You might also be interested in
Replies (29)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
"two faced"
Politicians espousing the adoption of a "Moral Tax Code" strikes me as a more than a little hypocritical when they are happy to go to extreme lengths to protect our borders to prevent the importation of Tobacco or Alcohol on which duty (tax) has not been paid. The tax take, per HMRC`s 2014 annual accounts, for each of these is roughly £10Billion ie £20Billion in total and when ever they face a challenge to help reduce the impact on the NHS of smoking and alcohol related illness their response is not to restrict supply (or even ban the sale of these products) but to increase the tax knowing full well that people addicted to both will continue to find ways to continue their consumption. I am all for a moral tax code but we do not live in a universal utopian society and so its down to those we elect to do the best they can to represent all of the Citizens on this Country given that every decision they take is more than likely to have a knock on effect in numerous unexpected areas. If politicians and others continue to conflate the Tax Code of this Country with morality then it opens the way for every Citizen to take the same moral stance in deciding whether they should pay tax on the basis that the Government is, say, supporting a foreign regime not to their liking. My thoughts are hire some decent "lawyers" who know what they are about to draft legislation that is not riddled with holes and then beef up HMRC both in numbers and in training to implement the letter of the law. I don't see eye to eye with Mrs Hodge on many issues but when she states :-
“The success of international efforts to tackle tax avoidance depends on all countries being prepared to play by the same rules, and not adopting a two-faced approach where they sign up to OECD standards in principle, but try and undercut one another in practice,”
I find myself in some sympathy with her and that's a first for me.
Sympathy??
Politicians espousing the adoption of a "Moral Tax Code" strikes me as a more than a little hypocritical when they are happy to go to extreme lengths to protect our borders to prevent the importation of Tobacco or Alcohol on which duty (tax) has not been paid. The tax take, per HMRC`s 2014 annual accounts, for each of these is roughly £10Billion ie £20Billion in total and when ever they face a challenge to help reduce the impact on the NHS of smoking and alcohol related illness their response is not to restrict supply (or even ban the sale of these products) but to increase the tax knowing full well that people addicted to both will continue to find ways to continue their consumption. I am all for a moral tax code but we do not live in a universal utopian society and so its down to those we elect to do the best they can to represent all of the Citizens on this Country given that every decision they take is more than likely to have a knock on effect in numerous unexpected areas. If politicians and others continue to conflate the Tax Code of this Country with morality then it opens the way for every Citizen to take the same moral stance in deciding whether they should pay tax on the basis that the Government is, say, supporting a foreign regime not to their liking. My thoughts are hire some decent "lawyers" who know what they are about to draft legislation that is not riddled with holes and then beef up HMRC both in numbers and in training to implement the letter of the law. I don't see eye to eye with Mrs Hodge on many issues but when she states :-
“The success of international efforts to tackle tax avoidance depends on all countries being prepared to play by the same rules, and not adopting a two-faced approach where they sign up to OECD standards in principle, but try and undercut one another in practice,”
I find myself in some sympathy with her and that's a first for me.
You do know that her family business has a turnover of 2.1 Billion in the UK pays 0.01% in tax through similar methods to those companies she is referring to? I would say the prize for Hypocrisy goes to Margret Hodge more than listening to much she has to say.
Alcohol and tobacco
I have some sympathy with your point about restricting supply of alcohol and tobacco, but not about banning the sale of these products.Politicians espousing the adoption of a "Moral Tax Code" strikes me as a more than a little hypocritical when they are happy to go to extreme lengths to protect our borders to prevent the importation of Tobacco or Alcohol on which duty (tax) has not been paid. The tax take, per HMRC`s 2014 annual accounts, for each of these is roughly £10Billion ie £20Billion in total and when ever they face a challenge to help reduce the impact on the NHS of smoking and alcohol related illness their response is not to restrict supply (or even ban the sale of these products) but to increase the tax knowing full well that people addicted to both will continue to find ways to continue their consumption. I am all for a moral tax code but we do not live in a universal utopian society and so its down to those we elect to do the best they can to represent all of the Citizens on this Country given that every decision they take is more than likely to have a knock on effect in numerous unexpected areas. If politicians and others continue to conflate the Tax Code of this Country with morality then it opens the way for every Citizen to take the same moral stance in deciding whether they should pay tax on the basis that the Government is, say, supporting a foreign regime not to their liking. My thoughts are hire some decent "lawyers" who know what they are about to draft legislation that is not riddled with holes and then beef up HMRC both in numbers and in training to implement the letter of the law. I don't see eye to eye with Mrs Hodge on many issues but when she states :-
“The success of international efforts to tackle tax avoidance depends on all countries being prepared to play by the same rules, and not adopting a two-faced approach where they sign up to OECD standards in principle, but try and undercut one another in practice,”
I find myself in some sympathy with her and that's a first for me.
In my opinion, alcohol should not be sold in supermarkets or corner shops and should not be sold at knockdown prices. It should only be sold in pubs, clubs or off licences. Tobacco should only be sold from tobacconists and again not at discounted prices. They are both very addictive drugs.
However, I cannot agree with banning them altogether. This was tried in the land of the free and the home of the brave under prohibition, and led to the upsurge in the mafia.
The real hypocrisy of our wonderful politicians is that they only incease the tax by enough to raise revenue but not to kill the golden goose entirely.
A cost-benefit analysis re smoking was done by Enoch Powell when he was Health Minister under Supermac and ironically imported loads of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS from collapsing. He found that overall it would be financially better for the country to make smoking compulsory because people would die earlier and not draw as much pension. Of course, we do not look at things purely in terms of money - people's health is important.
What puzzles me about UK tax
Tax in England started in 1086 with the Doomsday Book. So that's well over 900 years that English tax law has been in existence. I think 900 years is a very reasonable timeframe for lawmakers to make any aspect of law pretty much black and white if that is their desire.
Hence the grey areas on issues like employment status, transfer pricing and so on are in my view largely deliberate on the part of policymakers.
Hence they should either legislate or shut up.
Miss Oppenheimer should really be reminded of her family history on tax.
I am actually surprised no national media has caught up on this?
Hodge should not be making pronouncements on morality. Similarly, the clergy should not be preaching politics (as unelected politicians)
If we ignore these distinctions then we undermine the hard-won checks and balances of our mature society.
Christian Aid
I wonder how much the church (England, or Catholic) is worth as compared to Google, Amazon or Starbucks? And what tax contribution it makes to the country out of that not insignificant wealth. I think that if I were part of the church, I'd keep my head down rather than get involved in a moral rambling on the amount of tax global institutions ought to be paying.
Christian Aid
I wonder how much the church (England, or Catholic) is worth as compared to Google, Amazon or Starbucks? And what tax contribution it makes to the country out of that not insignificant wealth. I think that if I were part of the church, I'd keep my head down rather than get involved in a moral rambling on the amount of tax global institutions ought to be paying.
Margaret Hodge
This dear lady is entitled to say whatever she likes, it is a "Free" country,
Unfortunately both the ICAEW and the ACCA are not prepared to publicly answer her back.
This in the interest of maintaining a "working relationship" with HMG.
Presumably there are some compensations for being a Poodle.
If the two main UK organisations who represent through their members millions of UK taxpayers
are not prepared to robustly answer her, she will continue to mouth off.
One does not stop a (verbal) bully by keeping quiet.
Hodge is just another self-righteous moron who won't distinguish between tax evasion and tax avoidance.
simplifying tax laws
Why not go back to the basics? Let entities be taxed fully on their accounts without any adjustments for losses or other sideways movements. If they have to make claim for relief on losses, etc. they can do so by separate claims which HMRC can argue against if they will.
Moral Codes? We got lots of 'em!
So, let me get this right...
When businesses cooperate to fix prices, it's a cartel and that's bad (and I agree), but when countries don't cooperate to fix tax levels that's also bad?
Oh yes, and as others have said ... *cough* Stemcorp *cough*
If I remember rightly.....
If I remember rightly, wasn't the main defence of MPs on the expenses scandal that they were just following the rules? That they had done nothing illegal?
As for Stemcor, criticism is surely unfair as thet are just follwoing the rules and doing nothing illegal.
The trick, you see, is that it is OTHER people who should have regard to the morality of the situation and not the likes of Hodge
Friends again please
I again ask, speak as you are, professional persons.
Margaret Hodge is an intelligent woman, with a career to protect. She has been handed or taken on an impossible task.She has therefore ended up as the meat in the sandwich.
On the one side is HMRC, who are not funded either with quality of management and or enough money to carry out the tasks demanded of them.
Clearly if Ms Hodge were to state this truth obvious to most of us in public practice, she would would lose her job.
On the other side are approximately six hundred plus members of parliament who demonstrably do not understand the workings and or principles of a working tax system, and so pass tax legislation willy-nilly, of the same quality as the stuff I pass when I go out for a curry and a pint of lager.
Again, clearly if Ms Hodge were to state this truth obvious to most of us in public practice, she would would lose her job.
Her very human error is that she does not recognise that when you are in a hole, stop digging.
Our collective fault is that demonstrably and collectively, we are not prepared through our representatives to put our heads above the parapet. "Not my job mate!"
Margaret Hodge
I agree with most of what you say.
I again ask, speak as you are, professional persons.
