<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/14058325?origin\x3dhttp://croydonian.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

If it looks to good to be true, it almost certainly is - an object lesson from the DPRK.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Note this uplifting headline / opening para, especially given the horrors that tomorrow holds:


It certainly caught my attention....

Anyway, some detail:


In Juche 44 (1955) the Republic lowered the blue and white collar workers' income tax 30 percent and radically reduced taxes of handicraftsmen, businessmen and merchants. It also brought down the peasants' tax in kind at 20.1 percent on an average from 25 percent of the yield, and again at 8.4 percent since 1959.
With the production relationship transformed on socialist lines and solid foundations of socialist industrialization laid, it pushed ahead with preparations for the abolition of the tax system and eliminated agricultural tax in kind in 1966.
Thus only the income tax paid by the industrial and non-industrial workers and some amount of local taxes still remained in the DPRK.
The President had a historic law, "On Abolishing the Tax System," adopted at the third session of the 5th Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK convened in March 1974 to finally do away with the tax system in the country.

I think I would rather suffer even our iniquitous tax system than live in an economy where the state owns the entirety of the means of production and thus can get its greasy mitts on one's income etc without going through the palaver of pay slip with itemised deductions.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Hnsard 1859 - Fireworks in the Commons....

Wednesday, August 05, 2009
From 1859:

The Fireworks Act Amendment

"THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (The Gladstone) said, that the clause proposed to extend the provisions of the existing law, so as to give power to justices to grant a search warrant to enter any house where fireworks were kept, and, if any fireworks were there found, to destroy them. This was a somewhat arbitrary power, and he was informed by the police authorities that they did not consider it necessary".
Bit outside his brief, isn't it? Still, good that at least the Plod had to apply for a search warrant. And the Met turning down the chance of more powers? Blimey.

MR. JOHN LOCKE (Not that one. Lib, I think) explained that the necessity for the Bill had arisen from the accidents which were lately caused in South-wark and Lambeth by the keeping of fireworks in buildings where it was dangerous to have them.

MR. EDWIN JAMES (Lib - and the first silk disbarred, apparently) objected to the provisions which authorized the seizing and destroying of fireworks.
Redcoats getting the shaft, then as now:

COLONEL TAYLOR said, he had been informed that the officers of those militia regiments which had been called out for twenty-one days' drill had been charged income tax upon their pay. He was afraid that such deductions from the miserable pay of a militia officer would make the service unpopular.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that the officers of the Revenue Department had no option but to call upon them to pay the income tax on all their incomes; and neither those officers nor himself had the slightest power to grant exemption or order a remission.

Probably right, but still a tad mean.

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.....

Friday, July 31, 2009
Take out your freshly peeled onion now:

"HM Revenue & Customs is determined to overcome problems with staff morale revealed in an employee survey...Lesley Strathie (who sports a rather ill-advised Louise Brooks bob) [said]“The fact that people feel low morale is only what we should expect: that doesn’t excuse it, it doesn’t mean that is where I or my leadership team want to be".

Not a lot that can be done about them being social lepers either.

Labels:

posted by Croydonian

Coming soon - an exciting new tax

Friday, July 17, 2009
From Lords Hansard:

The Earl of Shrewsbury To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to levy a tax on the ownership of horses; if so, what amount would be payable per animal; and whether they intend to extend that tax to the ownership of ponies and native horse or pony breeds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): Specific proposals on how responsibilities and costs for animal health could be shared in the future, including the scope and application of a registration based disease levy, have been subject to a recent three-month period of intensive public consultation. Final decisions as to whether owners of horses should contribute to a disease levy will be taken in the light of responses to that public consultation.

Never been enormously keen on horses, then again I am not a pre-teen girl. I would not be affected by a horse tax, but you can just see this lot slavering at the prospect that ticks so many boxes - hard to avoid, targets the well off, bashes rural folk, Newmarket is not a Labour seat, might finish off hunting once and for all.

Unless it is extended to clothes horses, I am in the clear.

As a footnote, the Earl has a splendid name: Charles Henry John Benedict Crofton Chetwynd Chetwynd-Talbot, 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury, 7th Earl Talbot and 22nd Earl of Waterford. He's one of us, by the way.


Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

And to think that I thought the British TV licensing system was iniquitous

Sunday, April 26, 2009
Looks like we have got nothing on the Finns:

"Financing of YLE [BBC equivalent] operations would come from a new “media fee”, which would replace the licence fee that owners of television sets are required to pay. The new fee would be introduced in 2011, and would be paid by all households. Also liable for the fee would be companies with an annual turnover of more than EUR 400,000.

The proposed fee would differ from the television fee in that all households would be required to pay it regardless of whether or not they own a television, radio, or computer. About 97 per cent of Finns use at least some YLE services on a weekly basis. Plans are for the fee to be EUR 175 (£158)".

Don't be surprised if the BBC's last grab at the brass ring is something along those lines.


Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Government drops the euphemising and comes clean on self-assessment

Monday, March 09, 2009
At least I think that must be what they be referring to in this breakdown of NI Office spending:

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

2700 years of congestion charging

Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Note, if you will, this Parliamentary exchange yesterday:

"Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the boundary for exemption from the Dartford Crossing toll...

Paul Clark: The purpose of the charge at the Dartford crossing is to tackle congestion..".

Right.

The Dartford tunnel as was has been around since 1963, and to my knowledge has always charged, so we can take 'London' congestion charging back 45 years. Given that other bridges in these parts charged prior to 1963 we can then go back the Bridges Act of 1530, make that 478 years. And if bridges, why not toll roads, the earliest ones apparently being those of the Assyrians. Well, chariots build up at rush hour could be frightful. That gives us 2700 years.

Mr Clark should be utterly ashamed of himself, as if it looks like 'take it or leave it' pricing, quacks like 'take it or leave it' pricing etc, then assuredly that is what it is, whatever damn fool name Clarke wishes to give it.

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

What is it that Angela Eagle knows that we do not?

Tuesday, December 16, 2008
From Hansard:

"Mr. Hunt: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much the Exchequer received in alcohol duties in each year since 1997, expressed in (a) cash terms and (b) 2008-09 prices; [240647]

(2) what percentage of total tax revenue was made up by alcohol taxes in each of the last five years; [240648]

(3) what percentage of total tax revenue he expects to be made up by alcohol taxes in each of the next three years. [240649]


To which La Eagle (L'aigle?) replied with a slew of figures, the salient ones being these:

"Forecast alcohol duty revenue as a percentage of forecast total revenue is estimated to be 1.9 per cent. in 2008-09, 2.1 per cent. in 2009-10 and 2.0 per cent. in 2010-11".

2.1% takes us back to figures last seen in 2004-5. Now it could be that the tanking of the econony means that revenues for just about every form of tax are going to fall, but since I am feeling paranoid, another option would be that we enthusiasts for grape and grain are going to be seeing duty increases that will have us crying into our beer. Another possibility is that the Treasury reckons we will be attempting to drown our sorrows, their long since having learnt to swim nothwithstanding.

Meanwhile, the rake on the Demon Drink amounted to £7,880 million in 2007-8, (£131 per head, ish) and based on FY 2008 spending, that covered all foreign military and economic aid (7.5), or little under half (16.2) the cost of 'protection' - Plod, courts, prisons and the fire brigade etc.

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

Oh to be in Denmark

Monday, December 15, 2008
Yet again there is nothing like a Dane, and there is not much rotten in the state of Denmark:

"The prime minister's Liberal Party has announced it is ready to lower income taxes for the country's highest earners. Previously, the Liberals had refused to budge...

Previously, the Liberals had refused to budge on the issue. But Lars Løkke Rasmussen, the finance minister, said a slowing economy made the tax breaks necessary.

The Conservative Party, the governing coalition's junior member, supports lower takes.

...

Rasmussen said creating more disposable income for the highest earners will help stimulate the stalled economy and is important for groups on the cusp of the higher tax level, such as nurses, firefighters and teachers".

Pretty good, eh? But here comes the astonishing bit:

"The plan to cut top level income tax has got recent support from both the Social Democrats and the Socialist People's Party". (Latter are a green / red group - a bit like an infected wound)

The only major refuseniks appear to be the Danish People's Party - sound on some things, less sound on others.

Laffer Curves, anyone?

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

A Prime Minister with a plan

Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Not 'our' one, naturally:

"Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende and Minister of Social Affairs and Employment Piet Hein Donner favour a proposal to introduce a flat rate tax in the Netherlands".

Nice one chaps. On the downside, the prospective rate is pretty eye-watering - *37%*.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

A brief observation on 'soaking the rich'

Monday, November 24, 2008
Take note of the descriptors the Glove Puppet uses, as if a new penal rate kicks in at £150,000, the PM earns is paid £187,000. Darling earns is paid £138,724.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

What the 30th Most Powerful Woman in the world thinks of VAT reductions

(And if that '30th Most' etc don't fetch 'em, I don't know Arkansaw)

Christine Lagarde, for it is she, the French Finance Minister is not convinced of the wisdom of Brown and his glove puppet:

"The great uncertainty when one cuts the rate of VAT is knowing who will benefit. If it serves only consumers, it would be a good measure, but if it also benefits the whole of the supply chain between prodicer and consumer, that re-inforces margins. I am not sure that that should be the absolute imperative at the moment".

