Recently in Tax envy Category
An Early Day Motion (EDM) by a Labour MP (who else?*) proposing a tax on chewing gum:
That this House notes the disgusting mess that
discarded chewing gum makes of streets in the UK; further notes the financial burden this blight has on local authorities; and calls on the Government to introduce a levy on every pack of chewing gum sold with the revenue being given to local authorities in order to cover the cost of cleaning up this unsightly mess.
The Fisherman may be being naive, but doubts that this proposal will be taken up. One wishes to believe that Gordon Brown is not totally lacking in shame. Greed is one thing, but one doubts whether even he would be brazen enough to impose this tax.
Not really in the mood to argue against this idea, but a few things. Will the money from the levy be hypothecated for the purpose of cleaning the streets? Doubtful. Second, dirty streets are dirty streets, whether being caused by gum chewing youths, smokers dropping cigarette butts everywhere, or whatever. Granted, it takes special effort to remove gum from the streets, but that is what we are currently paying our local authorities for, not so? The exorbitant above-inflation council taxes they charge should be more than enough to ensure that the streets are sparkling clean.
The Fisherman abhors the chewing of gum in public, but for reasons of taste and decency. A separate issue altogether.
Anyway, we will see. If this proposed levy makes it into law, you will read about it here.
* I suppose the LibDems could be just as likely to propose this, but they have been rather quiet of late.
Hat tip: Dizzy Thinks.
Photocredit. © Photographer: Gojko Vladic | Agency: Dreamstime.com
The Liberal Democrats are up to their silly ways again. Their Treasury spokesman is proposing an annual 'wealth tax' for people whose houses are valued at above £1m. The tax would be levied at 1 per cent of the value of the house.
Leave to one side the fact that such homes will attract capital gains tax on sale, or, possibly inheritance tax on death of the owner. Even leave aside that the householders are probably already paying punitive rates of council tax, with more to come when the dreaded valuation exercise is completed.
Leave all those aside for now.
What Vince Cable, their Treasury Spokesman, has failed to realise, is that the increase in the value of house prices is mainly for reasons outside the control of the the homeowner. House prices rise for a many reasons, inflation, market action, and oftentimes, even Government action. The homeowner is not responsible for any of these, but he is being called upon to pay an annual 'wealth' tax, thereby penalising him for actions outside his control. Such idiocy. In fact, probably the only way a homeowner can contribute to the value of his house is by carrying out improvements, for which he would have laid out money from his own pocket. This, apparently, is not enough for the greedy, clueless Liberal Democrats, who regard private wealth as something to be stolen from its owners, and then wasted on their latest harebrained schemes.
The Fisherman is now convinced that, at the very least, a rudimentary course in economics must be compulsory for any aspiring politician. This course must come complete with an examination at the end, and a pass mark of not lower than 70 per cent.
The Fisherman will volunteer to be a tutor.
An ICM poll conducted for the Sunday Telegraph reveals that 73 per cent of respondents believe that City bonuses are excessive.
Just last week, Northern Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain, was saying the same thing, even going so far as to suggest that City employees donate two-thirds of their bonuses to charity.
The Sunday Telegraph editorial notes the 73 per cent level of unhappiness amongst those surveyed in the poll, and hints darkly that City employees might like to become more generous with their high earnings before the Government acts to seize some of it through higher taxation.
Maybe, but would Uncle Gordon really dare to slap higher taxes on what Leftwing politicians call 'obscene' bonuses? The Fisherman thinks he wouldn't dare. There have already been hints from a few places that some businesses are being tempted to relocate their head offices from London to more tax-favourable capitals in Europe. A further tax on bonuses could just edge some of the more unhappy firms out the door.
Also, Uncle Gordon is a bit preoccupied right now with trying to become the Prime Minister. He would conclude (rightly) that such a move would cause panic in the business world.
On top of that, he began a few months ago to make overtures to the financial sector (see here, here and here). He knows that he cannot afford to alienate them. The Fisherman concludes that large bonuses are safe for now. However, no-one knows what will happen after Uncle Gordon has been in charge of the country for even two years. We will almost certainly return to this topic in due course.
...shame about the tax.
Owners of 4x4 vehicles — the so-called Chelsea Tractors — will pay £25 a day for the privilege of driving in London under plans announced yesterday by the city's mayor.
And no, it doesn't matter if you live in the congestion charge zone, and it's parked outside your house. You will be taxed whether or not you drive it.
Red Ken really does have it in for the monied folk, as he sees them:
"Those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one of the most polluting vehicles," he said.
This is (class) war. The pitchforks are out.
Following on from my post about Government plans to levy council tax according to the value of your home, we now hear that the charge will also be based on the area in which you live; the nicer the higher. Some of the factors to be taken into account are crime rates, the condition of the surroundings, and how good the local schools are. Also important (apparently) are the size of phone bills, where the neighbours go on holiday, what sorts of pets the neighbours have, and the number of professionals who live in the area.
This is a tax blog, so we tend not to go into the human rights aspects of things. It must however be stated that if these proposals are implemented, they would constitute a gross breach of privacy, an unacceptable intrusion into the lives of the citizens by the State.
As a tax policy, this is a crazy idea. What, for example, have all the above factors to do with when, and how often, our bins are collected by the council? And if nicer areas are taxed more, their local councils will have more money to spend on making those areas even nicer, thus leading to higher taxes. The reverse is true for poorer areas. How does this help the poorer areas? Perhaps the Government is planning to raid the coffers of the richer local authorities and give the money to the poorer ones. Redistribution at local authority level? Nothing would surprise me.
And what sort of incentive is this for people to improve their surroundings? Set up a Neighbourhood Watch, take care of the local park, and the taxman comes calling with a higher bill. On the other hand, if you don't care about your surroundings, and the local youths run riot every night, smashing every window and bus shelter in sight, you are rewarded with a lower tax bill.
At the lowest level, this is nothing but a tax on aspiration shot through with socialist spite and class envy. The aim is to penalise poor middle class folk who have, through hard work and sacrifice, enabled themselves and their families to move to a better home in a better area. What are Government ministers thinking? This policy is electoral suicide, which, come to think of it, is no bad thing.
The Duchy of Cornwall has come under the sharp scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Its members want Prince Charles to open up its books for inspection. The Prince has, not surprisingly, refused. His stance can be summarised as follows:
'I already pay income tax voluntarily on my income from the Duchy, what more do you want?'
To which the PAC replies:
''We want to know why you don't pay corporation tax and capital gains tax.'
