The Treasury Minister David Gauke has said it is "morally wrong" to pay tradesmen such as plumbers, builders and cleaners in cash in the hope of avoiding tax. He says that the practice came at "a big cost" to the Treasury and meant other people had to pay more to help balance the books. The Westminster government has highlighted this in its desire to clamp down on tax avoidance. The minister’s pronouncement may indicate a desire by the Westminster government to hit out on those who can least affords to tax evade.
On a similar theme, a report written by James Henry, a former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, for the Tax Justice Network, ‘The Price of Offshore Revisited’ makes interesting reading. The report estimates that the global super-rich elite had the best part of some $ 21 trillion dollars (or £ 13 trillion pounds) stashed away in secret tax havens by the end of 2010. The figure is equivalent to the size of the US and Japanese economies combined. Why do I somehow suspect that this interesting document will probably not be on George Osborne, David Cameron or David Gauke’s summer recess reading list.
Showing posts with label Lord Ashcroft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lord Ashcroft. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Thursday, 2 February 2012
SOMETHING WE WILL NEVER SEE...
 |
| President Obama |
The gist of his comments ran along the lines of everyone needed to pay their fair share of tax, otherwise the American dream was broken, and that hard work was no longer rewarded and that unnamed others should be required to play by the rules and do their bit too – and pay their fair share of taxation, the same as everyone else does.
That is about as close the an American President can get to having ago at tax evaders and even then he may get accused of playing the ‘class war' card. Tax or its apparent avoidance briefly became a big issue in the US Republican primaries as Newt Gingrich effectively forced Mitt Romney to publicise his tax returns, which revealed the fact that he made $20m (£13m) last year in unearned income.
Newt Gingrich's supporters then funded a series of adverts labelling Mr Romney a "vulture" and "corporate raider", and accusing him of making his millions by asset-stripping and firing workers. He openly mocked Mr Romney's bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.
 |
| Prime Minister David Cameron |
So tax, tax evasion and tax avoidance in times of austerity may well be a big issue in the forthcoming US Presidential election amongst other things. After all we are all supposed to be in this together. David Cameron used to make much of saying we were all in it together, but, that no longer seems to be, nor ever was the case.
I mean, its awfully awkward, having gone out to bat in Europe for the square mile and conveniently forgetting the UK’s other 5,999 square miles. I think for most of us, despite the increasingly desperate Tory spin, it is now pretty clear where David Cameron stands (or squirms) in his position, it would make dinner with Lord Ashcroft awfully embarrassing.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?
News that the government says it will increase the levy on banks to £2.5 billion this year which will bring in an extra £800 million in tax, may well be a case of too little, too late. Chancellor George Osborne made much of this yesterday stating that the tax was being brought forward before banks announced their bonus payments.
Very nice, save for the fact that for the big ‘5’ banks 800 million is about one weeks profits. Oddly enough, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, more than half of donations to the Conservative Party last year came from the City of London. The report noted that firms and individuals donated £11.4m in 2010; this brought the total of City based donations since David Cameron became leader to more than £42m.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which is a not-for-profit organisation, examined records of donations held by the Electoral Commission and Companies House. It concluded that last year, City donations totalled 50.8% of all money given - up from around 25% in 2005, the year in which Mr Cameron became Tory leader.
The bureau said that 57 individuals from the finance sector gave more than £50,000 last year, entitling them to membership of the Conservative Leader's Club. Naturally the government has rejected suggestions that donors were influencing policy, unless of course you happen to be Lord Ashcroft.
Of course New (and Old) Labour leaders and Labour prime ministers have quite happily taken millions of pounds of funding on behalf of their party from trade unions, and they (the Trade Unionists) have also had any influence on Government policy (yet they keep on paying), just like the rest of us will keep on paying to bail out the banks.
Very nice, save for the fact that for the big ‘5’ banks 800 million is about one weeks profits. Oddly enough, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, more than half of donations to the Conservative Party last year came from the City of London. The report noted that firms and individuals donated £11.4m in 2010; this brought the total of City based donations since David Cameron became leader to more than £42m.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which is a not-for-profit organisation, examined records of donations held by the Electoral Commission and Companies House. It concluded that last year, City donations totalled 50.8% of all money given - up from around 25% in 2005, the year in which Mr Cameron became Tory leader.
The bureau said that 57 individuals from the finance sector gave more than £50,000 last year, entitling them to membership of the Conservative Leader's Club. Naturally the government has rejected suggestions that donors were influencing policy, unless of course you happen to be Lord Ashcroft.
