Aaaaand he\’s back!

Yes, Ritchie is back from holiday so we\’ve a bumper edition for you today.

First up, bankers:

We are told, perpetually, that bankers will leave the UK at the drop of a hat.

And i perpetually respond that they won’t – because London is the only place where they can make profits of the magnitude they do because they need the cluster of banks that operate in London to create their exploitative markets.

I think Our Ritchie could do with reading some financial market history. For example, on why the Eurobond markets are in London in the first place. You know, that US witholding tax on interest that was imposed, leading to hte entire market moving offshore?

Mark Field says:

The recent attacks on the zero-10 tax regimes reveal a worrying trend, in which the sovereignty of independent states to set their own tax rates is undermined and high-tax countries seek to export their high tax rates around the world.

And Ritchie says this is all rubbish because:

All the usual nonsense was put out on display – including defence of zero ten in Jersey and Guernsey even though the EU has declared it unacceptable.

That is, high tax countries are not exporting their high tax regimes, the sovereignty of independent states to set their own tax rates is not being undermined, because high tax countries have declared the sovereignty of independent states to set their own tax rates is \”unacceptable\”.

For our next logical trick we shall show that kittens are not cute because kittens are in fact cute.

On the size of the tax gap:

Although the TUC has argued that the tax gap created in UK Government tax receipts as a result of offshore centres is some £25 billion, the Deloitte report commissioned by the Treasury at the time of the Foot report showed that only £2 billion is potentially lost in tax leakage per annum.

In response to which we get:

First, there is no suggestion whatsoever in my TUC calculation that all the loss referred to arose offshore. Far from it in fact. So the claim in the context he made is wrong. Second, even HMRC dismiss the Deloitte claim in their October 2009 report as ludicrous. HMRC said in December 2009 that large business (most likely to work offshore) avoided at least £3.1 billion a year in tax – substantially higher than the Deloitte number, showing just how ludicrous the work of that firm was (and what a shocking waste of taxpayer’s money it was to give them the commission to do the work).

See what he\’s done there? My estimate was not all about offshore. HMRC\’s estimate was not all about offshore. But Deloitte\’s estimate was all about offshore. Therefore I\’m right and Deloitte\’s is wrong.

On the opening of Jersey Post to private sector competition:

So, to fuel tax abuse in the UK the local people of Jersey are to lose their postal service.

This is the madness of states captured by the financial services sector.

This is the madness of deregulation.

This is the abuse of ordinary people caused by big business determined to tax avoid.

It is this madness which is breaking down the structures of society.

And this is why it has to be stopped.

Entirely blind to the real reason for such competition: it\’s EU law that such postal monopolies must be opened to competition. Strange really, given that he insists Jersey must follow the EU on the zero ten tax thing but not on postal deregulation.

And on the Robin Hood Tax:

Yes – users will end up paying

Good, glad we\’ve got that sorted out. It won\’t be banks that pay it, it\’ll be everyone who uses the banking system.

2. True. It is meant to be a stamp duty, but one which is paid by banks so impacting their profit.

Eh? We\’ve just agreed that banks won\’t be paying it, users will be. So what is this about banks paying it? To directly contradict yourself from point 1 to point 2 is pretty good work really.

3. No, not at all. The tax can be enforced wherever the bank is located because it is on currencies

Which is the reason why the tax is illegal under the EU rules on the free movement of capital.

So good to have him back from his hols, isn\’t it? Where would we be without such clear analysis and logic?

2 thoughts on “Aaaaand he\’s back!”

  1. “On the opening of Jersey Post to private sector competition”

    Yep, competition in the postal market means even HMRC is using Maltapost to send me stuff in the Far East. At least it means they’re not paying Royal Mail £1.40 to demand I pay the £1.20 outstanding on my self assessment and I do get post within 2 months of the date on the letter now.

  2. “the sovereignty of independent states to set their own tax rates is not being undermined.” Hmmm, interesting that you didn’t point out the obvious (and correct) point he makes about that – tax havens set out to undermine the tax systems of onshore jurisdictions. So when they shriek “it’s our sovereign right to set offshore tax rates” it’s obviously a rather different game from the innocent pleadings that you imply.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *