Category Archives: Welfare State

The Morality of Tax Avoidance

Tax

There’s an interesting scuffle about tax going on in the British media at the moment – and it seems that the Government is in danger of being responsible for companies contravening the Companies Act which was rewritten in 2006.

This scuffle started a few months ago with the ‘outing’ of various individuals who were apparently using legal tax avoidance schemes to reduce their tax burden. The newspapers – always looking for some dirt to dig up – leapt on this with joy and the resulting public furore caused a number of wealthy people to apologise publicly for avoiding tax, even though the schemes were legal, and in many cases volunteer to pay more tax.

Secure in the knowledge that a significant part of the British public supported this crackdown on the dastardly villains that were exercising their rights to legally reduce their tax bill, the next step was to take on corporations – and the multinationals were an obvious target: nasty foreign companies taking advantage of making huge profits through the sweat of the (implied: underpaid) British worker, but not paying tax on the proceeds. It’s easy for the press to whip up public support for calls that they pay more tax and for the politicians, ever ready to back a cause that would seem to be a vote-catcher, joined in. In essence, these multinationals were being blamed for cuts in welfare and other government services, completely ignoring the fact of profligate government over-spending for years, if not decades.

What has been completely overlooked in all of this self-righteous posturing (and let’s ignore the ongoing issues with MPs and their expenses) are a few important points:

  • First and foremost, every company’s directors have a fiduciary duty – as laid down in the Companies Act – to “promote the success of the company.” By volunteering to pay more tax than is legally required these boards would act in contravention of the Companies Act and, in fact, directors could therefore be disbarred from serving on boards. Even by the admission of the government, these companies are not engaged in tax evasion (that’s illegal) but are structuring their affairs to minimise tax paid, an activity that is not only legal but necessary in terms of the Companies Act. So the government is encouraging directors to act in contravention of its own laws.
  • E.U. legislation requires there be a single legal head-office for companies operating throughout the region, and companies will obviously look to put this in the country/city that makes the most financial sense overall – tax, employment, etc. So, countries that are competitive in these areas will derive most benefit, while those with higher operating/tax costs will not. That’s called free-market enterprise.
  • The UK tax system is now arguably the most complex of any, having more than doubled in size under Labour from under 5000 pages in 1997, to over 11500 pages in 2009. Such complexity will always result in loopholes being found – a simpler code means more tax, more fairly applied. What about simply imposing a flat tax system – this generally means more tax collected at a fraction of the cost?
  • Figures published early this year showed that some 52% of the working populace in the UK are employed by the State. This means that less than half the workforce is not only supporting those not working, but this massive and grossly inefficient (it must be at this ratio!) government machine, too. The issue, therefore, should not be more tax income, but less expenditure.

But, of course, common sense flies out of the window when it comes to politics.

Our revered “public servants” in the current government recognise that the wealthy, and the captains of industry are unlikely to switch their vote to Labour and by appealing to an increasingly vociferous “mob” they might garner enough votes to remain in power after the 2015 elections. Even if this means abandoning previously-held principles and, in fact, common sense, as by taking this tack they risk chasing even more companies and wealthy individuals to more favourable business climes.

Bear in mind that the top 1% of British earners pay almost 30% of all income tax (more than twice their proportion of earnings), and the top 10% pay almost 60% of all income tax. As these are typically the business owners / leaders – and therefore the employers – encouraging them to move will not only reduce the tax receipts from these critical contributors, but put overall employment at risk, too, threatening the health of the country as a whole.

It’s time for that most uncommon of things – common sense – to start playing a part in the UK; for people to realise that the government doesn’t have money and everyone needs to play their part in the economy and life of the country; for politicians to  stop trying to buy votes with short-term moves that will cost the country dearly in the longer term; and for the media to present a more balanced approach to matters and to actively seek to lift the country out of its current mess by encouraging everyone to work together for the good of all.

Advertisements

Communication in the Information Age

Note: the plate says - "The quick brown f...

Image via Wikipedia

Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1440 heralded the start of mass communication – for the first time, text could be reproduced quickly and inexpensively for a large audience. Of course, very few people could read in those days and many authorities were against it, fearing the impact of mass uncontrolled communication on their rule, so it took a few hundred years for this to spread.

The introduction of broadcast radio from 1920 started to spread information even more quickly and widely, marking a significant jump in the speed of communication.

But it was the Information Age which has really accelerated global communication.  Widely accepted to have started in the 1970s with the advent of the microprocessor, it took the introduction of the Internet Browser in the early 1990s for the Information Age to really become as integral to life as it is today.