Of course New (and Old) Labour leaders and Labour prime ministers have quite happily taken millions of pounds of funding on behalf of their party from trade unions, and they (the Trade Unionists) have also had any influence on Government policy (yet they keep on paying), just like the rest of us will keep on paying to bail out the banks.
Thursday, 25 November 2010
POOR, POOR DAVID?
There are times when you almost (repeat almost) have a degree of sympathy with David Cameron, all that effort giving the former nasty party a green tinted hoody hugging makeover - wasted? I mean look what he has got to work with Lord Young (sacked/resigned/pushed -take your pick) and now Lord Flight (whose fate is as yet unknown) although falling after a struggle on his sword might well turn out to be an option. Of course Lord Flight is no stranger to letting the Tory masque slip. He has previous or form for it from 2005, when he let the cat out of the bag about possible Tory cuts. Hmmm, it's worth remembering that our economy (admittedly credit driven) was relatively stable then and the crash was a few years away. No, perhaps not, I suspect that these are the real Tories unrestrained and without the makeover.This is only a case of the Tory masque slipping to reveal what lies beneath. Poor old David, and people used to think that his political life was difficult enough trying to deal with keeping his Liberal Democrat little helpers on board and on message. I suppose you could always try abolishing the House of Lords?
Friday, 6 August 2010
GUESS WHO CAME TO DINNER?
It's always difficult when people drop by for a meal, food aside what do you talk about? It's especially difficult when those awkward silences arise! Last night (Thursday) Prime Minister David Cameron had a not particularly unexpected or unannounced dinner guest, in the shape of President Zardari of Pakistan, who dropped by on the off-chance of catching the PM in at Chequers.
Mr Zardari (whose own money matters (and misdeeds in the past) would make Lord Ashcroft's money matters pale into insignificance) was Mr Cameron's guest at a private dinner at the PM's country residence. The after-dinner conversation would have left little room for any uncomfortable moments of silence, as there was much to talk about with plenty of lively conversation with counter-terrorism co-operation, NATO operations in Afghanistan and trade amongst the topics of conversation. No doubt there was a free and frank exchange of views - which is usually diplomatic language for 'a full on shouting match'.
Any exchanges would have been a tad more intense because of the PM's diplomatic blunder in India which caused a significant amount of muttering and some anger in Pakistan last week. The PM, during his India trip, did wonders for UK - Pakistan diplomatic relations, when he said elements in Pakistan should not be allowed to "promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world".
Now, the real issue was not so much what David ("Call me Dave") Cameron said, as where he said it that ruffled feathers in Islamabad. Had Dave said it in Islamabad or anywhere else he may have got away with it. It was saying it in India, which no doubt earned him a few points with New Delhi what really rubbed Islamabad up the wrong way. Most independent strategic analysts accept that elements in Pakistani military intelligence and within the army have been trying to play both ends against the middle over recent years in Afghanistan.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall!
Mr Zardari (whose own money matters (and misdeeds in the past) would make Lord Ashcroft's money matters pale into insignificance) was Mr Cameron's guest at a private dinner at the PM's country residence. The after-dinner conversation would have left little room for any uncomfortable moments of silence, as there was much to talk about with plenty of lively conversation with counter-terrorism co-operation, NATO operations in Afghanistan and trade amongst the topics of conversation. No doubt there was a free and frank exchange of views - which is usually diplomatic language for 'a full on shouting match'.
Any exchanges would have been a tad more intense because of the PM's diplomatic blunder in India which caused a significant amount of muttering and some anger in Pakistan last week. The PM, during his India trip, did wonders for UK - Pakistan diplomatic relations, when he said elements in Pakistan should not be allowed to "promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world".
Now, the real issue was not so much what David ("Call me Dave") Cameron said, as where he said it that ruffled feathers in Islamabad. Had Dave said it in Islamabad or anywhere else he may have got away with it. It was saying it in India, which no doubt earned him a few points with New Delhi what really rubbed Islamabad up the wrong way. Most independent strategic analysts accept that elements in Pakistani military intelligence and within the army have been trying to play both ends against the middle over recent years in Afghanistan.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall!
Sunday, 11 July 2010
PARADIS FISCAUX
In relation to the banking crisis and the vast debts that us mere mortals are having to repay, perhaps is best to paraphrase Winston Churchill, 'Never have so many had to pay so much on behalf of so few!'. George Osborne and the Tories have reluctantly gone along with the much publicly stated need to regulate the more unsavoury aspects of the banking sector. The question is will they sign up to President Obama's stated aim to regulate tax havens?
