This is the headline on an article in the Sunday Times, which suggests that the UK may cut corporate tax rates from 20% to 10% unless the EU grants the UK access to the single market.
I don’t know whether it is speculation on the paper’s part, but it does illustrate how Brexit means that it removes a whole set of rules from the UK Government.
It is an interesting suggestion!
I think it could have these effects.
- Companies like Apple, Starbucks, Google and Amazon would look at the UK favourably.
- If a company was spending fortunes on research, the UK would probably be more attractive, as if say they developed a world-beating drug, they wouldn’t pay as much tax on the large profits.
But I never heard it mentioned in the Referendum.
It probably shows how our politicians all think inside boxes and that those in Europe do even more so!
My Google Alert for Crossrail found this story in Planning Resource, which is entitled Crossrail levy model proposed for Greater Manchester mayoral CIL. This first paragraph sums it up.
A proposed city-regional mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for Greater Manchester would operate in the same way as the existing pan-London charge to raise funds for the Crossrail project, with councils able to implement their own levies alongside the mayor’s charge, it has emerged.
Will Manchester’s council leaders and voters go for it?
From here in London, where if the Mayor wants to fund something sensible like Crossrail 2, all the Mayoral candidates and the Boroughs seem to back it, I can’t see all ten Manchester boroughs agreeing, as they seem to have a long record of doing things their own way!
Transport for London and their various predecessors have always been very particular about handrails on stairs in stations and also on buses. Here’s some examples.
But are we that particular in our homes. I put this handrail on my stairs.
And I put extra hand holds in my bathroom.
I feel very strongly that when you fit rails and hand holds for safety reasons, that you should not have to pay VAT on the hardware and the work. Especially, if as in the case of the handrail on the stairs bloody Jerry should have put them in when he built the house.
My MP agrees and she has written to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
I suspect in the case of my professionally-designed and Sheffield-built handrail, the biggest objections to removing VAT will come from those snake oil-salesmen, who get the elderly and disabled to buy unnecessary stair-lifts.
An interesting point, is that probably quite a few premises that have to fit extra handrails and handhold are commercial premises, like offices, restaurants and shops, who of course would be registered for VAT.
I got my monthly State Pension today and at £677.16, that will do me for my day-to-day expenses for the next month. It doesn’t cover trips out of London, but it does allow me the odd light lunch in a restaurant.
But I also get other benefits just because of my circumstances, as a 67-year-old man, who lives alone.
I get a Council Tax discount because I live alone. But is that right as I live in a family house with a garage in a desirable part of London? If I didn’t get it, I’d still live here as that would be my choice, but I am blocking someone more worthy than me of buying this house.
I have a highly-insulated house with an efficient boiler, but should I get a winter fuel allowance? It would be better if the money was not paid at all, but used to improve our housing stock’s energy efficiency, so that those on a pension actually saved the money all through the year.
I have a Freedom Pass, which gives me free transport on buses, Underground, Overground and trains within the Central London area. This is one of the reasons I moved to Dalston. But is it too generous on the one hand and not universal enough on the other? Surely, a better system, would be one where you nominated your bank card as your transport pass and in the free areas, the system didn’t charge you. The advantage of this would be that London could enter into reciprocal arrangements with areas like Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle, so that we could use each other’s concessionary area at a discount. Would this encourage more of us to travel to explore the country and perhaps spend money in attractions, cafes and shops, we wouldn’t dream of visiting now?
This morning according to this report on the BBC, the Liberal Democrats are saying that those who have a second house they use in a beautiful area, should pay double Council Tax on their second home. Here! Here!
I live in Central London and I am starting to resent the traffic. Not because I drive, but because of the pollution and noise often put out by cars used as glorified shopping trolleys and baby buggies. We let all drivers get off too lightly with the problems they cause in cities and if they got the message, we may see more cycling and walking, and better air quality. We might even see better delivery systems for goods, where transmissions were hybrid or electric, like London’s newer buses.
It will happen eventually, that all cars pay road charges based on mileage, fuel used and congestion. But I doubt we’ll see it soon, as there are no votes in it. It’ll probably be introduced in London first, as cycling gets more common and Crossrail shows everybody what real railways can be like.
But would a city like Birmingham, where the car is king, and pedestrians are targets to hit when crossing the road, accept charging to pay for the updating of the numerous railways and more trams in the city?
And then there’s lifestyle, fitness and health!
Many people drink, eat and smoke too much and governments don’t really discourage it forcefully. It would be an interesting exercise for a town or city to declare a city centre non-smoking and see what happens. I can remember, when ahead of the smoking ban the landlord of my local pub in Suffolk declared it a smoke-free zone. He got some moans, but not from his bank manager.
The NHS is in crisis, but this is mainly a problem of the irresponsible patients making. So if we can get people back to the straight and narrow, we might help the dear old NHS out.
For a start, I would like to see a law, that no-one could stand for elected office or sit on the board of an NHS body, if they were a smoker!
I could go on a lot more. But we must all change our lifestyle, if we want this country to be a place, that is really worth living in.
According to this article on the BBC, a future Tory government would end Inheritance Tax on family homes up to a million pounds.
I have form in opinions in this area and had a letter published in the Financial Times in 2006 about this tax, after an article in the paper on March 31st 2006 advocated the killing off of the tax. This is the first two paragraphs of the letter.
I have been against inheritance tax for years, not because I would benefit from its abolition or because I am getting to that age, when I should start to do something about it (“Inheritance tax should be killed off”, March 31). It is just that as a control engineer by training, I think it does untold secondary damage.
Consider: how many bright minds are employed on both sides of the inheritance tax war in avoiding and collecting the tax? Abolish it and they would have to do a proper wealth-creating job.
I still believe that the Inheritance Tax should be abolished, if not totally, but substantially! I don’t have current figures but in 2006, it only raised half as much as Air Passenger Duty in that year. I’m not alone on thinking this way as this article from the Telegraph in 2013 shows. This paragraph is from the article.
Yet the tax raises just £2.9bn a year, a mere 0.18pc of GDP, a tiny sum given all of the collateral damage caused and one which could easily be recouped by accelerating the Government’s savings programme.
David Cameron’s proposals are welcome, but pretty timid and will only have a limited positive effect on the economy compared to what full abolition will have.
The tax revenue would have to be replaced and as a BBC survey showed in 2006, that people would prefer a couple of pence on Income Tax. These days other and better options exist. The problems with abolishing Inheritance Tax are all political rather than economic, as if the Tories went for full abolition, the Labour Party would have a field day, saying they were looking after their friends.
They’ll probably do that with David Cameron’s announcement, even though probably nearly half of the beneficiaries of the tax reduction will be Labour voters.
I am 67, single and reasonably comfortably off, but with the exception of my house, pension pot and funds in Zopa, I have no substantial taxable assets. Quite frankly, purchases like expensive cars and art, a second house in the country, buy-to-let investments and vanity purchases like football clubs, just don’t interest me.
My house is probably just below any proposed Mansion Tax limit, but for how long, given the rate of the rise in property values in this area?
Over the years, I’ve acquired a few friends, who are now as financially secure as I am, for the rest of their lives.
What puzzles me, are some of these friends have been serious supporters of the Labour Party in the past. I wonder how many of them, are now less sure in their support, as every day, Miliband and Balls bring in more and more bash-the-rich policies?
The latest policy of abolishing the ‘non-dom’ status as reported on the BBC, may not worry me, but I suspect some of the people I know will be livid. I can think of someone, who is a Project Management professional, who works all the time outside of the UK, which probably gives them an interesting tax problem and being ‘non-dom’ may come into their affairs.
In fact, there are so many high-paid jobs of this type, which because of the Internet and air travel can be done from any reasonable base, so how many of these people would leave if a Labour government took power? In the past C and myself, thought about leaving, if the General Elections of the 1980s and early 1990s had gone the wrong way.
So what is going to be the next crazy bash-the-rich policy floated by this impractical Labour Party?
On the other hand there will be Newtonian reactions.
I think this lurch to the left, will hurt the Labour Party severely in the pocket, as so many of those who supported them in the past, won’t contribute this time.
They will become even more dependent on the Trade Unions for funds.
But I also feel, that anyone, who has a desire to be rich, will think twice about the way they are going to vote!
Luckily for me, what I consider my biggest asset, that has got me out of financial trouble several times in the past; my brain, is untaxable! Unless of course, a government brings in a higher rate of Income Tax for those with a University degree!
This is said in this article in The Independent.
Tax on income from savings will be abolished for millions of people in the Budget today as George Osborne woos pensioners and “hard-working taxpayers” ahead of the May general election,The Independent has learnt.
So is the paper right?
It would make a lot of sense.
1, It would certainly encourage saving.
2. Encouraging saving may mean that more money will go into peer-to-peer lending, which will help lower interest rates for borrowers and give the banks a bit of a kicking. So a by-product of abolishing tax on savings interest could be better availability of finance for individuals and businesses.
3. I can see those who provide homes for savings like banks, building societies and peer-to-peer lenders getting increasingly innovate in finding ways to create high-interest, instant-access accounts.
4. It could put a lot of financial advisers out of business, as if say you had a lump sum to invest, you could easily work out what would be the best savings account, to keep the money until you need it.
5. But surely, the biggest benefit will be that as savings will now be held in an account, that doesn’t carry any tax, it will simplify tax accounting and returns for banks, building societies and savers alike.
If he does do it, then just imagine how any party who put it back would fare in an election!
On a personal note, if it does happen, I’ll be putting more of my money into Zopa!
An obstacle to some, who might want to use peer-to-peer lenders to save money, is that any there was no relief for any bad debts. But George Osborne has changed all that and you can read about it in the Guardian. This is said.
And this week the industry received a major boost when George Osborne unveiled a package of measures designed to help it grow. Crucially, the chancellor announced a new bad debt relief which will allow individual investors to offset any losses.
So it seems that peer-to-peer lending is getting less risky all the time.
I’ve just been watching Ed Balls on The Andrew Marr Show talking about the Mansion Tax.
I don’t know Andrew Marr’s personal circumstances, but I wonder how many of the commentators like him live in houses that are worth a couple of millions. The Sunday Times today is reporting that Jeremy Paxman is being paid a million for his memoirs. Will he put that into property?
So many of these heavyweight commentators will be passionately against a Mansion Tax.
Incidentally, my view on property taxes is based heavily on the fact we have a housing shortage and it is a serious moral offence to leave a house empty for more than a few days a year.
Some years ago, I was selling an old Ford Escort Estate that was definitely a runner with virtually a year’s car tax and MOT, on eBay.
I only wanted a few hundred and I thought I had a deal.
When the lady who’d bought it and I talked over the phone, she said that she’d give me cash and deal with all the handover paperwork to save me the hassle. I said no to the latter and she then said, that I could forget the sale.
So I then looked at her purchase history on eBay and found that she’d bought about twenty or so clean cars like the Escort. All seemed to have a reasonably long tax and MOT and cost just a few hundred pounds.
I e-mailed the DVLA, as I thought the whole thing stank. They informed me, that the car would be sold to someone, who needed to get around London without paying the congestion charge. All of the fines and charges would obviously go to the previous owner.
They asked if I could forward all of the details to them.
I never heard any more from the lady, but the DVLA informed me a couple of years later, that they had mounted a successful prosecution.
Having looked at the new car tax rules, I think that the days of this type of scam are dead.