TAX AVOIDANCE: The case for giving governments a rude shock.

Blair, Cameron and Gaucke give a masterclass in brass neck on the subject of tax

The former safe pair of hands Tony Blair has been defending bankers this morning, which is not surprising given that a fair wedge of his astronomical income comes from Jamie Dimon’s JP Morgan. In 2008, thanks to New Labour’s love-affair with deregulation, British bank Northern Rock smashed to the floor and became a thousand worthless pebbles, plus a few golden nuggets. The British taxpayer then spent £80bn bailing it out….while Tony Blair, special JPM agent, cherry picked the nuggets in the customer base, and recommended his employer JP Morgan as the buyer.

£80 billion is £1400 for every UK citizen, the sort of sum Blair and his Bilderberger mates spend on lunch. But he says he agrees with David Cameron that everyone should pay their taxes in full, and that bankers get an unfair press.

“We must not start thinking that society will be better off if we hang 20 bankers at the end of the street’’, he tells Charles Moore in the Telegraph, bizarrely adding, “we didn’t supervise and regulate them properly. But we mustn’t go back to the state running everything.’’

Not quite sure where this ‘we’ comes from tannedface, but I’m here to inform the one-time Labour moderniser that there is quite a lot of territory between hanging bankers and giving everything back to the State. Also my dear Moral Tone, not everything in life is about being “better off”. If we hung all guilty bankers out to dry in high security prisons  following scrupulously fair trials for fraud, embezzlement, money-laundering, Libor fixing, and blackmail, the Rule of Law would be seen still to exist….an outcome far more important than any amount of money.

Blair took it up the arse from Murdoch for a decade, invaded Iraq partly on his sayso, conspired to interfere with the course of Justice over the BaE affair, and helped create the sense of entitled ‘above the law’ self-image now rigidly enjoyed by bankers across the Globe. But David Cameron (whose circle is even more despicable than Blair’s) is a great admirer of Tony’s Teflon quality; and he displays precisely the same unethical greed shown by all those people who feel they deserve more than single helpings: it’s double standards or nothing for him.

Jimmy Carr’s tax avoidance is immoral, but Jeremy Hunt’s is brushed aside. Vince Cable’s bias against Murdoch is bad, but Hunt’s bias in favour of Murdoch is good. Gordon Brown lying to Leveson is appalling, but Jeremy Hunt’s lies to the Commons are oversights. Andy Coulson was a serial perjurer who hacked phones, but he was very good at his job. Rebekah Brooks is a delusional sociopath, but she was very caring towards the Camerons’ late child. Michael Spencer is a shady broker and Libor cheat, but he raised a lot of money for the Party. Lord Green ran an ethically empty HSBC for ten years, but they had Chinese Walls there – and anyway, he is crucial to the business success of the Olympics.

What a role model for social morality Dave King of Camerlot is. How great is his commitment to an nhs whose funding he has lied about for two years running. How unacceptable is a tax avoidance attitude that made his father a very rich man. How ghastly are these grubby welfare and tax cheats who pay three times the tax rate of the average multinational company based in Britain.

 

But The British-based Tax Justice Network (TJN) said in a report at the weekend that a mind-blowing $32 trillion of totally evaded tax – representing criminal wealth, pure and simple – is hidden away in tax havens across the world. Forty-eight hours later, Mr Cameron has not thought of a single word to utter about that.

However, his Treasury Minister David Gaucke has had plenty to say about paying household  suppliers in cash.

Yes, you read it right: I wrote ‘paying household  suppliers in cash’. Fifty quid made on the black is being given greater priority in the political Establishment to $32trillion around the world.

The insensitive insouciance of the political class has rarely been on better display than in the stream of bollocks that’s been pouring forth from Treasury Minister David Gauke over the last 36 hours. Not only does he fail utterly to address the grossly unfair way in which rich globalists hire devious tax lawyers and accountants to reduce their corporate tax rate to around 6%: not for one second anywhere in this bloke’s thought processes is there an even passing glimmer in relation to WHY more and more citizens in the West feel less and less inclined to pay tax.

Could it be something to do with:
1. Major tax cheats get minor fines, and the HMRC/IRS tax authorities do crooked deals to get payment in lieu of prosecution.
2. Individuals pay at a rate 3 x higher than most multinationals, whose banks and their sovereign chums have rigged every investment sector on the planet against the individual taxpayer.
3. The outrageous waste of tax monies on everything from Connecting for Health in the UK and the US mortgage relief scheme in the States to ridiculous bank bailouts totalling $23trillion around the world.
4. The sense of being ignored by the politicians who set the tax rates (all the while lying about how much tax they are really after) and paying tax to subsidise the illegally self-awarded pensions (a cool £1.15 trillion) of Whitehall bureaucrats and reckless mania of Robert E. Diamond.

There is an old adage from the American side of the Anglo-Saxon Pond: ‘No taxation without representation’. I have not had more than a few of my hundreds of entirely respectable and perfectly argued socio-economic views represented for over 35 years. I know Americans ranging in age from 18 to 79 who feel the same way.

Can I therefore have my tax monies back please?

The answer, of course, will be “no”. So the only alternative the sensible, respectable, law-abiding Squeezed Middlers have is to say this: OK Lord Brassneck of Bollocks, you go back to listening to us, and we’ll go back to paying your taxes.

And another thing: Guns kill people. People can’t shoot other people if they don’t have guns. What say you, NRA guys?

86 thoughts on “TAX AVOIDANCE: The case for giving governments a rude shock.

      • A yank out in the desert… I was with ya up until the guns part. Liberty was faught for, the rifle in our hands represents the understanding between citizen & state. Don’t Tread on U.S..

  1. ‘No taxation without representation’ presumably implies ‘No representation without taxation’?

    It has often been said that democracy faces destruction when more than 50% of the electorate become dependent on benefits paid for by the remainder – such a situation becomes increasingly self-perpetuating until the payers decide to emigrate and everyone still there is destitute.

    At the risk of reigniting the Community Charge argument, is it not fair that voting rights should be linked to having – say – 5 years worth of taxes to your name?

    • It could be even smarter to award a ‘bonus vote’ for every additional £1,000 paid in direct taxes.
      That way, everyone gets one base vote, but those who pay more into the system get proportionately more say on the system itself.
      Might even keep a few tax-exiles on shore so their extra votes can be harvested.

  2. @ronnie: but your vote would have to mean something to make that work. The thought of having my vote taken away is less worrying given that the choice of who to vote for is only ever a who’s who of human detritus.

    • And who are the people who vote going to blame when they find the same sorry shower still at the trough?

      • Agreed. That’s why it the crash must come. It might give us a fighting chance of rebalancing the system in favour of reality. What we have now is beyond repair.

  3. Spot on JW, certainly agree that the need to maintain equality before the law is paramount and the overtime budget at SFO, police and CPS should be unlimited. Part of that equality should be prosecution of attempted tax avoiders who cross the line into evasion with millions of tax at risk. Starting with politicians. Go over them with a fine tooth comb. If HMRC are short of the right resources I suggest like a recent US sheriff looking to prosecute big banks, they ask for suitably qualified volunteers to help them out.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-06/there%E2%80%99s-new-sheriff-town-christopher-conley-high-sheriff-carroll-county-nh-anof

    Having a bit of experience I would be first in the queue to look at Cameron and Osborne’s family tax affairs.

    However there is a problem, politicians are very rarely investigated for tax offences while in office: so much for the rule of law.

    Mind you if xmas did come early I wouldn’t waste much time looking at cash Cameron and Osborne have paid to tradesmen. Unless it was tens of thousands and a real conspiracy charge was in prospect. Leave the struggling traders be and focus on the rich and powerful.

    Your final comment was quite thought provoking, when it comes down to it whats the difference between a nutter with an AK47 and a mob with a rope? the bankster still ends up terminated whichever way you look at it. Coming back full circle, its only our respect for the rule of law that will save the banksters from the rope as long as the legal system does its job properly.

    • Seeing ConfusedEU’s comment reminds me that a task force based on looking at the tax affairs of any political donor over £50,000 to any party would also be a very worthwhile exercise.

  4. You’re making the highly erroneous assumption that governments actually have any right to the tax money they extort from their citizens. Had the citizens any real say in how the tax extracted from them with menaces was spent, I dare say people might feel differently about the matter. People once again might feel slightly more kindly disposed towards the taxman if the Government tax authorities were financially liable for mistakes that they made; as things stand, tax officials can talk any old toot safe in the knowledge that any mistake they make goes unpunished, whereas any mistake on the part of the citizen will most certainly be punished.

    So, as things stand I am very strongly in favour of tax havens and the avoidance of tax, as this keeps governments vaguely honest some of the time in their dealings with the citizenry. In a climate where there is no escape from the taxman, any sane individual would be very well advised to emigrate forthwith and leave the numpties to stew in their own underfunded juices.

    • Dan H don’t know if you watched the video posted by Maxter above but the view you express along with that in the video is not tenable for most of the population. Those living in low tax farms can only afford to do so by making cash in high tax farms in the first place. I don’t believe there is a safe reliable no tax farm anywhere on the planet that you can emigrate to, if there is please name it. Humans at our population density require order for any of us to make their way in the world. Order costs. UK people are not numpties, they are just trying to get along in the world that currently exists. The world is changing as fossil fuel energy and capital become more scarcer and more expensive. Living more cheaply and looking out for your community will become more important. Tax bollocks ideas like running off to tax havens offer nothing for the realities we face, sadly at the moment our government doesn’t either.

    • With the present financial state of nearly all
      Western countries, it is only a matter of time until they
      make a grab for any money left within their jurisdictions.
      Only an idiot would not make use of ‘havens’,I do,and pay
      tax on the income.I am only interested in capital preservation,not
      tax evasion.Its common sense.

    • Well it might Dan, except for a little dodge called state borrowing. When they can’t raise the funds directly (which has been the case for at least a century), they move on to harvest the future tax income of this happy land. I don’t think trying to starve them of funds to keep them honest will work. If conventional borrowing isn’t enough, there’s always PFI… you have to admit their creativity under stress. Pity they can’t apply it to anything more useful.

  5. Let us not forget Bliar the Recent….

    ‘I pay large amounts of money to my Legal Advisors to ensure that taxation matters in my Business Dealings are Legal’.

    or in lay parlance ‘I pay very handsomely for my Tax Avoidance advice.’

    QED. as JW has said before on this matter Double Standards, Double Helpings.

  6. Tax Avoidance is an entirely legitimate way of reducing the amount of taxes that you pay to be the minimum the law says you have to.

    There should be no such thing as Tax Avoidance because the state should only be asking people to pay the correct amount of tax, that some people can arrange their affairs in such a manner as to reduce their tax liability means that the taxman is being unscrupulous in demanding taxes from everyone else that he is not entitled to.

    What Jimmy Carr did was perfectly legal, it is the tax laws that are wrong (they were designed to let the already rich establishment avoid taxes, not oiks like Carr).

    The tax system is overly complicated, Income tax should be abolished and replaced with a land value tax payable by the registered owner of the land, if you don’t pay your tax the land is sold off to the highest bidder and the monies gained used to offset the tax liability.

    Any unregistered land is public property and should be sold off to the highest bidder so that land taxes become due.

    • “Income tax should be abolished and replaced with a land value tax payable by the registered owner of the land,”

      To hell with you. I own my home outright and I intend to leave it to my children. I can do without communists like you claiming it should be handed back to the state. Ordinary people owning their own homes was the first step towards the emancipation of ordinary people from the state. Make me pay tax on my home and I will demolish the building and ram every brick up your back passage.

      • Yes you own the bricks and mortar of your home and the rights to your property should be protected by everyone but where did the land come from ?, Make it yourself did you ?
        You could claim you bought it legitimately but where did the seller get it from (did he make it ?).

        The land was there long before you arrived and it will be there long after you are gone.

        The land belongs to everyone, by you fencing off a bit for your own personal use it deprives everyone else of that facility and so you should pay recompense to them.

        If you don’t want to pay then you should pick up your belongings (including the bricks and mortar) and take them somewhere else.

      • Just Sayin’ while we disagree on fossil fuels, your stance on land value tax is exemplary, perhaps BobRocket should at least exempt private residences and recognise the recompense we already pay in property based council tax. Reminds me that one of my son’s uni mates (who now works for the BBC) announced he would never have to pay council tax because he would never live in a council house.

      • @BobRocket: HA-HA. The bit you missed out was that the land was there before The Almighty State came along and decided it has a communist-given right to own everything and everybody and tax what’s left. Sorry, no go.

      • If you have to pay a tax to live in bricks and mortar, then it doesnt really belong to you. Your property is slap bang in the middle of theirs, and you will pay!!!

  7. It’s simple.
    Tax revenue is dropping like a stone with a rocket behind it.
    (Un(der))employment is higher than anyone would care to admit.
    Honest Joe is moving towards self underemployment.
    Whitehall/HMRC, losing oversight, are thinking, damn, we’re on our way towards a cash/skill set/barter economy, where the hell is the next penny going to come from?
    Lets skew the rules back in our favour by using “morality” as a stick to beat them with.
    Too obvious.

    • Tax revenue is dropping like a stone with a rocket behind it???

      It was up 3.6% in June compared with the previous year.

      You really need to look at the stats BEFORE making your comments.

      • @JustSayin’
        Stats, hah, hah, and just one month for clarity too!
        GDP, unemployment etc.
        Keep eating the feed that the “farmers” keep giving you. I’m sure 3.6% will keep growing forever and ever.

        You really need to look at the WORLD OUTSIDE BEFORE making your comments.

      • The basic problem is the State spends too much f****** money – our money to be exact. But that wont change anytime soon: too many bleedin Socialists around for that.

      • August 2012.
        Income tax receipts fall 1%.
        Corporation tax receipts fall 2.1%.
        Government spending increased 2.5%.
        Unemployment benefit and state pensions, rise 4.9% to £16.1 billion.

        Revenue from “other” tax receipts only rise 1.8%.
        Osborne poops pants.

        I’ll trust MY own judgement, wait and look at the stats BEFORE making MY comments.

  8. For the first time in nearly three hundred years calling for the ‘rule of law’ is a revolutionary demand. A global, financial kleptocracy have effectively exempted themselves from domestic and international law. If by some miracle they do get caught tripping over a law or regulation they can rely on their parliamentary accessories to legalise retrospectively whatever it is they’ve been caught doing.

  9. Couldn’t agree more with all of this, but , to complain endlessly about politicians is natural and they deserve that and more, however , I believe anyone can stand for election to parliament in this country, so surely the solution is for us to put our money where our mouths are. Who would not vote for the ideas you and others express so eloquently if they were well presentedto the electorate ?

    • A bit pricy to get ones voice heard for your honest johns. If you are not part of the club…………you dont get heard…………you also get ridiculed by the clubs and their supporters that exist. For instance the BBC supposedly non political affords new and out of favour clubs with the ‘extreme’, ‘minority’, ‘small’, ‘unelectable’,’populist’ tags…….somehow implying that they cannot get support (or it is wrong to support them).

      And when it comes down to it, a small number of non club members have no real influence in the body politic. Even under normal circumstances an acceptable ‘club member’ the size of the LimpDims is pretty irrelevant.

      So we see that standing for election is not enough, even if a few likeminded individuals get their voices heard and accepted. What next to bring back and ensure the Rule of Law becomes an applied fact of life for those who seek to rule ? Because without the Rule of Law society will break apart in time. Whence then ? Anarchy….you’ll want your glock in pocket at that point :)

  10. I took lawyer Bliar’s pleadings in the DT today as being the entry of an early ‘not guilty’ plea together with some mitigation arguments as to why HE should not be hanged.

    But he has been found guilty by the court of public opinion and our duty now is to pass sentence. Is the cart waiting outside?

  11. David Gauke is a fine one to talk about moral issues in regard to monitary exchanges. Whatever rubbish they filled his noddle with at Oxford it certainly wasn’t morality. He could do with having a read of Matthew 20, and then he could decide wether he wants to take this ridiculous line on the morality of paying a man a decent wage cash in hand for a hard days grafting any further.
    As for hanging the *ankers from lampposts, no, that certainly should not happen, what a dreadful waste of human resources! This government has brought in a perfectly sound scheme called Workfare, let these wicked greedy wretches work off a bit of that good living lardiness by doing some proper grafting.

    • As for B Liar, when he does his prison workfare, let it not be at any eating house, lest his odious cheesy indolent smirk put the customers off their food. A job on the dustcarts for minumum wage would suit him better. And if his partner in crime is issued with a scarlet frock, as befits her, she could get a Workfare placement with Royal Mail as a letterbox.

  12. the rich don’t wanna pay tax coz they got so much, the poor don’t wanna pay tax coz they got so little – it’s only the minging meddling middle-classes that want (other) people to cough up enough fiscally fleeced funds to pay for their bourgeouis wages of social-disinfection.

  13. Well thanks to that nice Mr Clegg (for it is he who is claiming the credit) my wife and I can now live income tax free within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and live very well on that income tax free income.
    I have taken it as my moral duty top avoid the EU tax (VAT) wherever possible and paying for everything I possibly can in cash. When it is unavoidable I either do without or spend inordinate amounts of time seeking a cash alternative.
    One thing I do enjoy though is filling the old bus with veg oil and avoiding the barking tax on tax duties loaded on diesel. Saves me a bloody fortune over the course of the year.
    To each their own.

    • John D: Respect! Why do the government put out all those bank notes and then moan when people spend them. Spending in cash is great for the local economy. I suspect when you spend your cash people don’t ask about your tax returns and no doubt you return that sentiment.

      On the otherhand putting cash into a big bank is tantamount to assisting a money launderer these days.

  14. Has anyone actually read James Henry’s report?

    If you were harbouring dreams of pulling in $T of someone elses money into the UK to get us out of this fugue……..

    Bad news

    It is someone elses and the tax is being avoided from foreign climes. David and his chums can relax and get back on the case of tracking the cash cowboys.

      • And only because lots of ‘homicide’ is classified as manslaughter and many other sub-definitions – it helps to keep the headline ‘murder’ total down for public consumption.
        Bet they’d never publish the total homicides over the period – that’s the only true measure of one person killing another.

    • @just sayin maybe but the suicide rate’s rising….latest one (in the MSM) threw himself off the Tate Modern balcony today. Choice.

  15. Rupert Blanketstein
    July 24, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    @ Gemma

    Mr Blanketstein if you please.
    I am a complete stranger to you, and am very rich and more importantly VERY MARRIED

  16. The issue of guns (yep read your other blog) or taxes, murder or thievery requires an impartial judiciary. That is lost now and to be blunt I only consider the judiciary and those that are supposed to uphold the law no more than paid mercenaries.

    Gone forever hence all the fuss.

    Consider a banker caught behaving fraudulently then subsequently put on trial and if found guilty sentenced “jail time will do”. There is no news in that when you think about it, caught out, prosecuted and sentenced.

    There you go all faith in the system is restored. What we have now is those in power behaving diabolically half the time and not being prosecuted by the judiciary as it is all bought and paid for with “YOUR TAX MONEY”.

    Another argument could be starve those of the taxes and they can’t pay for the judiciary and other mechanism to protect themselves.

    So is morally wrong to avoid paying taxes alternatively it could equally be considered a duty to avoid and starve the beast.