And yet, it seems, the Information Age is just a quicker way to spread the same sort of information as before. Certainly our main sources of news seemed to have missed the point – news bulletins rely on “sound bites” or their video equivalents to relay information with the result that this is often inaccurate or, at best, unbalanced. Newspapers, too, have not really worked out how to embrace the digital age fully – you either get print (almost as in 1440, albeit more quickly), or the same articles available online, missing the opportunity to have summaries of stories and the ability to drill down for more information.

This is the key – we’re bombarded with information from multiple channels but have not developed the tools to effectively sift it. Long messages are often ignored as we don’t have time for them, while short messages are frequently taken out of context missing the real point that was being made. What’s needed is the ability to capture the essence of a point in a short burst and then enable people to get more information as they require it – almost an inside-out onion, with successive layers giving more and more detail.

Twitter is a great example of the modern communication paradigm – 140 characters to get the basic message across, including a link to more detail, which you can access if you wish. That more detailed message, in turn, could have links to other sources for even more information, and so on…

Nowhere, perhaps, is this communication problem more evident than in politics. There’s no argument with the fact that the UK, like many other countries globally, has woefully overspent and has to completely revisit its bloated public sector spending (how can a majority of the workforce be civil servants – effectively paid for by the minority?).  And yet it, like so many others, is facing widespread revolt at the prospect – look at the pension reform issue, for example…

Why?

Primarily because the government is incapable of effective communication. White papers, government statements and debates are far too long and not suitable for the news media or the viewing/listening/reading public, so people simply don’t understand the issues. I absolutely believe that the vast majority of people are decent, willing to work hard to get ahead and happy to help those less fortunate (but NOT those that are not prepared to help themselves).

But, for as long as governments cannot get the message out in a way that the media can carry without distortion and people can understand in just seconds, they will be unable to implement the changes that are needed, worsening the financial state of their countries, prolonging the agony and the economic downturn.

It’s time to turn traditional communication on its head and embrace “the 140 character world.”

Whither the Welfare State?

Sea wall and railway
Image via Wikipedia

Or should that be “wither” as it’s clearly time to change the model dramatically – a model which was developed after the last war, in a very different world?

As Dr Adrian Rogers quite famously put it, “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don’t multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don’t have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don’t get to enjoy the fruits of their labour.”

Having only moved to England a few weeks ago, I find it’s interesting to listen to what people here are saying about the “welfare state” issues, particularly at the moment when it’s clear that the new government has no chance but to make some dramatic changes to the way things have been done in the past 13 years of Labour Party rule.

But it seems that it’s not just the country that Labour has brought to the edge of bankruptcy: former Deputy Prime Minister under Tony Blair, John Prescott, has told us that the Labour Party itself is in danger of bankruptcy, with debts of some £20M ($30M) through a combination of over-spending and poor accounting: ironically making the announcement on the day that Tony Blair’s new investment bank was being registered… At least the party was consistent with its approach to finance, even if the former Prime Minister seems to have profited most handsomely from his time in office.

However, I digress. The basic issue, as Dr Rogers so succinctly put it, is that Governments can’t just create money magically, but can only redistribute money from one part of society to another, and the more that people want to take, the more that others are forced to give.

Few people doubt that societies should help those within them that are unable to fend for themselves – this compassion, after all, is what is supposed to make us human – but the question today is how much help should be given and to whom. I find it astonishing, for example, that there are families in England who have not worked at all for three generations, and simply live off benefits. Others, who receive free housing, believe it should be their right to pass these houses onto other family members. Girls find that being a single parent is a profitable enterprise, and start to have babies at a very young age, then turn to the state for housing and benefits, and are able to live comfortably without working. The list of abuses to the system is endless…

Clearly this is wrong. We should protect those unable to work for reasons of frailty, but those who are healthy should have a defined maximum period – say 6 months – on “free” benefits and then should start “earning their keep.” If they can’t find a paying job within that period, the welfare authorities should have them working for the society that is housing and feeding them – there is so much that needs to be done, from infrastructure development and maintenance to helping the elderly and the sick (hospital porters, for example), and would provide benefits in return for such work. This would not only help motivate them to find more steady (and, perhaps, comfortable) work, but reduce the costs of running local authorities as much of the work could be done by those on benefits.

What do you think – should benefits be given without restriction, or should recipients who are able to do so be obliged to “earn” their benefits, and help the society that is providing them in return?

Enhanced by Zemanta