A question for Alistair Darling
Where does Alistair Darling stand on the Northern Rock securitisation plan?
The only reason I ask is because I thought he wanted everyone to stop putting 'risky investments...off balance sheet'?
« December 2007 | Main |February 2008 »
Treasury and 'its' non-dom policy
I mentioned yesterday I'd been showing an unhealthy interest in the Treasury's FOI request page. Here's why.
For those who are interested, click below to see the full response to the questions I put to them about the non-dom policy.
I should add I've appealed their decision - they must have some documents with the policy in and dates that they can show me...
Has Brown cut CGT?
Has Gordon Brown cut CGT in his time in power? He implied yesterday that he had.
On one level, of course he's right. The rate used to be 40%, and now it's (going to be) 18%. But it isn't really as simple as that - the old 40% rate carried with it the inflation allowance that reduced the bill according to indexation relief.
Another measure might be whether the tax has raised more money since 1997.
The CGT take in 1997/8 was, according to Treasury figures, £1.5bn. If that take had increased with inflation, it would sit at around £2bn today. But the estimate for 2006/7, from the Treasury, is £3.9bn.
That of course might mean purely that Gordon has been so successful in shepherding the economy that people have been making an awful lot of money and thus paying tax on it.
That may be partly true - the CGT taper relief scheme must have stimulated private equity, some might say a bit too much. But there's probably also an element of reduced avoidance of the tax, or more likely people avoiding income taxes by rolling up income as gains. (some might say that's what the private equity chiefs have done).
So has Gordon reduced the tax? Well, there are winners and losers.
You'd only have to hold a business asset for two years to reduce the rate to less than 18% under taper relief rules. (something you'd never achieve with a non-business asset).
Is the government raising taxes now with the 18% flat rate? The winners and losers have already been discussed ad infinitum, but look at the policy effect. According to the Treasury, the move will raise £2bn [pdf, p8] extra over three years.
Whatever the situation, it seems a bit rich for Gordon to boldly claim he is a tax-cutter: the situation is a good deal more complicated than that.
Treasury lifts lid on ministers' meetings
I've been looking at the Treasury's Freedom of Information Act release page in the last day or so (all will become clear as to why tomorrow). And I was intrigued to see this.
It's a list of all the new Treasury ministers meetings with outside interest groups since they took up their posts.
It's just a three month period, but I guess what surprised me is that Jane Kennedy, the minister responsible for HM Revenue & Customs, has had relatively few meetings thus far.
She signed a Swiss double tax agreement, She met the Citizens Advice Bureau to talk about tax credits, and attended a couple of meetings (which almost look like they've been chucked in to add to the list - is going to attend an EC Code of Conduct group really a 'meeting with an outside interest group'?).
The most interesting meeting was with Robert Verrue, the director general of taxation and customs union from the EC. What did they discuss, I wonder? Perhaps he was trying to sign the UK up to the CCCTB? Not much chance there, I fear.
Separately, isn't it time you lot got a date in the diary to meet Kennedy? That's those of you who are looking to lobby the government on tax issues. Or is it more effective to talk to the civil servants in charge of tax issues direct?
Why did it take so long to overhaul the HMRC board?
It's musical chairs time at HM Revenue & Customs. The board has been revamped and everyone has a new role.
The moves follow Gus O'Donnell's capability review, but really relate to problems with the management structure that we've known about for quite a while.
Which brings me to my point: why does it take a 'capability review,' someone to come in from outside, to tell HMRC what it has known for a long time?
The confused accountabilities of the post-merger structure were often brought up by those who knew about Whitehall and what was going on at HM Revenue & Customs. The structure was said to be Sir David Varney's, and the real question is why Paul Gray didn't get on and reverse it when he took over.
In a sense, of course, the fact that few seem to want to take the lead in the civil service without an official report to tell them to do things explains a lot: why they're so fond of consultants, to start with. Or am I being harsh?
Recent Comments