Today's Most Watched Stories
- US identifies Guantanamo indefinite detainees
- Putin faces isolation over Syria as G8 ratchets up pressure
- Eurozone crisis live: Greek leaders begin crucial meeting over state broadcaster
- Iran’s new president hails ‘victory of moderation’
- Stock markets slide as strike begins in Greece – eurozone crisis live
- Subscribe to Site-wide RSS Feed
- Subscribe to TOP NEWS feed rss
Category Archives: Tax and spending
Lib Dems under pressure to support Robin Hood tax in break with coalition
Labour calls on party to work towards consensus on financial transaction tax after 11 EU members vote in favour
The Liberal Democrats will on Tuesday face pressure to break ranks with their coalition partners by voting in favour of the principle of a financial transaction tax.
Labour, which is to press for a Commons vote on the issue, called on the Lib Dems to help create a consensus on the so-called Robin Hood tax which would in turn encourage the US to support the measure.
Chris Leslie, the shadow Treasury minister, will seek to embarrass the Lib Dems when he tables an amendment to a European Union document which will be presented to MPs after the decision of 11 EU member states to introduce the tax. The document notes that the government is mounting a challenge in the European court of justice against the EU proposal for an FTT which could involve a 0.01% levy on bond and share transactions.
The Labour amendment has been worded carefully to make it more difficult for the Lib Dems to refuse to support it. The amendment calls on the government to support the principle of an FTT and to work with other global financial centres, including the US, to reach consensus on a “modest rate without creating negative economic consequences”.
Leslie said: “If Liberal Democrats agree with the concept of a financial transaction tax, then this is the moment for them to show their support. There should be cross-party agreement to get negotiations under way and find a consensus especially with the United States government.
“The time has come for George Osborne to get serious about a financial transaction tax. The chancellor’s begrudging acceptance of the principle after that 2009 G20 in Pittsburg has not just withered away into general antipathy – he has done whatever he can to put a spanner in the works.
“Yet at a time when deficits are persistently high because of rock-bottom growth, leading economies including Britain and the United States need alternative revenue measures from continuing financial market speculation to relieve pressures on lower and middle income households and the public services they use. There are many lessons from the banking crisis, the most obvious of which is that the sheer globalised might of financial trading can overpower the plans and defences of individual nation states. Governments shouldn’t just shrug and accept this fate – which is why George Osborne should champion a reform agenda to harness international financial markets so that they serve our societies and economies.”
Britain opted out of a scheme to introduce the FTT in the EU when 11 member states – Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia – announced earlier this year they had formed a “coalition of the willing”. Their scheme would impose a levy on all euro transactions anywhere in the world.
The chancellor announced in April that Britain is to take the case to the European court of justice because of fears of the “extra-territorial aspects of the European commission’s proposals”. The City of London has the largest amount of euro-denominated transactions in the world even though Britain is not a member of the single currency.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Related posts:
Posted in Business, Conservatives, Europe, European Union, Financial sector, George Osborne, guardian.co.uk, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Liberal-Conservative coalition, News, Politics, Tax and spending, UK news, World news
Comments Off
We can’t take further spending cuts without losing vital services, councils warn George Osborne
More than 150 council leaders write to the Observer, warning the chancellor that they cannot absorb more cuts
More than 150 council leaders – including 36 Conservatives – have warned George Osborne that vital services such as libraries, children’s centres and sports clubs will have to close if he imposes further cuts on local government in next week’s spending review.
In a letter to the Observer, 151 council chiefs say that a further round of austerity, in addition to the 33% cuts already imposed since 2010, cannot be absorbed without devastating social and economic implications.
Councils fear that Osborne will impose a further 10% budget cut in his imminent spending purge, meaning that an average council will have to make a further £30m in savings in 2015-16. The Local Government Association, representing more than 370 authorities in England and Wales, says the rising cost of social care has added to already intense pressure on budgets and that local government is having to pay the cost of inefficiency in Whitehall. In their letter the council chiefs say that, while local government has been hit by 33% cuts since the coalition came to office, Whitehall departments have only had to take an average cut of 12%.
The letter states: “This pattern cannot be repeated without it having a serious impact on local services and on people. Councils have so far taken £3.1bn from the annual paybill, reduced management costs by more than 12.5% and saved hundreds of millions of pounds by teaming up to deliver both back office and frontline services.
