I looked at Labour's manifesto with regard to tax. Now the Tories have offered their view.
Much has already been published. This is a substantial chunk of policy in which I might be interested:
We will continue to lead the world on tax and transparency Tackling tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance and tax planning is an important part of our long-term economic plan. We will increase the annual tax charges paid by those with non-domiciled status, ensuring that they make a fair contribution to reducing the deficit, and continue to tackle abuses of this status. We will lead international efforts to ensure global companies pay their fair share in tax, as David Cameron did at the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland in 2013, which secured significant international progress on fairer tax rules and full transparency over who really owns companies. We will push for all countries to sign up to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; review the implementation of the new international country-by-country tax reporting rules and consider the case for making this information publicly available on a multilateral basis. We will ensure developing countries have full access to global automatic tax information exchange systems and continue to build the capacity of tax authorities in developing countries. We are also making it a crime if companies fail to put in place measures to stop economic crime, such as tax evasion, in their organisations and making sure that the penalties are large enough to punish and deter.
So, non-doms stay.
The talk of 2013 is meaningless history.
There is no mention of any measures against UK tax havens on their failure to deliver beneficial ownership data which leaves promises made on this in 2013 ringing hollow.
The EITI is beyond our control.
And country-by-country reporting is not going to be on public record on this basis because what this says is that if the US does not do it nor will we.
Global automatic information exchange is now an OECD issue.
So of all this only the last is significant - and there is no clue what it means.
On business tax they say:
In the next Parliament, we want to maintain the most competitive business tax regime in the G20, and oppose Labour's plans to increase Corporation Tax. We will conduct a major review into business rates by the end of 2015 to ensure that from 2017 they properly reflect the structure of our modern economy and provide clearer billing, better information sharing and a more efficient appeal system.
The business rates review seems to be offering billing reform. Big deal. The corporation tax comment probably says no change for five years.
What else is there? This:
Our commitment to you:
Our goal is a country that not only rewards those who work hard and do the right thing, but gives everyone — no matter their background — the chance to fulfil their potential. Achieving this means seeing through our major reforms of tax and welfare. We will:
cut income tax for 30 million people, taking everyone who earns less than £12,500 out of Income Tax altogether
pass a new law so that nobody working 30 hours on the Minimum Wage pays Income Tax on what they earn
back aspiration by raising the 40p tax threshold — so that no one earning less than £50,000 pays it cap overall
The news in this is the £12,500 threshold - bit as all studies show this is a very poor way indeed of helping those on low income who would be much better off with increased benefits, but it does benefit those higher up the income scale much more.
Anything else? The £1 million inheritance tax limit, of course. And already announced changes to pensions. And apparently the Scots won't vote on English income tax even if it affects them.
And that's it. A repackaged series of promises in the main, a disaster on pensions, a bias to the rich on inheritance, disingenuity on tax reform, a claim to be helping the lowest paid which is untrue and measures to penalise the Scots.
It's a winner for some no doubt. But it's hard to see why.
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:
“do the right thing” they keep peddling this pathetic phrase.
We know what it means:
1) put up with low pay-don’t complain
2) Have the little you earn syphoned into the pockets of landlords/mortgage payments
3) Don’t moan about living in a society where everything is becoming financialised.
4) Don’t see through the patronising crap that we come out with
5) Campaign for the reinstatement of Clarkson.
Looks like business as usual Richard – capital my dear fellow, capital!
The Tories will always be a rotten nasty party, I found myself warming to them in 2010, really thought they could not be the same party as they were in the 80’s and 90’s, David Cameron appeared to be as compassionate as a Tory could possibly be but all he has turned out to be is a wolf in sheep’s clothing
So who does the pledge that nobody working (up to?) 30 hours at NMW will pay income tax benefit? If this was your only job you would already be taken out of tax by a personal allowance of £12500. (or less, 30 hours x £6.70 x 52 weeks =£10452)
Does it mean you could have a £40,000 pension and then work tax-free in a part time job?
If I had £50,000pa from investment income or from my self-employment? If my brother also owns a business could I work for 30 hours at NMW tax-free for his business? Perhaps I could return the compliment and offer him 30 hours at NMW tax-free in my business as well?
This from Alok Sharma MP for Reading West “A Conservative government would also introduce a tax free minimum wage law so that the personal allowance automatically rises in line with the National Minimum Wage rather than inflation, meaning the personal allowance will increase more quickly.”
These are weaselly words and I think this pledge (intended or unintended?)can only be a brake on NMW, not a boost?
Suppose the Tories are hit by a world recession, or obsess too much about not getting the deficit down and decide they have to freeze the personal allowance one year. This pledge would mean they would have to freeze NMW as well!
Suppose the LPC does its economic analysis and proposes a very big rise in NMW? This pledge might then mandate a huge and unaffordable increase in the personal allowance and thus scupper the NMW rise.
The pledge does not promise an increase in NMW: it limits NMW increases to what the Government can afford as PA increases.
A real progressive proposal would be to legislate that NMW must always rise by at least price inflation every year, as I believe has been the case for a long time in France.