Trip to an Ice Cube
I went to the Ice Bar just off Regent Street with Emma the other day, how I wish I was there today. It is absolutely great (sorry about pun it’s sponsored by Absolute Vodka) the coats and gloves you have to put on remind of some 1950 futuristic film. I would recommend it to anyone going to London but would imagine on a day like today it might be a bit busy.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Barroso’s hypocrisy
On the Freedom Association web site there is an article about how Barroso has told Gordo how he has to be a good European and toe the Brussels line, if he becomes Prime Minister.
As we all know Mr Barroso was democratically elected ? and he speaks for all of Europe.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (a former Labour Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) sums my view of this man up quite well, “This is the same unelected, tinpot dictator who interfered in the General Election by telling the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition that he would not be able to carry out his policy on immigration because Brussels wouldn’t like it. The arrogance is breathtaking."
Barroso also recently mentioned how Russia should become more democratic, it is up to the people of Russia not up to the un elected Barroso to tell countries how to elect leaders and what they do.
On the Freedom Association web site there is an article about how Barroso has told Gordo how he has to be a good European and toe the Brussels line, if he becomes Prime Minister.
As we all know Mr Barroso was democratically elected ? and he speaks for all of Europe.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (a former Labour Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) sums my view of this man up quite well, “This is the same unelected, tinpot dictator who interfered in the General Election by telling the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition that he would not be able to carry out his policy on immigration because Brussels wouldn’t like it. The arrogance is breathtaking."
Barroso also recently mentioned how Russia should become more democratic, it is up to the people of Russia not up to the un elected Barroso to tell countries how to elect leaders and what they do.
Whole Lotta Tax Fraud
With the alarming increase in VAT fraud, it's time to think about our total losses to fraud and evasion.HM Revenue and Customs don't publish any estimate of the total loss. They claim that's because it involves the Black Economy and they don't know what they don't know etc. More likely they figure if we found out its true extent we might get the idea that paying taxes is a mug's game.Still, under pressure from the National Audit office, they have started to publish estimates of some losses:
VAT- they reckon their overall loss is running at 13.5% of the theoretical liability, which on current projections implies about £12bn this financial year
Tobacco duty- annual loss recently put at £2.9bn from commercial smuggling and "personal" imports
Other duties - 4% estimated loss on oil duty, equals £800m, plus 7% estimated loss on spirits, equals £200m, say £1bn pa overall
Tax credits- technically "tax expenditure" rather than tax per se, but administered by HMRC and reckoned to be losing up to 10.6% to fraud, equals £1.3bn
That lot alone totals £17.2bn pa. And it takes no account of the recent ballooning in missing trader VAT fraud- add another £3-8bn, equals £20-25bn pa.
But of course those losses cover just a handful of the hundreds of different taxes collected by HMRC: in terms of revenue, we've covered taxes raising just £120bn of the total £424bn they expect to collect this year, less than 30%.
Income Tax, Corporation Tax, National Insurance, CGT, Landfill Tax...you name it, it's been hit by fraudsters and large scale evasion. It's clearly difficult to get a handle on this, but we know the Black Economy is big and getting bigger. Changes in our economic structure- such the increasing importance of contracting rather than big company employment, illegal immigration, and the growth of ebay etc- are making it much harder for the tax authorities to keep up.In the US, the Black Economy is estimated to comprise around a tenth of the total, and in our EU partners known as the PIGS (work it out) it's thought to be around a quarter. Here in the UK, a recent estimate published in the Economic Journal put it at 10.6% of GDP, reckoning that among the self-employed:
Households whose heads are in blue-collar occupations on average report only 46% of their income
Households whose heads are in white-collar occupations on average report only 61% of their income
Which is a pretty stark commentary on our attitude to taxation.
So if 10.6% of the UK economy is underground, we might crudely say 10.6% of taxes are missing: about £50bn pa. Which is one sighting shot.
But there's also the whole business of offshore evasion: we already referred to estimates from Tax Research UK, which suggest the UK might be losing £5-10bn from offshore evasion just by private individuals, let alone companies. So we probably need to increase our £50bn estimate.
An alternative approach is to scale up the estimated losses on VAT etc we do know about. That suggests a total of £65-85bn pa, 5-7% of GDP.
Sounds too high? Well, it's broadly in line with US estimates, which suggest losses of $600bn on a GDP of about £12 trn, 5% of GDP.
So albeit with a broad brush, our guess is that Britain's losses to tax fraud and evasion are currently running in the range £60-80bn pa.
For that kind of money we could abolish Stamp Duty, CGT, and IHT outright, and still have enough left over to cut the standard rate of income tax to 8p.
With the alarming increase in VAT fraud, it's time to think about our total losses to fraud and evasion.HM Revenue and Customs don't publish any estimate of the total loss. They claim that's because it involves the Black Economy and they don't know what they don't know etc. More likely they figure if we found out its true extent we might get the idea that paying taxes is a mug's game.Still, under pressure from the National Audit office, they have started to publish estimates of some losses:
VAT- they reckon their overall loss is running at 13.5% of the theoretical liability, which on current projections implies about £12bn this financial year
Tobacco duty- annual loss recently put at £2.9bn from commercial smuggling and "personal" imports
Other duties - 4% estimated loss on oil duty, equals £800m, plus 7% estimated loss on spirits, equals £200m, say £1bn pa overall
Tax credits- technically "tax expenditure" rather than tax per se, but administered by HMRC and reckoned to be losing up to 10.6% to fraud, equals £1.3bn
That lot alone totals £17.2bn pa. And it takes no account of the recent ballooning in missing trader VAT fraud- add another £3-8bn, equals £20-25bn pa.
But of course those losses cover just a handful of the hundreds of different taxes collected by HMRC: in terms of revenue, we've covered taxes raising just £120bn of the total £424bn they expect to collect this year, less than 30%.
Income Tax, Corporation Tax, National Insurance, CGT, Landfill Tax...you name it, it's been hit by fraudsters and large scale evasion. It's clearly difficult to get a handle on this, but we know the Black Economy is big and getting bigger. Changes in our economic structure- such the increasing importance of contracting rather than big company employment, illegal immigration, and the growth of ebay etc- are making it much harder for the tax authorities to keep up.In the US, the Black Economy is estimated to comprise around a tenth of the total, and in our EU partners known as the PIGS (work it out) it's thought to be around a quarter. Here in the UK, a recent estimate published in the Economic Journal put it at 10.6% of GDP, reckoning that among the self-employed:
Households whose heads are in blue-collar occupations on average report only 46% of their income
Households whose heads are in white-collar occupations on average report only 61% of their income
Which is a pretty stark commentary on our attitude to taxation.
So if 10.6% of the UK economy is underground, we might crudely say 10.6% of taxes are missing: about £50bn pa. Which is one sighting shot.
But there's also the whole business of offshore evasion: we already referred to estimates from Tax Research UK, which suggest the UK might be losing £5-10bn from offshore evasion just by private individuals, let alone companies. So we probably need to increase our £50bn estimate.
An alternative approach is to scale up the estimated losses on VAT etc we do know about. That suggests a total of £65-85bn pa, 5-7% of GDP.
Sounds too high? Well, it's broadly in line with US estimates, which suggest losses of $600bn on a GDP of about £12 trn, 5% of GDP.
So albeit with a broad brush, our guess is that Britain's losses to tax fraud and evasion are currently running in the range £60-80bn pa.
For that kind of money we could abolish Stamp Duty, CGT, and IHT outright, and still have enough left over to cut the standard rate of income tax to 8p.
Full Council tomorrow!
Southampton City Council has its July meeting of Full council. In this meeting a colleague of mine Cllr Adrian Johnson has submitted a motion with me seconding him calling for the resignation of Cllr Milton. This is not a personal attack but one to try and bring a degree of integrity to the school reorganisation.
Cllr Milton is hard working and has spent many hours dealing with the school reorganisation but the shambles that the process is in and the handling of this has meant that her position is untenable and to move the process forward her resignation is needed and a new face with new ideas has to come in.
Southampton City Council has its July meeting of Full council. In this meeting a colleague of mine Cllr Adrian Johnson has submitted a motion with me seconding him calling for the resignation of Cllr Milton. This is not a personal attack but one to try and bring a degree of integrity to the school reorganisation.
Cllr Milton is hard working and has spent many hours dealing with the school reorganisation but the shambles that the process is in and the handling of this has meant that her position is untenable and to move the process forward her resignation is needed and a new face with new ideas has to come in.
A threat to peoples details by Southampton city council.
Under proposals currently being talked about in Southampton Council, citizen’s details that are currently submitted under council tax will be allowed to be used by other departments in the council. The personal details will be available by other departments, can you really trust the council.
I personally think that this is disgusting and personal details should not be passed around the council as it betrays the trust of people.
Under proposals currently being talked about in Southampton Council, citizen’s details that are currently submitted under council tax will be allowed to be used by other departments in the council. The personal details will be available by other departments, can you really trust the council.
I personally think that this is disgusting and personal details should not be passed around the council as it betrays the trust of people.
From Contra Tory
http://www.contratory.co.uk/
In any liberal democracy, an independent, strong legal profession is allowed to defend fearlessly and robustly those who the State charges with criminal offences. No matter how heinous the offence or how unpopular with public opinion the defendants’ cause, as a matter of course their legal representatives are expected to vigorously test the prosecution case and unflinchingly put their clients’ case.
Arani & Co is a firm of solicitors who represents very unpopular clients. By all accounts, they represent them very well, or at least well enough to make the Police and other elements comprising the State to take umbrage. Now we are told that some of our representatives in the House of Commons have demanded that the Law Society investigate this firm, to establish whether they have acted throughout with the necessary degree of compliance with amongst other things, professional ethics. Of course, it is very important that any profession is policed to ensure that it maintains the very highest standards, but my concern is this. Government, particularly this Labour Government, does not like lawyers (save those who represent its interests, almost invariably against Joe Public.)
It would be a simple matter to make an example of one firm which is unpopular with the public, a signal of intent that the HM Government is not going to have any truck with any other law firm that defends causes that it considers unpopular. Defend who we consider to be indefensible and you will be investigated. The message is all too clear.
http://www.contratory.co.uk/
In any liberal democracy, an independent, strong legal profession is allowed to defend fearlessly and robustly those who the State charges with criminal offences. No matter how heinous the offence or how unpopular with public opinion the defendants’ cause, as a matter of course their legal representatives are expected to vigorously test the prosecution case and unflinchingly put their clients’ case.
Arani & Co is a firm of solicitors who represents very unpopular clients. By all accounts, they represent them very well, or at least well enough to make the Police and other elements comprising the State to take umbrage. Now we are told that some of our representatives in the House of Commons have demanded that the Law Society investigate this firm, to establish whether they have acted throughout with the necessary degree of compliance with amongst other things, professional ethics. Of course, it is very important that any profession is policed to ensure that it maintains the very highest standards, but my concern is this. Government, particularly this Labour Government, does not like lawyers (save those who represent its interests, almost invariably against Joe Public.)
It would be a simple matter to make an example of one firm which is unpopular with the public, a signal of intent that the HM Government is not going to have any truck with any other law firm that defends causes that it considers unpopular. Defend who we consider to be indefensible and you will be investigated. The message is all too clear.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Double Standards
Last week there was a debate on the Northern Ireland Education order. At the end of the debate, thirteen Labour MPs plus Lembit Opik and the SDLP voted for the Education Order to prohibit academic selection in Northern Ireland. The Conservatives, DUP and UUP voted against.
Kate Hoey, though not selected by her Party's whips as a Committee member, attended and spoke against the Order. Frank Field, originally named as a Committee member, was replaced at short notice after telling his whips that he would not support the Government.Of the 13 Labour Members, 10 had voted on 24 May (Hansard volume 446, number 157, cols. 1575-1579) against a Labour backbench amendment to the Education and Inspections Bill to end all academic selection in English schools. Hypocrisy rules, eh?The 10 guilty of double standards were: Mike Foster (Worcester) Bruce George (Walsall South) Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) David Hanson (Delyn) Jane Kennedy (Liverpool Wavertree Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mark Todd (South Derbyshire) Linda Waltho (Stourbridge) and Alan Whitehead (Southampton Test). Two MPs, (Ronnie Campbell and Helen Southworth) had not voted on 24 May. One, David Drew, was consistent and voted against selection on both occasions.Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary David Lidington then invited all ten to intervene to explain the justification for their double standards or to admit that on 24 May that had not realised what they were voting for. Do you know what? None of the blighters accepted his invitation. Nothing like a bit of courage under fire, is there?
So Mr whitehead you may wish to explain here!
Last week there was a debate on the Northern Ireland Education order. At the end of the debate, thirteen Labour MPs plus Lembit Opik and the SDLP voted for the Education Order to prohibit academic selection in Northern Ireland. The Conservatives, DUP and UUP voted against.
Kate Hoey, though not selected by her Party's whips as a Committee member, attended and spoke against the Order. Frank Field, originally named as a Committee member, was replaced at short notice after telling his whips that he would not support the Government.Of the 13 Labour Members, 10 had voted on 24 May (Hansard volume 446, number 157, cols. 1575-1579) against a Labour backbench amendment to the Education and Inspections Bill to end all academic selection in English schools. Hypocrisy rules, eh?The 10 guilty of double standards were: Mike Foster (Worcester) Bruce George (Walsall South) Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) David Hanson (Delyn) Jane Kennedy (Liverpool Wavertree Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mark Todd (South Derbyshire) Linda Waltho (Stourbridge) and Alan Whitehead (Southampton Test). Two MPs, (Ronnie Campbell and Helen Southworth) had not voted on 24 May. One, David Drew, was consistent and voted against selection on both occasions.Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary David Lidington then invited all ten to intervene to explain the justification for their double standards or to admit that on 24 May that had not realised what they were voting for. Do you know what? None of the blighters accepted his invitation. Nothing like a bit of courage under fire, is there?
So Mr whitehead you may wish to explain here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
