We need an Office for Tax Responsibility. But what we also need is that people with experience of the real problems that we face should advise on solutions.
The Federation of Small Business should be advising.
So should a small accounting practitioner.
HMRC staff need to be represented.
And given the history of the impact of the tax justice movement, it too needs to be on board so long as the representative knows something about tax, and right now, almost none of those engaged in those campaigns have any actual tax experience at all.
Gissa job!
I would have presumed his
being drummed out ofresignation from the ICAEW would have put the kibosh on him being a small accounting practitioner advisor, no?@bis: I think he’s probably including himself in the final paragraph – tax justice plus knowledge of tax. It’s well known (by Murphy) that Murphy knows more than anyone else about any subject he witters about.
@BiS
Actually, no. One can practice without being a member of a body. If carrying out particular activities, one can register with HMRC instead. Their definition of practice is far less onerous than that of the ICAEW (since about 2006 or so). Which is about money. ICAEW like to insist that far more activities are included in its wide definition of “practice”, so that those members also have to cough up “practice” fees as well as membership. If no one cares that you are a member (and don’t need to do mortgage sign-offs and similar), resigning is not necessarily a bad option. Particularly as ICAEW likes to grift fines from those members that sometimes take a different view as what practice means. I’ve no idea now, but HMRC’s registration fee also used to be cheaper than ICAEW’s practice fee.
“given the history of the impact of the tax justice movement, it too needs to be on board so long as the representative knows something about tax…”
Kek
He might be on to something, if the Office For Tax Responsibility were primarily concerned with minimising the damage to the economy done by taxation. But I don’t think that’s what he has in mind…..
Hey, maybe we could elect a representative from each Borough, who could meet in a big chamber of some kind, debate these issues, and hold the taxation authorities to account? That might work.
As long as they don’t get to benefit from the taxes raised, of course. The conflicts of interest would be stupendous. But nobody would be mad enough to propose such a patently stupid idea as that, right?
Spud’s “Taking £90bn from people so the Government can spend it instead of leaving it to people to decide how to spend it” report is mentioned in The Guardian.
Unusually, comments are open.
@Andrew C,
Spud’s “Taking £90bn from people with more money or assets than Spud so Spud can decide how to spend it instead of leaving it to people to decide how to spend it” report is mentioned in The Guardian.
Corrected it for you.
@KyleT, he is whingeing about the Tax Justice Network who he fell out with about his share of their grants. At the time their income was c.£200k. It is now over £1m.
Since then no other NGO working in tax has gone near him.
Given there is an Office of Budgetary Responsibility (who’s record of being wrong is impressive) why do you need another one for the revenue side of the equation? I suppose the infighting between the 2 could keep them busy enough to leave the rest of us alone