Mme Lagarde, let it be noted, has serious experience at the top end of commerce, unlike most of our pols.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

A brief observation on a prospective cut in the VAT rate

Sunday, November 23, 2008
Brown and his glove puppet at No 11 cannot cut VAT to below 15% because of EU law, so let us say that they go all the way from 17.5% to 15% on Monday. What is likely to happen?

In the case of products with established price points, let's say DVDs, CDs etc and any number of things that end in .99 pence, is it realistic to think that a grand total of tuppence per pound is going to be knocked off either at the till or on price stickers?

Further, I would suggest that for people with discretionary income, if tuppence or thruppence per pound *is* knocked off, it is only for high value items that a theoretical 2.5% price cut becomes a saving that might serve as a substantial incentive to buy. After all, one would have to be dealing with purchases of more than one hundred pounds in order to save the price of a pint. Up the ante to a thousand pounds, and the saving would cover a fairly cheap indian takeaway for two.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Those dreadful bankers...

Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Sucking the life out of the economy, are they?

Well, "Large banks accounted for about 30 per cent of the UK’s corporation tax receipts last year, according to a study by PwC". FT 14/8/8

I make CT receipts £51.3 bn, and 30% of that is £15.4 bn. Here is a list of 2008 spending, take your pick. You could have half the defence budget, or tertiary and secondary education spending at central government level or a quarter of old age pension spending.

And that's before income tax, business rates etc etc.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Credit where it is due department

Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Bean counters, 'Professional services organisation' KPMG has polled CFOs and the like on value added indirect taxes, and our lovely VAT system is reckoned the most VAT friendly of the systems in the major economies. Italy comes last and the US eleventh.

I will give the Dour One no credit for this, as doubtless he is intent on doing a similar number on VAT to that inflicted on the rest of the tax system, and any readers who suffer VAT returns can be excused for being in a state of shock.

Give KPMG's fun and games with tax shelters a few years back, I admire its chutzpah for drawing attention to tax issues, frankly.

No mention of KPMG would be complete without drawing attention to its hilarious corporate anthem, available as an MP3 for the strong of stomach / those who have been living under a rock here.

For those lacking PC speakers etc, this is the chorus:

KPMG - We're as strong as can be,
A team of power and energy,
We go for the gold, together we hold
Onto our vision of global strategy!

Further lyrics here.

Go on, click on the MP3, you know you want to.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Where not to park

Saturday, August 16, 2008
Care of London Councils, which provided the data, and MS Paint, a map of parking fine hot spots in London. Note "6,176,752 penalties were issued in London in 2007/08 for illegal parking, driving in bus lanes [etc etc]".

Red (Westminster and Camden) managed to levy 824,687 and 529,874 parking fines respectively in the year to March

The next tier (yellow) between 150,001 and 300,000 fines each

Tier three (green) 100,001 to 150,000.

Tier four (pale blue) 50,001 to 100,000.

Tier five (dark blue) - City, Sutton and Havering, a derisory 0 to 50,000. Lest folk make haste to park in Sutton, Suttonians live under a reign of terror clamper-wise - it leads London boroughs for that particular form of extortion.

I do not have a car, so this is not really my problem, but it has long been clear that parking fines and so forth have precious little to do with keeping traffic flowing and an awful lot to do with tax farming. My brief rant on the topic is here.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Croydonian

The 'Common Market'

Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Remember when it used to be called that, and we were led to believe it was little more than a free trade agreement?

I would be quite happy with that, but that is no longer on the menu. It does not even stand for inter European free trade any more:

"The European Commission today presented a Report and a proposal for a Directive to amend the current EU excise duty legislation on tobacco. The draft Directive foresees a gradual increase in the EU minimum taxation levels on cigarettes and fine cut tobacco up to 2014....László Kovács, Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union said: “Today's proposal supports the EU policy to reduce tobacco consumption and narrow the differences in price levels of tobacco products within the EU. It will help reduce illicit trade and cross-border shopping, which undermine the revenue and the health objectives of Member States which impose high taxes to deter smoking. It will give more flexibility to Member States on setting minimum tax levels and will modernise the current rules so as to ensure a level playing field for producers and retailers".

Ever been had?

(Declaration of interest - I am a non-smoker who has lapsed but intends to stop dead tomorrow).

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

Trouble for the Revenue?

Monday, June 23, 2008
Good news - for once - from the EU.

This is what EU Consumer Commissioner Meglena Kuneva had to say the other day, while in these parts:

"It is particularly important for consumers to challenge the acceptability of business models based on geographical discrimination. In the world we live in, we are not obliged to shop in the supermarkets and stores of our postal code. We are not constrained to buy in our municipalities. We should also not be forced to shop within our national borders. Yet we cannot buy computers, train tickets or play-stations freely across the EU. We are forced to buy domestic. Let me be clear, there is no place in Europe's Single Market for artificial geographical restrictions which hold consumers back within national borders. I am in the process of carrying out a study on e-commerce, which I hope will start to launch the debate."