“Council tax increases have also been kept well below the rate of inflation for the past four years. The resilience of local government cannot be stretched much further. For many councils, new funding cuts in 2015-16 will lead to a significant reduction in, and in some cases even loss of, important local services.”
Warning of lasting economic damage, they add: “Local government bore the brunt of cuts in the last spending review. For the sake of the public it cannot afford to do so again. It would be bad for the country, bad for people and bad for our prospects of economic recovery if funding for local services is cut further to reinforce inefficiencies within Whitehall.”
The chancellor will announce further cuts of £11.5bn for 2015-16 in the spending review and arguments are continuing in Whitehall over where the cuts should be made.
Earlier this month, the House of Commons public accounts committee said that dozens of local authorities were on the brink of financial collapse and argued that ministers had failed to come up with adequate contingency plans to support vital services
The committee said that if funding continued to decline while demand for services rose, it was likely that councils would have to be bailed out.
Councils are also saying that they will have to make deep cuts to highways’ budgets, reduce spending on galleries, libraries and the voluntary sector, turn off street lighting between midnight and dawn and reduce non-statutory schools transport. Ministers argue, however, that councils are sitting on huge reserves and that austerity is forcing necessary efficiencies on them.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Related posts:
Posted in Cuts and closures, Editorial, Education, George Osborne, Local government, Politics, Society, Tax and spending, The Observer, UK news, World news
Comments Off
Give us back our public spaces so we can have access all areas | Will Hutton
Places such as London’s Canary Wharf would be more vibrant if we weren’t so restricted in what we can do there
Canary Wharf is a daring development: more bankers now work in its offices than in the City of London. It has, with the Olympic Park, pulled London’s centre of gravity decisively eastwards. It is a tribute to modernity and boldness alike. But very few people I know like working there.
You surface from the gloriously expansive tube station to be dwarfed by a cluster of skyscrapers and inhumanly high towers, which strangely don’t seem to have any pride in themselves like those in New York. The shops in the underground shopping walkways gleam and glimmer and are full of tempting merchandise. It is all as it must have been in the architect’s drawings; it has taken me a long time to understand why I don’t feel drawn to any of it .
The reason, it became clearer on a recent visit, is that Canary Wharf possesses so little public space. Nothing is held in common. It is a “non-place”, whose lack of heart is brutally exposed at weekends and at night, when it empties. Privatisation and the values of the transactional, anonymised market have been taken too far. It is a dystopian present foretelling a more dystopian future.
Commercial developers behind the likes of Canary Wharf – the pioneer of vast, privately controlled spaces since emulated in the shopping centres of Liverpool One and Bristol’s Cabot Circus – want to reduce public space as much as they can. They want to be free to configure where we walk, what we visit and who has access because thus they can maximise sales per square foot of shopping and rents.
Public space costs money twice over: it has to be paid for by taxes (and we know many corporations do their utmost to avoid tax) and public space represents lost revenue. In a world in which everything has to be consecrated to “wealth generation”, providing a critical mass of public space that can be used for multiple public and social uses has been a burden too far in almost all recent large-scale urban regeneration projects throughout the country.
It is a crisis of the public realm – linked by a golden thread to the G8 meeting in Northern Ireland this weekend. Governments for the first time – prompted, to his credit, by David Cameron – are to agree to swap information about who is behind the fictional companies that populate the world’s tax havens. It is a tremulous assertion of the public interest against the tax-evading super-rich, but the tiny nature of the step and the lack of agreement to go further is part of the same mindset that concedes property developers should shape our country with only token genuflections to the need for public space. In this conception, “wealth generation” is a wholly private affair and “wealth generators” must have what they want whether on tax rules or planning regulations.
But to win the argument, there has to be an accompanying passion to revive the idea of publicness and challenge the super-rich head-on that the private world that they are creating is utterly barren. Non-places such as Canary Wharf in which to work, gated communities in which to live, and segregated private schools in which to educate their children – none is good to society in the round. Wealth generation with no sense of publicness is only wealth generation in name.
Anna Minton, in her wonderfully crusading book Ground Control, inveighs against the privatisation of public space and the whittling down of any voice that seeks to assert how our towns and cities should be lived in. Local government’s power has been gutted by virtually eliminating its capacity to raise local taxes, and doubly gutted by the persistent reduction within planning law of any concept that land or space should be held in common for public or social purpose. Minton’s particular bete noire is the obscure 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, which allows for economic wellbeing alone justifying compulsory purchase.
She warmly endorses the ideas of the Danish urbanist Jan Gehl. In his Cities for People, Gehl insists that the key to enjoyable city living is the chance to interact and that everything – in particular where you can walk – should help the pleasures of accidental encounters with others. That in turn needs public space – squares and pavements that are free for everyone rather than policed by private security guards. And it needs well-resourced, engaged municipal authorities, backed by planning law, to argue on level terms with private developers that such space is an imperative for a development to go ahead.
A virtue of capitalism is that it allows scope for insurgents with new ideas to challenge incumbents, but today’s privately owned mega shopping malls are organised physically so that incumbents have all the advantages. Only they can afford the rents and we shoppers are corralled into using them because there is no possibility of chancing upon the new and unexpected.
One of the delights of Brighton’s Lanes or Oxford’s covered market is the possibility of escaping the tyranny of the shopping chains. You can go there just to hang out, shop, eat, browse or go for a stroll – and in this environment there is a chance to encounter the new shop, pub or restaurant. The insurgent is on level terms with the incumbent. Minton quotes many European architects who despair at our impoverished, weak municipal authorities unable to deliver such a social and public ethos compared with those in Europe: the Swiss, hardly tribunes of the left, have a strong civic tradition and fabulous livable cities. Why can’t we?
Maybe we are at a turning point. It is still too easy for businessmen and bankers to climb on to a public platform and complain that the burden of regulation and taxation is what holds them back – and which is too uncritically heard across the political spectrum. Yet the UK has one of the lowest corporation taxes in the G8, lowest labour market regulations in the EU and weakest planning system in the OECD. It has got us nowhere.
But now a Tory prime minister is trying to close down tax avoidance – and revive our high streets, another casualty of the privatisation of our public space. It is time to do this more wholeheartedly. Britain can do better than be a land fit for the owners of Westfield and Canary Wharf. It can be a place we want to live in; where we go to the city because we want to go to the city – not just to shop. The Victorians built great parks and civic spaces with great pride, openly revolting against the depredations of free market capitalism. They also paid their taxes. Time for us to follow suit.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
No related posts.
Posted in Business, Comment, Comment is free, Economic policy, Local government, Planning policy, Politics, Tax and spending, The Observer, UK news, World news
Comments Off
Tax secrecy to be swept away, says David Cameron
PM promises central register to reveal who benefits from ‘shadowy’ companies
Britain is to “sweep away” tax secrecy by introducing a new central register that will ensure all the true owners of “shadowy” shell companies have to be declared to the tax authorities, David Cameron has announced.
In one of the biggest steps by Britain to crack down on “aggressive” tax avoidance and money-laundering, the prime minister pledged in a Guardian interview to end the era of “secretive companies in secretive locations” that cost exchequers around the world billions of pounds in lost revenue.
The prime minister will ask G8 leaders, including Barack Obama and Angela Merkel, to sign up to a new set of core principles on tax on the second and final day of the summit, which opens in Northern Ireland on Monday.
The summit will also be dominated by Syria after the White House announced that the regime of Bashar al-Assad had crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons against rebel forces. Cameron told the Guardian that Britain shared the “candid assessment” of the US that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against the rebels.
He said Britain had proof that Damascus had used the nerve agent sarin on at least two occasions. “It does constitute a war crime,” he said. “As the statement from America has put it, it crosses a line as defined by all sorts of international agreements over many decades.” He said Britain now had to do more to help the rebels, but said no decision to arm them had been made.
His remarks came as the US offered to provide arms to the rebels in the country, a dramatic change of heart that brings Obama into line with the position forged by Cameron and the French leadership in recent weeks. Discussions about how, when and where to give what to whom are certain to encroach on the G8 talks. Merkel said the situation was serious enough to require UN security council deliberation. The Syrian government rejects the accusation that it has used chemical weapons.
The prime minister, who will also hold talks about Syria in Downing Street on Sunday with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, before travelling to Northern Ireland, believes that significant steps can be taken on tax avoidance at the G8 after the EU agreed new rules on exchange of information.