  17. It is quite interesting how Cameron and his lot are confusing morality and legality and quite deliberately.
    Tax avoidance, which is legal as enshrined in the tax code is parcticed by every taxpayer when they use a legal deuction to reduce their tax payable. By definition therfore tax avoidance is a legal right.
    If a tax loophole exists, it is beholding on the government of the day to close it. By getting on his high moral horse and ranting about it, but refusing to close the loopholes, David Cameron once again demostrates his hypocrisy.

    • No Harold, tax avoidance is gaining a tax advantage the legislature did not intend when writing the tax code, that includes loopholes that the draughtsman left when writing the legislation. Putting money in an ISA or doing anything provided by the tax code as a deduction is not tax avoidance. I agree there should not be any loopholes which is why we need a General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) that blocks unintended tax benefits. The tax avoidance is legal argument, is based on what a judge said 100 years ago, things have moved on a bit since.

      • Although factually correct, I take issue with ISAs. The problem is that when a government actively promotes a savings-vehicle by emphasising its tax-avoiding nature, it is sending a clear message to all the population that using cunning devices to avoid tax is not only permitted, but is encouraged and supported. Same is true of many National Savings products which are free of tax (Premium Bonds etc).

        If government wanted to establish clarity with regard to the principle of all gains (profits, earnings, investment returns etc) being subject to some tax, it should not set out to teach people at the entry-level that avoiding tax is smart. That’s the key philosophical error with ISAs.

        In this aspect, I am without sin – I do not have any ISAs on principle.

      • So Mudplugger, do you refuse to take your personal allowance too? If not how does your principle differentiate them from ISAs. ISAs are obviously worth a pittance these days as the interest rates have been manipulated down so low. The personal allowance has been manipulated upwards by the LibDems who had a democratic mandate to do it. Like John D I applaud this. If more simple and straightforward changes to tax policy could be brought in we would be in a better place.

  18. Guns kill people, bravo

    So what is your solution JW take them from the people but let the police/govt and criminals keep them. You still did not post the link to your stat US vs UK and I would like to see it.

    I am all for a discussion about guns after we clean up the corruption in finance/govt/legal system/police and see the rule of law working. Until then it is low down on my list

    • They do not exist,so don’t hold your breath waiting..
      What does exist are the stats for crime in US states
      from .before and after , concealed weapons are allowed.Very dramatic
      inverse correlation..ALL crime goes down when trained citizens
      have the right, and are, armed.
      Having been shot at , too many times to want to recall.in civvie street
      and the military would not dream of being without firearms.
      I am also hearing the ‘R’ word being spoken out loud frequently
      here in the US.

    • it’s not gun-culture that kills people, it’s the ‘culture’ which legitimizes the killing of people solely on the grounds that one doesn’t happen to like them – western governments and their ‘culture’ of killing foreigners of whom they don’t like the look or sound are prime culprits in this respect; this ‘culture’ is no culture, but a disease, and perforates our society from the top of the political, financial and religious establishment down.

      • “culture can only be positive”…yes, when i hear others talking of ‘black culture’, i tend to remonstrate with them – there are a thousand varieties of culture of african origin, they each derive from a successful way of life developed in a certain geographical location, but none of them derive from a subliminal consciousness of skin-colour. in the phrase ‘black culture’, the word ‘black’ is employed in the political sense of ‘black’ being the colour of universal suffering under ‘white’ oppression and, as such, must be (like the political sense of ‘white’) a negative concept – therefore, if the only value which unites ‘black’ people is a negative one, the concept of ‘black culture’ is a false idol created by a racially exploitative establishment.

  19. Blair is right we should not hang Banksters,just war criminals financial or Military ,so maybe we should hang him twice

  20. All BLiar’s so called Co’s are charities….the mans hypocrisy is beyond belief.

    The only good news is that his overheads are ginormous, he will go bust at some point.

  21. Re: Land Value Tax

    Just Sayin’

    Where did I suggest that you couldn’t let your kids (or anybody else) inherit, it is your property you can do with it as you please.

    What I suggested was that money you earn through your own hard endeavours should be yours and should not be subject to income tax, inheritance tax or any other type of taxes, you put in the effort to earn/produce it, you should benefit from it.

    The land is not yours, you didn’t make it so if you want exclusive use of it you should pay everybody else to respect that wish.

    PhilE

    The council tax should also be abolished, it is a tax on the occupier and not the registered owner (although the occupier would pay the land tax via the rent paid to the landowner, the landowner would be responsible for it).

    BT

    The taxes raised should be spent in a democratic manner and only registered landowners should get a vote (as they are the only ones paying any taxes, no representation without taxation), if someone wants a say in how the taxes are spent then they should register some land and become a taxpayer.

    • Bob, good answers. Why anybody thinks that certain locations “belong” to them outright but other people’s earned income doesn’t belong to them (in fact they go further, these people think that other people’s earned income can be taxed to pay for services which benefit people claiming to own locations) is a mystery to me.

      • Bob, have you seen any calculations on how much the average house holder would have to pay? The idea that most people could go out and register land is pretty glib, many people under 30 have no hope of that. Are you looking to disenfranchise half the population? Also many pensioners and people on low income like the admirable John D would be forced out of their homes through inability to pay their taxes. How would you fund local authorities if you scrapped council tax? Sorry mate it sounds elitist and anti democratic.

    • @BobRocket: Nope. I see no rational case for introducing a land tax any more than for any other tax. You might just as well argue that as the air we breathe is not owned by us, we should pay a tax for consuming it. I know a few socialist slimeballs who’d like to do that.

      The issue is that govts need money to satisfy their insatiable thirst to spend spend spend. Therefore, the argument comes down to who will they steal it from. This is usually the people who put up least resistance.

      You need to get away from the idea of thinking/believing that government has any rights to anything. It doesn’t except the violent force it will use if you don’t do what it says. Government is a criminal organisation and the less we support it, the better off we are.

  22. I thought the re-writing of history occurs after the protagonists are long gone from the political stage – Stalin was a strong leader who was maligned; Japan, like the West (in the 19th Century) never did China ‘no real harm’.

    This constant re-alignment of the past 15 years beggars belief (I know New Labour were in power for 13 years but our present mob have picked up the batten very easily) . Brown was the greatest Chancellor Britain ever knew and Balls and Millibean were not there. Blair & Campbell are innocent of all charges. Gideon is on his game when it comes to strategy. Please keep exposing this sad, creepy, Cthulhu like cabal for what they were, are and continue to be…and before anyone asks I read H P Lovecraft.

  23. PhilE,

    sorry this reply is not inline, for some reason my browser won’t let me reply directly to your comment.

    Over a third of the land in the UK is unregistered, this is mostly land that has not changed hands for generations so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that taxes that ordinary people pay (inheritance / capital gains ) are not being paid when the owner of these lands transfers them.

    It may have escaped your notice but ‘taxes are for the little people’, the loopholes are designed in. It is only when upstart commoners start to use these mechanisms does ‘moral obligation’ kick in.

    A land tax is unavoidable, if you own it then you pay tax on it, if you don’t pay the tax then someone else should have the opportunity to do so.
    Once you have paid your land tax all other income (whether gained from the utilisation of the land or not) should be yours to spend on goods and services as you see fit.

    If people don’t like it they are free to leave taking all of their property with them but they have to leave the land behind.

    As for local authority funding, what is wrong with them selling their services in the marketplace and people would be free to buy the services they require with their untaxed income ?
    (why should I subsidise your love of opera and you subsidise my childs schooling ?)

    • John, another great contribution from you and a humungus kick in the bollocks to all the toadying political establishment creeps. You have a sure touch when putting into print the thoughts and feelings of the downtrodden citizen. Keep up the good work.

      • Where would they have learnt their toadying creepiness from though, the non-political establishment or the political non-establishment?

        We know for sure it isn’t the non-politacal non-establishment, which narrows it down somewhat.

    • Bob, in reply to Phil E’s question, the median household in the median house would pay precisely net zero nothing, as surplus of LVT receipts over govt spending would be dished out as Citizen’s Income. That’s basic maths.

      Also, I fail to see the relevance of his question, under our fine system of taxing output, income, profits, inheritance, house sales etc, the average tax bill per household is somewhere in the region of £20,000. That’s rather more than the LVT bill on an average home (gross of CI, it would be somewhere in the region of £12,000 per year, assuming LVT replaces all other taxes).

      I note that BT plays the Poor Widow Bogey for the thousand millionth time, jeez, surely we can come up with a system of discounts, exemptions, deferments or higher state pension to sort this out? That is not beyond the wit of mankind. And if old people want to live in swanky houses so that their children can inherit them, then the children can pay the tax if they are mad keen. If fail to see why some people should subsidise other people for excluding them from the nicest locations.

  24. Jwoo, Winston Churchill was sick and tired of hearing the Poor Widow Bogey over a century ago.

    Apply common sense: do you think it impossible to devise some system of exemptions, deferments, discounts, higher state pension, whatever?

    It’s a simple yes or no question. Could you design such a system? Do you think that every single Land Value Taxer has not been forced to reply to such stupid questions a thousand times?

    Fact is, the large parties in the UK are run for the benefit of Baby Boomers, Bankers, politicians, kleptocrats. quangocrats, NIMBYs and landowners. They are forever using the Poor Widow Bogey as an excuse to tax other people’s incomes instead of paying tax on their own land. Younger people are being shat on, that is why they don’t bother voting.

    So you Baby Boomers have got your selfish parties to vote for out of naked self interest and sod the rest, why is it so terrible if young people have a party to vote for which says sod the baby boomers, the bankers, the NIMBYs etc – collectively referred to as Home-Owner-Ists.

    • “Fact is, the large parties in the UK are run for the benefit of Baby Boomers, Bankers, politicians, kleptocrats. quangocrats, NIMBYs and landowners. They are forever using the Poor Widow Bogey as an excuse to tax other people’s incomes instead of paying tax on their own land. Younger people are being shat on, that is why they don’t bother voting.

      So you Baby Boomers have got your selfish parties to vote for out of naked self interest and sod the rest, why is it so terrible if young people have a party to vote for which says sod the baby boomers, the bankers, the NIMBYs etc – collectively referred to as Home-Owner-Ists.”

      Let us be grateful that @ M W is revealing much more than the more accomplished psychopath would normally do. Let this be a warning to all those looking forward to the revolution that will rid us of the incumbent psychos, another even more dangerous lot are waiting in the wings to feed off the spoils.

    • @Mark Wadsworth:
      Another way of looking at it is that older people who own their own homes and want to leave the asset to their kids have worked their nuts off throughout their lives – often scrimping and scraping to make ends meet – for the very purpose of not wishing to live off the State.

      What you’re now arguing is for these people to have their *earned* assets taxed to relieve younger people from paying tax altogether. Yet the older people were compelled to pay tax in their younger days as well as save for a deposit to buy their first home.

      You can dress up your argument any way you like but at the end of the day, it’s the same old same old socialism we’ve had for 13 years under Labour.

    • @MW oh dear…the politics of envy…presumably your party would euthanase anyone over 70 too- that’d release a lot of property for you all. I fully expect the sale of my property to pay for my care home (for a few years). I assume you wouldnt want the taxpayer (aka you) to have to fork out for that too.

      As an aside, a lot of baby boomers dont own property….there’s more than one way to join up the dots

      • “..presumably your party would euthanase anyone over 70 too”

        Over 70? I wish, this charmer will do for anyone over any age that suits and as long as he is under 50, that’ll be 50.

  25. Pingback: TAX AVOIDANCE: The case for giving governments a rude shock. [The Slog] « Mktgeist blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s