Just in case you forget, back in January (2009) President Obama announced two measures to curb the banks, the first aimed to stop banks from engaging in proprietary trading, private equity, or any other activity for their own profit unrelated to serving customers. The second measure aimed to take further steps to limit the balance sheet size of banks so that they cannot in future acquire “too big to fail” status.
President Obama is right to characterise his proposals as a victory for common sense and while we may have some way to go before the banks are forced to act responsibly, the first steps have been taken. I wonder if David Cameron will follow suit sooner or later – or are the Tories (despite everything that has happened in an almost unregulated, greed driven finance sector over the last few years) still far to enamoured with their friends, the dodgy money men in the City of London.
On occasion you may find yourself wondering exactly how far we have progressed in the last hundred years of so? In the later years of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth century US Presidents, Presidential candidates and politicians including Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) and William Jennings Bryan a Democratic Presidential candidate) were opposed to the power of big business and fought against the dangers of monopoly capitalism (as personified by ‘Standard Oil’ and 'the Trusts’ in Teddy’s case). In 1896, William Jennings Bryan, a future Democratic presidential nominee, warning against the power of finance, said: “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”
President Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan had (and in my opinion has) a valid point - if you believe in the ‘free market’ (and the City money men claim to) then no organisation can be too big to be allowed not to fail. The massive public subsidies effectively made some of the banks 'publicly owned’, yet they are still largely run by bankers who are so thick skinned or self interested that they carried on regardless when it came to the awarding of bonuses - would that they had been more generous when it come to advancing loans to small to medium sized and larger businesses in their hour of need.
The new Con Dem UK Government should seriously consider breaking up and 'privatising' the larger 'publicly owned' financial institutions, and selling shares on the open market (with specific quotas on how many shares any one institution can own) – because from where many people are sat these bloated overgrown banking organisations appear to be a serious block on the ‘free market’.
We also need to a degree of similar rules for financial institutions across the globe, off shore must become a matter of historical record – there must be no where the financial institutions can hide and no more endless threats of taking their “ball” (businesses operations) elsewhere and relocating because they have lost their so called special status. it is important to remember, that no one, not even bankers (or MPs) are above the law and no one is above financial regulation and scrutiny.
The OCED estimated that some $10 trillion dollars worth of private wealth is concealed in Paradis Fiscaux (tax havens). These financial dead letter drops tend to be used by banks, multi-national companies, corporations, the super (and not so super) rich, drug dealers, dictators, terrorists, fraudsters and other criminals who use them to hide and launder their wealth. One significant side effect of Paradis Fiscaux is that they enable people and organisations to avoid paying their fair dues to the society in which they live, unlike the rest of us mere mortals.
To put things in perspective - the $10 trillion dollar figure produced by the OCED means that the lost taxation normally accused would be more than double the entire planet's global aid budget. President Obama, President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel are on record saying that off-shore capital needs to be properly regulated - Gordon Brown (remember him?) waffled, will the Con Dems sign up or are they in the pockets of the money men in the City or under the influence of Lord Ashcroft - who's
heart may be in Belize with his wallet?
Just in case you forget, back in January (2009) President Obama announced two measures to curb the banks, the first aimed to stop banks from engaging in proprietary trading, private equity, or any other activity for their own profit unrelated to serving customers. The second measure aimed to take further steps to limit the balance sheet size of banks so that they cannot in future acquire “too big to fail” status.
President Obama is right to characterise his proposals as a victory for common sense and while we may have some way to go before the banks are forced to act responsibly, the first steps have been taken. I wonder if David Cameron will follow suit sooner or later – or are the Tories (despite everything that has happened in an almost unregulated, greed driven finance sector over the last few years) still far to enamoured with their friends, the dodgy money men in the City of London.
On occasion you may find yourself wondering exactly how far we have progressed in the last hundred years of so? In the later years of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth century US Presidents, Presidential candidates and politicians including Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) and William Jennings Bryan a Democratic Presidential candidate) were opposed to the power of big business and fought against the dangers of monopoly capitalism (as personified by ‘Standard Oil’ and 'the Trusts’ in Teddy’s case). In 1896, William Jennings Bryan, a future Democratic presidential nominee, warning against the power of finance, said: “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”
President Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan had (and in my opinion has) a valid point - if you believe in the ‘free market’ (and the City money men claim to) then no organisation can be too big to be allowed not to fail. The massive public subsidies effectively made some of the banks 'publicly owned’, yet they are still largely run by bankers who are so thick skinned or self interested that they carried on regardless when it came to the awarding of bonuses - would that they had been more generous when it come to advancing loans to small to medium sized and larger businesses in their hour of need.