Cameron said he wanted to set an example to fellow G8 leaders by cracking down on British accountants, lawyers and business figures who use shell companies – often located in offshore tax havens – to hide the identity of ultimate beneficiaries.
Echoing Graham Greene’s description of Monaco as a “sunny place for shady people”, the prime minister told the Guardian: “We need to know more about who owns which company – beneficial ownership – because that is how a lot of people and a lot of companies avoid tax, using secretive companies in secretive locations.
“The way to sweep away the secrecy and get to the bottom of tax avoidance and tax evasion and cracking down on corruption is to have a register of beneficial ownerships so the tax authorities can see who owns beneficially every company.”
Under the changes, companies registered in Britain would come under a legal obligation to obtain and hold adequate, accurate and current information on the ultimate owner who benefits from the company – and be required to place the information on a central register that would be maintained by Companies House. The central registry would be introduced into law by incorporating the EU’s fourth money-laundering directive.
The central register will initially only be made available in Britain to authorities such as Revenue & Customs. But the government is to hold a consultation on whether it should be made public, a step the prime minister said he would only take if it would not harm the interests of British businesses.
“I am sure that is where I would like to end up, but I do not want to disadvantage Britain by doing something others won’t do,” he said. “I don’t also want to give up our leverage on others by trying to make them move at the same time.”
Brendan Cox, a spokesman for the If campaign, said: “Public registries would make a major difference in the fight against tax evasion. They would mean all countries had access to the data and the ‘many eyes’ principle would mean more effective scrutiny.”
On Friday night, an interactive database allowing users to search through more than 100,000 secret companies, trusts and funds created in offshore locations including the British Virgin Islands was launched online by the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). It is hoped that the release of the data – part of a cache of 2.5m leaked files which the non-profit ICIJ has analysed with the Guardian and other global news groups – will lead to further tip-offs and investigations into the role of offshore tax havens.
Cameron is to ask fellow G8 leaders to follow his example by signing up to core principles similar to the proposed binding rules in Britain. G8 countries will be asked to agree that companies should “know who owns and controls them” and that “basic information should be adequate, accurate and current”. Their records should be accessible to law enforcement and tax authorities, Cameron said.
He added: “When you look at how individuals and companies sometimes evade tax or aggressively avoid it – that is a problems one and two. Problem three, in many ways even more serious, is corrupt payments from extractive companies or dictators or middlemen in the developing world. They use shadowy nominee companies where you can’t see who is the beneficial owner – that is why who benefits is so important.”
Britain expects the G8 to agree to call on the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development to produce a new agreement modelled on the US-led Financial Action Task Force on tax transparency, which is supported by 75 countries. The OECD proposal, supported by 28 states including Britain’s main crown dependencies, would be multilateral and lead to “automatic exchange”, in which countries pass on tax details without a request having to be made.
The prime minister is confident that the leaders of Britain’s crown dependencies and territories will take steps at a meeting in Downing Street towards agreeing the automatic exchange of tax information. He said: “They are now agreeing to tax exchange of information, not just on request but what matters is automatic exchange of information. You don’t know what you have not go as it were, to make one of the Rumsfeldian type remarks … When you have got automatic exchange you can see what you are missing.”
But there were signs of resistance from some of the crown dependencies after the chief minister of Bermuda called for clarification before agreeing to sign.
Hubert Hughes, the chief minister of Anguilla, said the Caribbean island did not have the resources to uphold an OECD agreement that would involve liaising with 80 countries.
The chief minister told the Guardian: “We don’t have the financial resources, we don’t have the economy to deal with that. Our British governor has done his best to create a failed state in Anguilla – our British governor has done everything to drive good investment from Anguilla.”
Hughes added that he resented being lectured by Britain on tax transparency in light of the City of London’s role. “It is a matter of hypocrisy because when I look at the City of London – they should do something about that first and not try to shelter behind these little territories that are just trying to survive.
“We are not tax havens as such, we are offshore centres. The City of London is one of the biggest tax havens in the world – it is the biggest money laundering centre in the world.”
But the chief minister said he would sign the OECD framework if Bermuda, whose population is nearly five times that of Anguilla, accepts the measure. “We tend to walk behind them,” he said.
In his Guardian interview, Cameron praised the work of the Oxford economic professor Paul Collier, who wrote in Prospect magazine recently that lawyers and accountants who create shell companies should “hang their heads in shame” for creating artificial structures that facilitate “evil”. The prime minister said: “I feel very passionately about it. The more I have looked into it the more I can see that unless you take action on the tax and transparency agendas you will never get the sort of development and change we want to see. Does it raise moral issues? Yes it does. Tax evasion is illegal so it is not immoral, it is criminal. But aggressive tax avoidance raises moral issues.”
The prime minister also hopes to use the G8 summit to launch negotiations on a new EU-US trade pact, though this has run into difficulties as Paris seeks to exclude its film industry from the agreement. Cameron said he is willing to be patient. “I am a great admirer of French films. But I don’t believe that you save industries by protecting them. Would the British film industry be stronger if we didn’t have this amazing exchange between the British film industry and the strength and power of Hollywood? But I totally understand the French feel very passionately about this. What I just hope is we want to get the trade talks off to a good start. Both sides want [the negotiations] to get off to the right start. But we shouldn’t go for artificial deadlines.”
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Related posts:
Posted in Business, Corporate governance, David Cameron, G8, HMRC, News, OECD, Politics, Syria, Tax and spending, Tax avoidance, The Guardian, Vladimir Putin, World news
Comments Off





Spending review 2013: the cuts that don’t need to happen
Next week’s ‘cuts’ review will pave the way for reductions so deep they could strain the social contract – but we could put up taxes instead
A week today, we will have the oddity of a Westminster set-piece that was never supposed to be. Budgets, the Queen’s speech and the like can usually be plotted out years in advance. But this month’s spending review – or, rather, cuts review – was not expected to be necessary. The coalition originally ventured that the retrenchments it set out in 2010 would suffice to fix the public finances within a single parliament. But as the recovery failed to materialise, five years of austerity became six years, then seven and more, and it became unavoidable for George Osborne to detail an extra year of pain for the financial year 2015-16, which straddles the next general election.
We are all used to reading about 15%, 20% or 25% cuts, so the 2.8% saving that the chancellor requires from the average department might sound easy to find. And yet there are rumbling government rows over services such as the police. For the sanguine analysis that says a couple of percentage points is nothing to worry about ignores two crucial things: first, the fact that – after a half-decade of pain – the easy cuts have all been made; second, the continuing promise to exempt big chunks of spending, most notably the huge health service, from outright cuts redoubles the pain elsewhere.
Indeed, factoring in the “ringfences” for hospitals and schools, and on realistic assumptions about the ability of Philip Hammond and Theresa May to shield squaddies and bobbies from the worst, the Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons (pdf) that other departments might be facing cuts of around 10%. That is a savage saving to have to find in any year, and especially in a year that follows such a long lean spell.
Think about what a cut on this scale would mean for an urban town hall, where the cuts have already reduced spending power by substantially more than the English average of 12.2%. Statutory duties towards orphaned young people and frail elderly people consume a huge chunk of resources, and cannot lawfully be disowned. Council back-office services have already been pared to the bone – planning and development has been cut by an average of 46%. Meanwhile, typical cultural spending has been chopped by a fifth. If you care about a library, a sports centre or even a park close to your home, it is time to be afraid.
With the Treasury’s plans implying that – after the election – we will hear about detailed plans for yet another two years of similar pain, we are talking about cumulative cuts that go so far beyond what the public has been primed for that they could strain the social contract. No wonder those in the know are scrambling around for alternatives. Treasury officials slipped a telling sentence into the budget: “It would, of course, be possible to do more of this further consolidation through tax instead.” No doubt we can expect a conspiracy of silence from the politicians on that point until polling day is safely out of the way; for now, the vaunted Osborne alternative will be cutting welfare – again.
He wants to build on his benefit cap for individual families by somehow capping welfare spending as a whole. The counter-argument about poverty won’t interest him, but as the guardian of the economy he should be expected to give weight to the crucial role that social security payments have played in steadying demand in the slump. He might also recall the last time that spending which bounces about because of booms and busts was lumped in with the rest – in the late 80s and early 90s. The government ended up in a mess because it mistook the flattering effects of a brief burst of growth for a permanent improvement.
In the end, the pickle we’re in will take taxes to fix – but don’t expect anyone to tell you that next week.
Continue reading →
Related posts: