While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource.

says Moonbat. His grand idea to alleviate homelessness is to force people with two or more bedrooms lying empty (which he doesn't define) to pay more council tax to encourage them to rent more of their rooms out.

And here was me thinking "An Englishman's home is his castle".  Get out of my sodding house, George Monbiot, it's mine - not yours.

Of course, it's a privilege of being a journalist that allows you to be several orders stupider than the average person, or indeed politician.  No MP who was contemplating re-election would go anywhere near this batty plan. Although it could spark a renaissance in the concept of the music room, billiards room, parlour, office and other non-rooms to avoid having to take in some scabby nobody that even the state can't find housing for. Surely he's heard of the window tax, one of the earliest examples of tax avoidance?

Filed under: Other blogs, Politics with tags george monbiot, guardian, idiots, tax avoidance, window tax
4553No Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F01%2Fgeorge-monbiot-complete-moron-bears-defecation-woods%2FGeorge+Monbiot%2C+complete+moron%2C+bears%2C+defecation%2C+woods...2011-01-04+09%3A35%3A10Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D4553

From the same article.

But a group of charities – including Barnardo's, Save the Children and Oxfam, warned last night that the tax rise would hit the poorest disproportionately, with some families now having to pay more than £1,600 in VAT each year. It called on the government to spread the pain more fairly by also increasing its levy on banks, which are generally exempt from VAT.

The charities, all part of the Robin Hood Tax campaign, which is arguing for higher bank levies, pointed to research from the thinktank the Institute of Public Policy Research, which found that banks could afford to pay an extra £20bn – which is also more than the £13bn that the VAT hike is expected to raise.

Shouldn't these charities be focussing on their charitable objects, i.e. helping children in poverty, saving children and helping the poor, by encouraging people to give them money voluntarily Instead of wasting their income devising ever new ways to force people to pay for them?  If you're obtaining money by force, then you are, by definition, no longer a charity.

And now they think they can force other people to pay for them, they don't need my donations in 2011. I'll focus on real charities that do.

Filed under: Current issues, Taxation with tags barnardo's, charity, guardian, oxfam, robin hood, save the children
45493 Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F01%2Fcharities-to-avoid-in-2011%2FCharities+to+avoid+in+20112011-01-04+08%3A47%3A48Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D4549

At The Guardian

Analysis by Deloitte carried out for the Times showed that a family with a combined total income of £70,000 would have to pay an extra £10.80 per week in VAT, or about £561 for the year.

If they're on £70,000 a year they probably know a thing or two about budgeting.  Don't you think they'll try spending less instead?

Filed under: Current issues, Taxation with tags deloitte, guardian, vat
45451 Comment »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F01%2Fmore-shrill-vat-analysis%2FMore+shrill+VAT+analysis2011-01-04+08%3A39%3A34Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D4545

Labour is making bold claims about the impact of VAT on families' budgets ahead of the by-election at Oldham East and Saddleworth:

Labour will put up posters the Liberal Democrats themselves ran on before the general election warning of the "Tory VAT bombshell" and said a Conservative government would make the average British family pay £389 extra in VAT a year was a reason to vote Lib Dem.

In a speech tomorrow, Miliband will say that families will pay £7.50 a week because of the Lib Dems' "broken promise"

Fear ye not, gentle readers. Because this figure is clearly bollocks. £389 a year, or £7.50 a week, is claimed as the increase that results from raising VAT from 17.5% to 20.0%.  So we can reverse engineer the calculations to work out that the Lib Dems, and Labour which has accepted the Lib Dem calculations wholesale, believe that families spend £18,283 on VATable goods every year[£389 x 117.5% / 2.5%]. Or, if you prefer, £351 a week. Given that a large part of a family budget will be mortgage payments/rent (not VATable), energy (VATable at a different rate), food (much of which is not VATable), public transport (not VATable), this simply can't be right.

And the Office for National Statistics backs me up.  Their excellent publication Effects of taxes and benefits on household income (link to Excel file of the data) provides all sorts of nuggets about what taxes families pay.  Even if you cherry pick the table that you select (try Table 21 for non-retired households with children), you can't get an average VAT spend sufficient to support the Lib Dems' calculations (an increase of £389 a year is equivalent to VAT paid currently of £2,723 annually [£389 x 17.5% / 2.5%].

So why did the Lib Dems make such a batty claim and why is Labour parroting it without checking their sums?

(And, yes, this isn't the first time I've complained about VAT statistical abuse).

Filed under: Politics, Taxation with tags ed miliband, idiots, labour, liberal democrats, lies, office for national statistics, vat
45352 Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F01%2Flabour-and-liberal-democrat-errors-over-the-impact-of-the-vat-rise%2FLabour+and+Liberal+Democrat+errors+over+the+impact+of+the+VAT+rise2011-01-03+10%3A35%3A39Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D4535

A new year, yet Richard Murphy drivels apace.  Here he is attempting to rebut criticism of the UKuncut campaign:

The point is that Mark [Lee, of TaxBuzz blog fame] as one of those from the ICAEW arguing regularly for tax simplification but never for a general anti-avoidance provision. The real motive of the ICAEW approach was little different at the end of the day from the flat tax brigade - it was a way of arguing for rolling back the tax frontiers that were bound to reduce the burden of tax on business and to increase it on the employed. I’m sorry Mark - but your argument is disingenuous. The reality is that tax legislation expanded to tackle abuse, and not to create loopholes. And the abuse came from the tax profession.

I hate to shock you this early in 2011, but Ritchie is committing some horrific howlers here.  The ICAEW isn't the same thing as the tax profession. Nor is it the same thing as 'business'.  Some ICAEW members work as tax advisors, for sure, but not that many in the scheme of things.  A lot work in accountancy firms - but not just the Big 4, but in smaller firms and lots in sole practice.  A lot work in business, either in the finance function or in operational parts of the business.  Some work in charities, some overseas.  Heck, some ICAEW members even spend their time furiously blogging about tax or accounting.

Facing this array of different backgrounds and opinions, the ICAEW can only seek to forge a neutral path that serves the public interest.  It's frankly ludicrous to suggest that individuals, even those as persuasive and intelligent as Mark Lee, could seek to serve their own political agendas using the ICAEW's tax policy as a weapon.

Now perhaps Ritchie would care to address the substance of Mark's eight points, instead of impugning his character?

Filed under: Other blogs, Taxation with tags big 4, icaew, mark lee, richard murphy, ukuncut
45312 Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F01%2Ftax-is-not-the-only-discipline-that-accountants-do%2FTax+is+not+the+only+discipline+that+accountants+do2011-01-03+10%3A17%3A11Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D4531