From the Guardian, this morning:
As organisations and individuals committed to transparency and standing up for the rights of the world's poorest people, we urge the UK government to accept an amendment to the sanctions and anti-money laundering bill on Tuesday that would lift the veil of secrecy in Britain's overseas territories.
Requiring them to publish public registers of company ownership by the end of 2020 would help tackle corruption and tax avoidance, and thereby help transform the lives of people in poverty (IMF to target City as part of crackdown on dirty money, 23 April).
Tax havens are estimated to cost developing countries $170bn in revenue every year. Greater transparency would help these countries claim their fair share of revenue, money they can then use to pay for public services. It is the poorest women and girls who most often miss out on medical care or the chance to go to school.
Five years ago, hundreds of thousands of people around the UK joined more than 100 charities to call for tax transparency from the UK and its overseas territories, a call accepted by the then prime minister. Tackling tax avoidance is a cause that has been championed by successive governments — including this one — and backed by MPs from all parties.
Yet while the UK has pressed ahead with transparency measures, the UK's tax havens have held out. It's time for ministers to finish the job.
Girish Menon CEO, ActionAid UK
Vladimir Ashurkov Executive director, Anti-Corruption Foundation (Russia)
Prof Prem Sikka Director, Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs
Graham Gordon Head of public policy, Cafod
Faiza Shaheen Director, Centre for Labour & Social Studies
Christine Allen Director of policy and public affairs, Christian Aid
Reverend David Haslam Chair, Church Action for Tax Justice
Roman Borisovich Secretary, ClampK
Andrew Feinstein Executive director, Corruption Watch UK
Dr Wanda Wyporska Executive director, Equality Trust
Paul Monaghan Chief executive, Fair Tax Mark
Shauna Leven Director of corruption campaigns, Global Witness
Jolyon Maugham QC
Romilly Greenhill UK director, One Campaign
Chris Taggart CEO, OpenCorporates
Zosia Sztykowski Project lead, OpenOwnership
Matthew Spencer Director of campaigns, Oxfam
James Royston Regional Coordinator, Publish What You Pay-International Secretariat
Peter Holbrook CEO, Social Enterprise UK
Alex Cobham Chief executive, Tax Justice Network
Robert Palmer Executive director, Tax Justice UK
Prof Richard Murphy Director, Tax Research UK
Duncan Hames Director of policy, Transparency International UK
Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson Director, UK Women's Budget Group
Liz McKean Director of campaigns and policy, War on Want
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:
I fear that it will make little difference to the poorest countries as the vast majority of the revenue is going missing from middle income countries, and much of the rest from higher income ones like ours. But clearing this issue out of the way will allow focus to switch to the anonymously funded think tanks who dominate public discourse. These think tanks constantly want to debate on their ideas and evidence and ignore the ‘Who funds you’ question’ often taking the micky out of people that ask it, and they get away with pushing the narrative that the current government is a spectrum from inept social democrats to nanny state socialists.
Keep moving the transparency debate onwards Richard.
I post this, but note the name and doubt your integrity as a result
MMT does not say that taxes cannot be used to offset spending – if that is a desired outcome. Indeed most taxes will have that effect anyway but that is still not their (only) purpose. But that is a completely separate issue to compliance in tax collection. Collecting fair taxes is entirely compatible with MMT.
It is true to say that a hostile government can choose to damage our public services (as this one does) irrespective of the taxes it raise. But to suggest as you seem to that therefore MMT legitimises tax evasion or that the consequences of that tax evasion does not damage public services is simply sophistry. MMT does not say that taxes are irrelevant to spending or vice versa merely that the government has the freedom to choose how it uses both.
If tax abuse is not tackled in any system – even when MMT is fully understood – the wrong people will be paying tax and social injustice will follow
very disappointed to see that the letter attacks MMT. You should know better than to write that tax pays for public services.
With respect, pedantic purity will get us nowhere
I live in the real world where compromises are necessary
Jane has a good point which requires a reply.
The core if not entire argument in this letter is that the tax is needed for public services, which you have said elsewhere is not necessary.
You appear to have signed a letter based on a core argument which you don’t believe is correct.
Is there an explanation? I am not sure ‘compromise’ is a plausible explanation.
The letter is about tax haven secrecy – and you know it
And let’s also be clear, when many developing countries borrow in dollars tax paid does pay for government services, as it does in all euro countries
The reality is that you are wasting my time and don’t know what you are talking about
It’s an unattractive combination
What is your understanding of the argument in this letter against tax havens?
The only argument I can see in this letter is: deprivation of tax revenue needed for public services in poor countries. That’s pretty much it.
Are we even reading the same letter?
And as I have explained, in many developing countries that will be true
And I strongly suspect you are another troll who does not actually understand the replies I have already given
Unlucky Richard.
https://www.gov.je/News/2018/Pages/UK-Bill-Constitutional-Position.aspx
Let’s see who wins
I place no bets
But I am hopeful
Crime cannot keep winning
I suspect those attacking this letter under the pretence that it undermines MMT are doing so purposely to undermine the letter, rather than supporting MMT. After all, while MMT explains that taxes are not required to fund government spending on things that can be bought in their domestic currency,this does not apply for any country that must import essential items such as food, as they cannot necessarily buy this in their own currency. And it is exactly this that is why Richard (and other fair tax campaigners) want to see the end of tax haven abuse, to stop the use of tax havens to divert revenue from these poorer counties that could be used to buy these essential items, freeing up domestic currency for social purposes!
You are right, of course