The new Con Dem UK Government should seriously consider breaking up and 'privatising' the larger 'publicly owned' financial institutions, and selling shares on the open market (with specific quotas on how many shares any one institution can own) – because from where many people are sat these bloated overgrown banking organisations appear to be a serious block on the ‘free market’.
We also need to a degree of similar rules for financial institutions across the globe, off shore must become a matter of historical record – there must be no where the financial institutions can hide and no more endless threats of taking their “ball” (businesses operations) elsewhere and relocating because they have lost their so called special status. it is important to remember, that no one, not even bankers (or MPs) are above the law and no one is above financial regulation and scrutiny.
The OCED estimated that some $10 trillion dollars worth of private wealth is concealed in Paradis Fiscaux (tax havens). These financial dead letter drops tend to be used by banks, multi-national companies, corporations, the super (and not so super) rich, drug dealers, dictators, terrorists, fraudsters and other criminals who use them to hide and launder their wealth. One significant side effect of Paradis Fiscaux is that they enable people and organisations to avoid paying their fair dues to the society in which they live, unlike the rest of us mere mortals.
To put things in perspective - the $10 trillion dollar figure produced by the OCED means that the lost taxation normally accused would be more than double the entire planet's global aid budget. President Obama, President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel are on record saying that off-shore capital needs to be properly regulated - Gordon Brown (remember him?) waffled, will the Con Dems sign up or are they in the pockets of the money men in the City or under the influence of Lord Ashcroft - who's
heart may be in Belize with his wallet?
Monday, 3 May 2010
REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION...
With David ("Call me Dave") Cameron desperately trying to inject some momentum into a pretty lacklustre campaign, where he has succeeded in losing a ten point lead that he had previously maintained for some two years, it's worth by-passing the "We are the NICE Party Honest? Spin" to remember who is actually paying the piper.
Until 2002, it was Lord Ashcroft who (then at least) actually gave donations to the Conservative Party under his own name. From 2003, donations came through Bearwood Corporate services, a small company whose headquarters are a service address at a firm of accountants in Southampton. He also runs Flying Lion, a private airline. His wife, Susan Anstey, is an active Tory donor.
The Times (1st March 2010) published a short guide to the money donated by Lord Ashcroft, his companies and his relations:
Lord Ashcroft
2001: £6,996 cash and £51,750 non cash
2002: £22,980 non cash
Lord Ashcroft for visit for Liam Fox to Oman and Saudi Arabia in 2006: £3,200
Bearwood
2003: £27,000 cash
2004: £274,063 cash plus £9,269 non cash
2005: £667,165 cash plus £28,291 non cash
2006: £59,136 cash plus £444,619 non cash
2007: £275,000 cash plus £1.42m non cash
2008: £300,000 cash plus £1.3m non cash
2009: £0 cash plus £329,858 non cash
Bearwood to "Conservatives for Change" in 2002/3: £24,000
Flying Lion
2006 2 trips, to Khartoum and Prague £19,819
2009 3 trips, to US, Qatar and China £20,393
Just to make things interesting it does not stop here...
Susan Anstey (Lady Ashcroft)
2003: £5,100 cash plus £5,777 non cash
2004: £9,350 cash plus £76,382 non cash
2005: £7,000 non cash
2006: £20,860 cash plus £51,850 non cash
2007: none
2008: £263,000 cash plus £600 non cash
2009: £5,000 cash plus £124,520 non cash
Susan Anstey to David Cameron leadership campaign in 2005: £20,000
Susan Anstey to Steve Norris campaign: £75,000
Bearwood total since David Cameron came in (Q1 2006 to Q4 2009): £4.13 out of £89.5 million (4.6 per cent)
A couple of questions, firstly, is this called representation without taxation? And can poor (figuratively rather than literally) old Lord Ashcroft get his money back when David ("Call me Dave") Cameron fails to deliver the goods for the previously agreed price? Or at least reclaim his investment through the courts under trades descriptions - as he must have thought he was buying a political party not a political road traffic accident?
Friday, 19 March 2010
ON NO! NOT AGAIN?
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, a member of the Lords committee that vetted Lord Ashcroft for his peerage ten years ago has now admitted that she had been shocked and surprised to hear two weeks ago that he was still not a full UK taxpayer. While giving testimony to a Commons select committee, the Baroness said she had assumed that Lord Ashcroft had fulfilled his undertaking to become a "permanent resident" of the UK - oddly enough it appears that William Hague thought the same thing.
The Times (March 18th) reported that the man himself - Lord Ashcroft and William Hague, the former Tory leader (who had an uneasy 20 minutes on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme) and who pushed the honour through, had both been invited to appear before the Commons Public Administration Committee in its special hearing on "propriety and peerages". The Times discreetly noted that both men refused to attend because they considered the Committee to be partisan.
Oddly enough the Committee's three Tory members also boycotted the hearing — giving its Labour MPs a clear run at their target. From David ('Call me Dave') Cameron's position the sooner this ends the better, but, I suspect that there is much more to come before a discreet veil is drawn over this sorry business.
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
BOUGHT AND SOLD...
Until 2002, Lord Ashcroft gave donations to the Conservative Party under his own name. From 2003, donations came through Bearwood Corporate services, a small company whose headquarters are a service address at a firm of accountants in Southampton. He also runs Flying Lion, a private airline. His wife, Susan Anstey, is an active Tory donor.
The Times (1st March 2010) published a short guide to the money donated by Lord Ashcroft, his companies and his relations:
Lord Ashcroft
2001: £6,996 cash and £51,750 non cash
2002: £22,980 non cash
Lord Ashcroft for visit for Liam Fox to Oman and Saudi Arabia in 2006: £3,200
Bearwood
2003: £27,000 cash
2004: £274,063 cash plus £9,269 non cash
2005: £667,165 cash plus £28,291 non cash
2006: £59,136 cash plus £444,619 non cash
2007: £275,000 cash plus £1.42m non cash
2008: £300,000 cash plus £1.3m non cash
2009: £0 cash plus £329,858 non cash
Bearwood to "Conservatives for Change" in 2002/3: £24,000
Flying Lion
2006 2 trips, to Khartoum and Prague £19,819
2009 3 trips, to US, Qatar and China £20,393
Just to make things interesting it does not stop here...
Susan Anstey (Lady Ashcroft)
2003: £5,100 cash plus £5,777 non cash
2004: £9,350 cash plus £76,382 non cash
2005: £7,000 non cash
2006: £20,860 cash plus £51,850 non cash
2007: none
2008: £263,000 cash plus £600 non cash
2009: £5,000 cash plus £124,520 non cash
Susan Anstey to David Cameron leadership campaign in 2005: £20,000
Susan Anstey to Steve Norris campaign: £75,000
Bearwood total since David Cameron came in (Q1 2006 to Q4 2009): £4.13 out of £89.5 million (4.6 per cent)
Fascinating... is this called representation without taxation?
The Times (1st March 2010) published a short guide to the money donated by Lord Ashcroft, his companies and his relations:
Lord Ashcroft
2001: £6,996 cash and £51,750 non cash
2002: £22,980 non cash
Lord Ashcroft for visit for Liam Fox to Oman and Saudi Arabia in 2006: £3,200
Bearwood
2003: £27,000 cash
2004: £274,063 cash plus £9,269 non cash
2005: £667,165 cash plus £28,291 non cash
2006: £59,136 cash plus £444,619 non cash
2007: £275,000 cash plus £1.42m non cash
2008: £300,000 cash plus £1.3m non cash
2009: £0 cash plus £329,858 non cash
Bearwood to "Conservatives for Change" in 2002/3: £24,000
Flying Lion
2006 2 trips, to Khartoum and Prague £19,819
2009 3 trips, to US, Qatar and China £20,393
Just to make things interesting it does not stop here...
Susan Anstey (Lady Ashcroft)
2003: £5,100 cash plus £5,777 non cash
2004: £9,350 cash plus £76,382 non cash
2005: £7,000 non cash
2006: £20,860 cash plus £51,850 non cash
2007: none
2008: £263,000 cash plus £600 non cash
2009: £5,000 cash plus £124,520 non cash
Susan Anstey to David Cameron leadership campaign in 2005: £20,000
Susan Anstey to Steve Norris campaign: £75,000
Bearwood total since David Cameron came in (Q1 2006 to Q4 2009): £4.13 out of £89.5 million (4.6 per cent)
Fascinating... is this called representation without taxation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)