Margaret Hodge is an intelligent woman, with a career to protect. She has been handed or taken on an impossible task.She has therefore ended up as the meat in the sandwich.
On the one side is HMRC, who are not funded either with quality of management and or enough money to carry out the tasks demanded of them.
Clearly if Ms Hodge were to state this truth obvious to most of us in public practice, she would would lose her job.
On the other side are approximately six hundred plus members of parliament who demonstrably do not understand the workings and or principles of a working tax system, and so pass tax legislation willy-nilly, of the same quality as the stuff I pass when I go out for a curry and a pint of lager.
Again, clearly if Ms Hodge were to state this truth obvious to most of us in public practice, she would would lose her job.
Her very human error is that she does not recognise that when you are in a hole, stop digging.
Our collective fault is that demonstrably and collectively, we are not prepared through our representatives to put our heads above the parapet. "Not my job mate!"
I would disagree that if she was really to tell it as it is, she would first of all lose her job as Member of Parliament - that is up to the electors of Barking who have elected her for the past twenty years. Secondly, she is elected by her fellow parliamentarians as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, probably the most powerful and important Select Committee Chairmanship.
Tax Haven
How's that HMRC sale and leaseback deal with Mapeley going then Ms Hodge?
The very same PAC, in 2010 reported on the £170m tax saving obtained by use of a blatant tax avoidance structure by the Revenue's new landlord. I suppose this is OK though to Ms Hodge as it was Edward Leigh who was chair in 2010. While on the Labour Party subject, perhaps they can also explain how they managed to avoid a ton of VAT on buying their VAT-opted HQ while in Government?
As someone said, any politician preaching on about this is somewhat of a joke. As it is customary for the chair of the PAC to be a member of the opposition, one does feel the current PAC, while making some good points, has, as its main objective, an open book to embarrass the current government. A joke of a different nature.
Hodge sound bites
Another soundbite from someone who wants to maintain a public image of being seen to be doing something, even if that something is usually just hot air.
This is a fine case of pot kettle black. Maybe if her own family had her seeming 'morals' (which change with the wind) then she could argue from a position of strength.
Anything for a headline- if only they actually got on with something and got anything done or suggested fully costed and worked out solutions, rather than continuing with sound bite politics.
Lady Hodge
I presume she is aware of the tax avoidance schemes that her family uses?!
Or maybe she does not regard the schemes as tax avoidance.
If there's a problem with the tax rules then maybe we need to review the law, but we should not be bullying anyone, corporate or individual, into paying more tax than is legally due. That is an established principle of English law and it is essential for an environment in which people want to do business.
Hodge is a labour politician, out to make a name for herself on the public accounts committee.
Hodge
I heard a while ago that the press had been warned that the family trusts were a non-reportable subject.
Another example in my field of double standards. Years ago there was a big case about tour operators and the VAT they should have been paying. The VAT would have contributed to the UK coffers. However the UK effectively introduced a state sponsored artificial avoidance structure so that the industry could avoid VAT.
Last year ruled to be illegal, but I believe the UK has allowed the industry to ignore. Tax avoiders supreme!!
It's not a race to anywhere
What is this idiot on about when she talks of a race to the bottom? The fact is that for years politicians of pretty much every stamp have screwed more in tax from businesses than is good for the economy and even now when Osborne allows a little respite for once, local authorities continue in the same old pig-ignorant way.
John MacDonald
Sorry John, I did not mean to imply she would lose her seat as a member of parliament.
I meant to imply, she would lose the lucrative additional post (with income and expenses) given to her.
Margaret Hodge
David, what additional income and expenses would she get for chairing the Public Accounts Committee?
Sorry John, I did not mean to imply she would lose her seat as a member of parliament.
I meant to imply, she would lose the lucrative additional post (with income and expenses) given to her.
@David Gordon
I'm afraid I don't share your sympathy with Hodge.
You state that she is in a difficult position because on one side of her is HMRC and on the other are MPs and she is caught in the middle?
If tax law is in a mess, what's her solution? Overhaul and reform? Educating the public & MPs about current tax law?
No, her response is to launch vitriolic, ignorant attacks on the accountancy profession and law abiding companies seemingly to grab headlines and stir up the mob.
If that's a reasonable summary it smacks of political cowardice.
HMRC Hopes and wish-full thinking
Extract above
'But the UK Treasury was “confident of a successful outcome” '
Best of luck with that one, that will be a first if they pull it off.
Land Value Tax
It may not be possible for this to be the single tax as campaigned for about a century ago but which then got lost in the heat of WW1 and its aftermath (at the very least sin and nudge taxes will be needed), but it should be the principal tax in the system.
May not be good for accountants or lawyers though, at least not the tax kind.
Rarely gets a mention though.
Henry George - Poverty & Progress.