That, made law, would rather put the kibosh on our penal duty rates on tobacco and alcohol....

(NB - One does need the EU in order for cross border trade to flourish....)


Meanwhile, in another release quoting the redoubtable, and not uneasy on the eye, Ms Kuneva, she is shocked, shocked, that fewer consumers engage in cross-border e-commerce than domestic e-commerce. Erm, penal international postage, exchange rates (in some cases) and language problems?

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

Toynbee fact checker....

Tuesday, November 27, 2007
"Instead [Brown] boasted of Labour's deep cuts in corporation tax, which now at 28% is among the lowest in the west". Source

OK, let's take The West as being a synonym for the OECD. Fair?

"...at the turn of the millennium the British rate of 30% was 3.6 percentage points below the OECD average. Yet by 2005 it was 1.4 points higher. In 2000 there were only seven OECD members with a corporate tax rate lower than 30%; there are now 14". (This is from The Business in January 2007, quoted on the personal site of the author)

"Comparing Britain’s tax policy with that of the most forward-thinking European nations has become almost embarrassing. The Irish (with their 12.5% corporation tax) and the Eastern Europeans – in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia corporation tax is respectively 24%, 16%, and 19% – remain ahead of the pack. The rest of Europe is starting to follow their lead, as tax competition works its magic and forces even social-democratic governments to adapt to reality; some of the developments on the continent have been truly remarkable, albeit barely noticed by the British chattering classes. The Austrians cut corporation tax from 34% to 25% in 2005. A week ago, corporation tax in Holland was cut to 25.5%. Denmark has reduced its tax rate from 34% to 28%. In Finland it is now only 26%, compared to 29% in 2004. Between 1999 and 2004, the Portuguese reduced their rate from 37.4% to 27.5%. Corporation tax is also lower in Greece and Luxembourg than in Britain. Even in those European countries where corporation tax remains higher than in Britain, the direction is clearly down. In Belgium company tax has fallen from 40.2% to 34%; the Germans slashed theirs from 52% to 38.9% in 2001 and could introduce additional reductions next year. Last year, the French cut their own corporation rate from 41.7% to 34.4%; even more depressingly from Britain’s perspective, President Chirac has just pledged that France will reduce corporation tax to 20% in five years with the long-term goal of getting it down to 10%".

"....among the lowest in the west". Yeah, right.


"To quote Stefan Bach of the German Institute of Economic Development, “Even if a nexus between tax cuts and economic growth is not clear in theory and difficult to prove empirically, the international experience shows: countries that have lowered their corporate income tax had a positive economic development.” KPMG corporate tax survey 2006

Which survey also shows an average corporate tax rate, across 88 countries, of 27.1% as of 1/1/2006.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

What the Danes want

Tuesday, October 30, 2007
An end to the higher rate of income tax, by the look of things, but also snow for Christmas and better Christmas presents.

I have discovered this from the rather useful 'Votes for Sale' site, which shows candidates what they should promise if they want folk to vote for them: "Tax cuts, welfare reform, two cars in every garage or more snow on Christmas - sell your vote to the candidate who keeps their promise on the issue most important to you. Creators of the website ValgTilSalg.dk (VoteForSale) have given voters the opportunity to choose which election issue they think should take centre stage. ‘We thought, if politics is really about currying voters’ favour with huge campaign promises, then why not let the individual citizen decide for themselves which promise his or her vote can be bought with,’ said Torben Andersen of ValgTilSalg.dk". Source

It does not look as though any Danish pols are promising snow for Christmas as yet, but it looks like such a 'policy' would be popular. However, one should be wary of promises that one cannot keep: "A proper Danish Christmas should preferably be white, but unfortunately that does not happen often. Not until 90% of the country is covered with at least half a centimetre of snow does Denmark’s Meteorological Institute say that we have a national white Christmas, and we have actually only experienced that seven times since 1900. That was in 1915, 1923, 1938, 1956, 1969, 1981, and 1995".Source . Maybe 2009 then...

My Danish is not all it could be, so I am reliant on online translation for the detail as to current voting on the site, but it is notable that the bulk of participants thus far are self-defined as Socialdemokratiet, and working that one out is none too challenging. So excluding the silliness involving weather etc, it is quite heartening that voters choosing a party affiliated to the Socialist International are keen on tax cuts and the like. And yes, I know this is a self- selecting poll and of absolutely no statistical validity.

So, what would readers like to be promised?

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian