Skip to main content

The Real Tax Scandal

The news that 98% of FTSE companies use tax avoidance is being reported in the usual "shock-horror" terms of corporate greed. However those protesting are aiming at very much the wrong target. When even the HMRC itself- never mind the corporate sector- uses tax avoidance structures, it is clear that something fundamental needs to change.


The UK tax code is the largest in the world. It currently stands at an astonishing 11.250 pages. This is five times longer than the German code. Many of the provisions of this code  are contradictory. It is impossible for a single person to understand, still less comply, with all of the provisions. The creation of the Brown system of tax credits has also made it incredibly expensive to administer: an estimated 3% of revenue or an astonishing £18 billion. That, of course, does not include the costs to the tax payer in complying with the code, and even for an individual that can be several hundred pounds and for a company many thousands. We can see that the British taxation system is sucking tens of billions out of the productive economy. There is no added value in jobs enforcing tax compliance.


In Estonia, the simple tax code costs around 0.07% of revenue to collect and is so simple that 95% of people complete their tax return online. The burden on the economy is a fraction of that on UK.


There is a serious problem in the UK taxation system, but it is not that of corporate tax avoidance. The fact is that the current system has become so unwieldy as to be simply unenforceable. 


Fair taxes must start from the effective abolition of the current code and a return to a system based on Adam Smith's four principles of taxation: Equity, Certainty, Convenience and Efficiency. As the great man himself put it:


I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person.

III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it.

IV. Every tax ought to be contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.



Tax reform in the UK is now long overdue.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...