There can surely be no more depressing news, no greater harbinger of doom for the lamentable direction that the UK is travelling in than the leaking of Osborne’s intention to reduce the top rate of tax from 50% to 40% in next week’s budget.
Cited as the reason for this 10% tax cut for the super-rich is a need to show that Britain is open for business, and the cut will come backed by a very useful (not to mention suspiciously timely) study showing that the top rate of tax brings in hundreds of millions rather than billions of pounds.
George Osborne and David Cameron’s focus should be on increasing that hundreds of millions figure, not reducing it down to zero.
And goodness knows where this leaves the Lib Dem hope of bringing many of the lowest paid out of tax altogether. Tax cuts at both ends of the earnings spectrum when we’re skating perilously close to a double dip recession seems foolhardy at best. Incidentally, the SNP position was laid clear on BBC Question Time last night when the supreme Humza Yousaf made clear that one of his primary desires for the budget is to see the 50% rate remain in place.
Alas, it shall be going, and all because George Osborne is wilfully drawing the wrong conclusions around the low level of tax that it supposedly brings in.
To use Goldman Sachs’ favourite word, only a ‘muppet’ pays PAYE these days, only the grunts that do the legwork. Meanwhile the banking superstars rake in the mega-salaries and mega-bonuses. I got paid my first ever bonus this week, a banker’s bonus no less (the shame). I have no qualms about saying that it was ‘only’ £4,700, 10% of salary, but when 1,200 jobs were cut on the same day, it was more than enough to make me feel decidedly queasy.
Some people might be surprised and/or startled by the inclusion of salary information in the above paragraph, but that for me is part of the same problem with this tax cut and the widespread tax avoidance that goes on. Back in the days when I was contracting for various financial services companies, the recruitment agents would ask with lascivious grin whether I wanted to be paid PAYE along standard tax rate lines or through an umbrella company, avoiding National Insurance contributions and paying a much lower level of tax than I would do under PAYE. I always went for PAYE. Every other person I’ve spoken to in a similar position went with the other option, and many of them have gross annual pay that is a heck of a lot more than I enjoy. That’s where a tax take that should be billions becomes hundreds of millions right there.
George Osborne could, at a stroke, eliminate this tax avoidance and bring in a fortune to pay down the deficit and reverse the level of cuts that he has made over the past couple of years and intends to make going forwards. The practice of avoiding tax in this manner is so naked that it is an easy target, the lowest of low hanging fruit for any Chancellor faced with the unenviable task of making Britain’s books balance. Indeed, the practice is so endemic that even Moira Stuart, hitherto the embodiment of all that is good and right in the world, and the public face of the Inland Revenue, uses a private firm to reduce her tax payments. If that’s not the final straw then what is?
Let’s face it, ‘we’re all in this together’ is precisely what many of us thought it would be, a handy election slogan pitched at just the right level to get the Tories over the line in May 2010, after which it could quickly be discarded.
The truth is we probably need to go even further than the Tories even dare consider going. Don’t we as society deserve to know that all citizens are paying their fair share of tax, from Rooney to royalty? A simple system that would surely guarantee maximum tax intake each financial year is to put every taxpayer’s gross income and tax contributions online for all to see. This is sacrilege to many fiercely private Brits but it already works in Sweden, Norway and Finland and sunlight is the best disinfectant. Would Ken Livingstone have set up a company to avoid tax in such situations? Would idolised footballers? Would Moira frickin’ Stuart?
With this tax cut, and the conscious decision to not go after the super wealthy, George Osborne is aiding and abetting a new divide in the UK. It’s not North vs South and it’s not Working vs Middle vs Upper, it is those who PAYE vs those who do not PAYE. The former are the mice, honestly turning the wheel of the British economy and the latter see themselves as the men, living a life of luxury largely removed from the rest of us.
The Tories sold us a dream, of fairness, of a big society, of rising standards. We knew it would never happen, but it was nice to pretend that it might do, for a short while.
I only hope that the Lib Dems, the only hope that we have left, will do the decent thing and get out of this partnership before George takes the short story of this parliamentary term to too frightful an ending.
#1 by Martin B on March 16, 2012 - 8:07 am
Forgive me, but as a former contractor, I have a distinct recollection of HMG closing the loophole of being paid through a personal service company:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ir35/
Why and how is this dodge available again?
#2 by ReasonableNat on March 16, 2012 - 12:26 pm
Can’t tell you exactly how it works, but having worked as a contractor around ir35, I latterly ended up using an umbrella company. They claim a lot of ‘expenses’ before paying your ‘salary’ – expenses that normal people have (like travel to work, meals, subsistence, rental of office space in the home…), but normally have to pay tax on. It made a big difference, hundreds of pounds a month on a modest income. It was not as good as a limited company, but it wasn’t far off.
#3 by Jeff on March 16, 2012 - 12:44 pm
I don’t know the ins and outs as I didn’t take up the offer but I know colleagues here (higher paid than I) boast of a 20% tax rate, and minimal NI payments, through some sort of umbrella company.
#4 by ReasonableNat on March 16, 2012 - 3:01 pm
Yes, well, the more you take out of your income as expenses, the lower your salary is. The aim is to get your salary under the higher tax threshold to keep you in the 20% rate.
Limited companies, then subsequently umbrella companies (post ir35) were the norm for contractors (working through agencies) in my field – permies were all paying paye as far as I know.
#5 by richard on March 16, 2012 - 8:32 am
“the Lib Dems, the only hope that we have left”
Enough said. Now, where did I put those razor blades?
#6 by FormerChampagneSocialist on March 16, 2012 - 8:33 am
Don’t worry, it won’t happen. Unfortunately.
#7 by Alistair on March 16, 2012 - 8:54 am
Hi Jeff,
I admire your honesty in putting your salary out there for all to see.
The problem is always going to be that to close the loop hole that allows those to avoid PAYE/ NI means taking on not only the bankers and others, but more importantly many in the media. It is just wrong that the BBC allows staff to be paid in this way – and it isn’t only Moira Stewart. So the question is – where is the pressure going to come from? Labour – not a chance.
The idea of publically available tax returns is a good one – afterall as the right say when it comes to civil liberties – if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear. The problem is far too many people do indeed have something to hide.
#8 by Jeff on March 16, 2012 - 9:30 am
I agree Alistair. What is frustrating is that on such occasions the public is waiting for the politicians to have the appetite and/or the bravery rather than the public forcing our own appetite for such changes (assuming it exists) onto our decision-makers. We are guilty of sitting back waiting for MPs to act rather than realising that we get out what we put in.
And as you say, for the real movers and shakers, too many have too much to hide, or think they have too much to hide, to make it a go-er. Maybe I’ll just move to Sweden…
#9 by Gryff on March 16, 2012 - 11:04 am
Would it be realistic in the medium term to campaign for politicians to publish their returns, I could see the Telegraph and Mail getting behind that (an opportunity for lots of faux scandalised screeching about the Ken’s and Diane Abbot’s of the world), but of course if it ever happened it would bring the ideal just that little bit closer.
#10 by Jeff on March 16, 2012 - 11:24 am
Why should we fixate on politicians publishing their returns? Everyone should do it.
The truth is that politicians’ transgressions are minor in the grand scheme of a country of 60m and taking our frustrations out on MPs isn’t really very helpful. It’s fast becoming an impossible job.
#11 by Alec on March 17, 2012 - 9:22 pm
I’d say there is the matter of liberty to consider, as you realize. The Scandinavian countries hail from an attitude which submits to a significant degree of state intrusion to ensure a for a quiet, well-run life.
I assume, Jeff, you’re opposed to stuff like ID cards and CCTV. Yet, if you’re arguing for a system which presupposes wheeler-dealing or outright lawbreaking on the part of the great many taxpayers who wouldn’t have done so, where are you left with those intrusions into personal liberty?
And, out of interest, would you call for all benefits recipients to make public what they receive?
The one who stands out there is Livingstone. The other two are using perfectly legal procedures – to increase their bank balances – which they never have objected to. No matter how much money I had (it aint much, btw), if I were given a choice between legally paying X amount and voluntarily giving-up X+1, I likely would opt for the former.
What’s reprehensible about Livingstone was that he was bloviating about the Punch and Judy villains de jour who were doing so quite legally, then we find-out he’s DOING EXACTLY THE SAME.
Only the little people pay taxes, eh?
Remember when Chris Grayling compared Moss Side to West B’More? We should have seen it coming (excuse me the little expletive)…
… the Tories promised us a New Dawn. They lied. Motherfuckers.
~alec
[1] In the classical sense, not the anything-I-like-and-nothing-people-I-don’t-like-do which has become popular over recent years; or even the economic liberalism of top LibDems.
#12 by Jeff on March 18, 2012 - 9:27 am
I really don’t see the problem with civil liberties here. I don’t mind CCTV and I only really objected to ID cards because they’re a waste of money. There is more to be gained than lost by making tax returns publicly available so that’s why it’s a go-er for me. And no, I don’t necessarily see a need to show what benefits individuals claim.
I get that the people I mentioned aren’t breaking the law, I never said that they are, but I question Osborne’s judgement when these stories come out (see Bob Geldof’s £1bn property tax dodge in today’s Sunday Times) and he doesn’t making going after that money his priority.
#13 by Alec on March 18, 2012 - 11:40 am
The question of why private sector employees or the self-employed should have to reveal details of their finances. I don’t get-up to anything illegal (or even exciting) in my house, but I still like to draw the curtains now and again.
I can, however, see the case for requiring public sector employees or civil servants above a certain pay bracket to make public parts [at least] of their tax behaviour, whether they live in a public sector house and so on. They are working for the state and enjoying considerable financial benefits coupled with the sainted status of being “workers”, so imo they should submit to some public gaze.
And, this definitely applies to MPs and MSPs. I also can see an argument for benefit claimants receiving more than a defined amount.
That’s fair enough, and I would welcome an efficiently run ID card system.
As BM pointed out further down, the Scandinavian tax publicity legislation quite easily and uncontroversially fails to stop avoidance.
I didn’t dispute that. What I did suggest was that if you thought the legislation was unjust, energy would be better spent arguing for its repeal. In the cases, however, of Rooney et al. and Stewart, they have not ever preached against this legislation in public… so why should they feel ashamed?
Livingstone and – I suspect strongly – Geldof definitely have hitched their wagons to anti-avoidance campaigns such as UKUncut (founded, lest we forget, by the scion of a minor Scottish aristocratic line which had sought public grants for a boiler).
Livingstone, in particular, when asked to justify his channeling moneys through his wife’s wages bleated that she’d lost her job with Johnson became Mayor. No mention of the fact that this was ‘cos he’d been employing her as a superannuated secretary and, quite uncontroversially, she’d left when the Mayor left.
The man’s as rank a hypocrite as Leona Helmsley, or George Bush Snr. who promised no new taxes and didn’t think anyone would mind when he hoiked-up existing ones.
That’s the problem. Not the use of the legislation, but those who do who shriek about other people’s use of it. Psychologists would call this disconnect [between one’s public displays of intent/attitude and the reality of personal conduct] as cognitive dissonance.
Anthropologists would call it moral bankruptcy.
Christians would call it sanctimony.
Is there a fourth term?
~alec
#14 by Doug Daniel on March 16, 2012 - 9:13 am
I used to have some company phoning me up and emailing all the time asking if I wanted to use their “payment solution” when I was thinking of becoming a contractor after being made redundant. Like you Jeff, I was very uncomfortable with the idea of shirking my duties as a taxpayer, but let’s face it, there’s something very tempting about being told you’ll get to keep whatever percentage of your pay. The only way to get people to pay tax properly is to remove that temptation.
Of course, if 10% of tax is such a barrier to business, then what would the “wealth creators” (who would be more accurately named “wealth extractors”) make of having their little legal tax evasion scheme removed?
Cutting benefits for the disabled, privatising the NHS, giving tax breaks to the rich while millions are on the unemployment scrapheap – can someone remind me what’s so great about the UK again?
Scotland needs out.
#15 by Matt on March 16, 2012 - 9:56 am
I wouldn’t worry about this. Osborne isn’t that daft. I reckon that this has been “leaked” in order to alter the expectations around the budget. So that when the budget comes and the 50p rate is still there, this “unexpected” news will make commentators crow about just how fair and decent a chancellor George Osborne is. Meanwhile in the real world, we’re all ******.
#16 by Jeff on March 16, 2012 - 10:02 am
An interesting theory, and I hope you’re right. The converse argument I suppose is that the longer Osborne leaves 50% in place, the more difficult it will be to get rid of it as a temporary measure. Best to rip the plaster off now and wager that most people will be over it by 2015.
#17 by BM on March 16, 2012 - 1:26 pm
I can’t speak for Sweden or Finland, but the tax list in Norway does not ensure that everyone pays tax.
Two years ago, pop group A-ha had their farewell tour, and Morten Harket, the lead singer, paid zero Kroner in tax. We know he has a substantial income from touring and royalties, and yet the tax list didn’t make a blind bit of difference to Morten’s willingness to onshore his wealth, or declare his income.
And it’s not just him. The recent tax amnesty in eastern Norway has revealed hundreds of people with substantial off-shored and undeclared wealth. one man had over 25 million pounds hidden from the tax authorities by means of a Swiss bank account.
To date, there has never been a single case whereby someone has been taken to court for not paying their taxes, thanks to efforts of a nosy neighbour, poking around in the tax list. There have, however, been people taken to court for breaking into the houses of the people who they believe to be rich.
Why hasn’t a single tax-sleuth managed to nail a tax-avoiding neighbour? Because the tax system is complicated. Two people with the same income can end up paying different levels of tax because there are various allowances, exception, and entitlements which are available to some, but not others, and you have no way of knowing what your neighbour is actually entitled to, why they get it, and whether they ought to get it at all. It is simply too difficult to work out, and thus becomes completely ineffective.
The list is also quite often simply wrong. There are millions of tax returns in Norway, with that amount of data, and a 98% accuracy, 20,000 in every million people on the list will be listed alongside inaccurate data. That’s part of the reason why people were getting their homes broken into: not because they were actually rich, but because the tax list said they were.
The other part to these incidents, and what makes them possible, is the amazing websites that take the publicly available tax list and gives you an actual map showing you exactly where the richest people in your area live, together with their name, age, and just how much money they’ve got in their giant, Scrooge McDuck-like swimming pool. You can even get driving directions, so that you can bring a van for the Munch painting you’re going to take from over the mantelpiece.
The tax list in Norway has solved nothing but the problem of what to do when you’re bored on the internet.
#18 by Jeff on March 16, 2012 - 1:54 pm
For me it brings it all out into the open though, and it’s easier to point to instances where no change is being made than it is to where changes are being made (i.e. people paying the ‘right’ tax). It’d be interesting to compare Norway and UK’s tax takes and assess how close each of them come to being in line with PAYE tax rates. I would be surprised if the UK adhered to the spirit of PAYE tax rates more than Norway did.
Also, I don’t subscribe to the notion that fancy mansion man is more likely to have his house broken into if his tax return is online. One is hardly going to think he is a pauper either way.
#19 by BM on March 16, 2012 - 2:17 pm
The problem isn’t (per se) fancy mansion man being thought of as rich, but normal, every-day people who don’t live in a fancy mansion being targeted due to mistakes in the data making them appear to be rich.
I don’t know how you could go about proving that publicly available tax returns would increase the likelihood of a specific person being burgled, but these burglaries did take a short time after that year’s tax list was released, and the burglars had made use of the tax list in order to find their targets. That to me is at the very least indicative.
I don’t really understand your first sentence.
#20 by Jeff on March 16, 2012 - 2:29 pm
I mean, if Norway having tax returns available online has directly resulted in thousands of highly paid Norwegians paying their fair share of tax contributions, how would you know that was the case, irrespective of what A-ha have chosen to do?
Fair point about average Joe getting targeted for being richer than he is; I still don’t see that as a big enough issue to not do it though.
#21 by Indy on March 17, 2012 - 7:35 am
But people are able to know that. That’s the point. Right now we have no idea who pays tax and who doesn’t.
I cannot see a system which publishes peoples salaries being accepted. Someone would be bound to say it breaches their human rights and would probably win a case on that.
But surely there could be a way of publishing what kind of tax someone pays. If they have an “arrangement” or if they just pay their full NI & income tax every month the way the vast majority of us do.
#22 by Barbarian on March 16, 2012 - 7:09 pm
Ooh, I remember the old IR35. (I used to work in IT recruitment).
Bottom line is that everyone, bar the lowest paid, should pay a flat rate of tax with no options for avoidance. It’s fair.
Why should someone who has worked their way up to a high salary (and I know a few), contributed to a successful business – hence perhaps more people being employed – be penalised because of a government screwing up?
(Not including top end bankers here btw).
But I see little purpose in removing the 50% rate at present.
#23 by Martinb on March 20, 2012 - 8:38 pm
Which would be ok if income tax were the only factor.
Even at 50%, highest rate taxpayers pay a smaller proportion of their income (and of course have far more after paying it) in tax; indirect taxation such as VAT in particular falls most heavily on the low paid.
When the highly paid pay their fair share, they can join the queue to complain about tax.
#24 by Allan on March 16, 2012 - 11:37 pm
Spot on Jeff.
The problem with that arguemnt though is that the Treasury is involved in deeply incestuous relationships with the big four accountancy firms, any change would only see those four look for and open up another tax loophole or lobby for this loophole to stay (as has been the case with “businessmen” lobbying the government for the cutting of the top rate of tax)
#25 by dcomerf on March 17, 2012 - 9:06 am
A partial solution is to abolish NI and raise income tax by an equivalent amount.
#26 by Observer on March 17, 2012 - 10:20 am
This really makes me angry. I work for a Housing Association & most of our tenants are poor. Every single day we are seeing the effects of the Tories welfare changes which can see people going without any money at all apart from crisis loans if they have the temerity to challenge ATOS decisions. Those people who are working are seeing their hours cut back & they are being left with practically nothing to live on. Non dependent deductions on Housing Benefit have been raised meaning it is becoming unaffordable for older children to remain at home. And we ain’t seen nothing yet. Soon they are going to be cutting back on working tax credits which will really penalise people who are on low wages working variable hours & the bedroom tax will see people getting into massive arrears. When we switch to universal credit payments then evictions will soar because people won’t pay their rent as they will need the money for other things – that will have a very detrimental affect on social landlords & we didn’t cause the deficit as we provided affordable housing.
So news from the bottom end of the income scale is not good. Meantime we have some people defending the right of the rich to avoid paying taxes. This country really does seem to be run for the benefit of the rich. When we have people who only put the electricity on when they can afford it & live in the dark the rest of the time why is that tolerated.
#27 by douglas clark on March 18, 2012 - 8:29 am
Jeff,
Really excellent article.
“Those who PAYE and those who don’t”. You have a catchy turn of phrase there. Frankly I am furious that there is anyone who doesn’t pay their dues. The distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance has become completely blurred.
#28 by Tormod on March 19, 2012 - 10:59 am
I was a contractor before during and after IR35, it was a bloody mess.
I finished up as ltd company and didn’t start an umbrella company I got fed up dealing with the revenue and hitting my head against a brick wall, I was getting on average two letters a week and they usually contradicited each other.
It took me a full 3 years to get everything fixed including a lovely threat of sequestration from hector.
I took the chance to become permanent.
My lasting memory is how incredible inefficient HMRC are and byzantine UK tax system.
We can make a tax system that is more simple and transparent and everybody pays a fair share according to their income.