich and powerful not held to account, while the poor are pilloried and subject to the full force of the law.”
Which is what we mostly already have isn’t it? When we had the riots following the shooting of Mark Duggan, the full weight of the British justice system was used to catch, try and punish the rioters; I remember reading how there were all night sittings of Magistrate courts to process all those arrested, so great was the desire to punish the rioters.
Have we seen a wave of trials of the criminals in the finance sector? Have any senior members of banks where criminal activities have been discovered been tried?
we all know the answer to that.
So, no NHS
No state eduction
No state pension
No defence
Do you really think that viable?
————————————
Yes I think that it is completely viable to have a tax rate below 20%. If successful economies like Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai can manage it, then so can the UK.
Free education for all, and free health care for all, and free pensions for all is completely unsustainable, and most people with any common sense understand this. As long as a nanny state is handing out free money to people for their education,health,housing,pensions, then the people will always demand more and more. People will need to provide all of these things in the future through their own income,insurance,savings and planning. As regards the spending on defense, the sooner the UK is rid of its nuclear weapons and getting involved in illegal wars, the better.
You really do not like people do you?
You also fail to recognise the impact of oil on Dubai and the peculiar situations of Hong Kong and Singapore as city states with very different cultures indeed, to be polite
Put you proposals to the people of this country and see how far you get
But I suspect you do not believe in democracy from the comments you have made so might decline to do that
The usual low tax, small state, little or no regulation argument of the libertarian right. In fact, your post sounds very much like the kind of economic policies followed by a Ukipper.
None of the three countires you mention is anything like the UK. All have much smaller populations; Dubai has large oil reserves, and relies a great deal on cheap immigrant labour (which is, from what I hear, subject to enormous exploitation) in much of its economy. Both HK and Singapore are trading hubs situated close to very large population concentrations.
We don’t have free education, health etc for all, they are just free at the point of delivery and funded through taxation, both for reasons of social justice and efficiency, since the private sector can’t , or won’t provide decent healthcare, housing, pensions and education for a whole population, only for the better off. Your assertion that the ‘nanny state’ is handing out free money is ignorant, bigoted rubbish.
However, thanks to 30 years or more of right wing politics, we now have the one of the worst state pensions in the developed world, a diminishing stock of social housing, an education system where pupils are ‘tested to death’ and a healthcare system that is now being, without any mandate from the electorate, handed over to the private sector.
Unfortunately for you, the tax rate is unlikely to go down as the replacement of state provision with private, taxpayer funded corporations for fundamental services is actually a lot less efficient.
There is no free education, healthcare or pension.
It is paid for, by people paying taxes.
When, or if, we revert to a pay-at-point-of-service for the above, I trust people will not be as crass as to complain about the poverty resulting. Food or medicine. I forgot to mention minor things, like the corrupt and rapacious financial (pension/bank/insurance) industry.
Or maybe it is not apparent that private health is not the nirvana that people imagine, or that the pension industry puts its own wage ahead of investing peoples money for best return ( or that banks make-up the money they lend )
Spot on John; but I suspect the truth is that Peter and his ilk don’t really care if most of our public services disappear. In fact, they think there should be no Social Security at all as it only encourages ‘idleness and irresponsibility’. I wonder if they have as strong an objection to the fecklessness and irresponsibility, not to say corruption, of the financial sector?
Still, he does at least have a point about getting rid of nuclear weapons. That’s an area of public expenditure I’d happily see cut. The trouble is, we’ve cut our conventional forces due to the austerity obsession of this government to the point that their capabilities are seriously in doubt.
You really do not like people do you? You also fail to recognise the impact of oil on Dubai and the peculiar situations of Hong Kong and Singapore as city states with very different cultures indeed, to be polite Put you proposals to the people of this country and see how far you get.
———————————————————————–
Yes I do like people very much, and it is because of that fact that I would like to see every person achieve their own fullest possible potential. As long as the state insists on providing everything to its people, then it will inevitably result in many millions of its people losing some, or even all, of their own personal drive, and their own personal ambition. I completely understand that there are some extremely vulnerable and disabled people in society who have to be fully protected and cared for by society. I do not believe though that any able bodied young men and women come into this category. I believe that all able bodied young people, and middle aged people, should take responsibility for their own lives, and if they have children, then they should take responsibility for them also. When people are allowed to take proper responsibility for their own lives, without the unwelcome interference and over-taxation of the state, then they will be happy to work more, save for their first home, pay insurance for their health, and save for their pensions. A tax rate of less than 20% for all income will then be achievable. When people are finally allowed to keep at least 80% of their own income, then the UK will be one of the most dynamic and successful econommies in the world, just like Singapore and Hong Kong.
So, no health care
No education
No support
But that will let people flourish
I am posting your comment to show how absurd you logic is – as many others have already pointed out and you have ignored
What you ignore is the simple truth, which is that you are clearly driven by greed and contempt for the well being of others
You have made your last post here
Peter
I shall always treasure that reply.
When I despair, as I often do, when I want to just give up trying, as I often do, when I want to sit in a corner & drink, as I almost invariably do… I shall be energised by your “thoughts”, insofar as those words deserve the term.
When I might, otherwise, just stroll down the pub, I shall keep trying knowing that there are people like you who think that our society would be better if we were more like Singapore.
That children’s futures should be determined by the wealth of their parents
That poor people should be allowed to die
That their children should be allowed to die
That the wealthy’s enjoyment of the public space should not be in any way spoilt by a requirement that they contribute towards it
That no-one should expect anymore of banking than that it moves funds in the interests of those that are interested
That the police concentrate only on the poor & ask no questions of the rich
That our meagre public funds be best spent on tear gas
That the best answer to poor ghettoes is barbed wire
That what matters is GDP stolen from other countries
That the gospels of Jesus were ridiculous socialist nonsense
This is interesting David
You have posted a comment praising Peter from the same IP address that Peter uses.
That is not coincidence: this almost certainly confirms that you and Peter are the same person
‘Peter’ did not get the better of me
He’s just a libertarian troll using a false name, as no doubt the one you are using now is as well
¨And yet, when the financial system went into meltdown in 2008, it was not expected to stand on its own two feet, or to pull itself up by its bootstraps. Instead, it was saved by the state, becoming Britain’s most lavished benefit claimant. More than £1tn of public money was poured into the banks following the financial collapse¨
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/29/socialism-for-the-rich
Hardly the only one either. Let´s not forget the PFI benefit to the various companies/corporations.
Perhaps a unified tax rate would work. Perhaps the banks will practice honesty. Perhaps pension companies/investment companies will only take a reasonable fee for their dubious products. Perhaps pigs will fly?
Chances are he knew nothing about tax, and left it all to his financial advisers, who recommended a way to save money, which a lot of other showbiz people were using. It’s not Mr Barlow who should be censured, but the people who advised him.
I think this is patronising to Barlow
He could have asked questions
Richard
I think John Evans is right. Most people know nothing about finance &, more importantly, want to know nothing about finance because it is an unbelievably dull subject.
I’m sure Gary was made aware of what he was getting into & replied “yeah, yeah whatever”.
The key question is “why would you pay more tax than you have to?”
The answer from J K Rowling was clear – because I believe in making a contribution to the welfare state. But she’s a highly educated & academically intelligent person. Gary Barlow isn’t, in the same way that Wesley Snipes wasn’t. They don’t make the link between their taxes & hospitals or schools. Insofar as they think at all they’re going to be more influenced by the Daily Mail “Government wastes all its’ money on benefit scroungers, illegal immigrants & Whitehall fat cats”!
So persuading people to pay up voluntarily is an uphill battle.
The evidence is it is working
I am beginning to believe tax avoidance is going down
Evasion isn’t