Skip to main content

Many have tried and failed in Dragons Den: George Osborne is one of them.


From April next year those earning more than £1 million per year  will on average benefit by £107,000.   So, how has this become possible in an age of austerity? How is it that the most wealthy should be considered free from the impact of austerity? Clearly we are not all in this together.

As I argued in a previous post, we reward certain types of success more than others.  We tend to equate the accumulation of individual wealth with success. How much we admire the wealthy entrepreneur; they create jobs and growth in the economy and thus we all benefit from their success. Thus, the argument runs, taxing them puts this at risk. They may take their investments and entrepreneurial skill elsewhere. This provides them with a wedge against taxation; a kind of ransom.  Tax us and face the consequences.

And so we have ended up with a kind of 'opt in' strategy dependent on their beneficence. But need this be so? Certainly not all successful, wealthy entrepreneurs feel this way about tax. 

I wondered how Osborne would fare in the Dragon's Den. Would they invest in him or would they say 'I'm out!'   Here is the verdict. 

Deborah Meaden:  

When asked about tax in an interview for the New Statesman last year, Dragons' Den's Deborah Meaden replied:  "I have no problem paying taxes. It doesn't bother me, because I want to live in a society that's happy. My worry is [governments] don't spend the money correctly."

How refreshing this is. I can imagine her 'drilling down the figures' with the Chancellor!  (I'm out).  But what of other Dragons?

Duncan Bannatyne:

No doubt most of us recall the mega bust up between Duncan Bannatyne and James Kahn over the latter's non domicile residence and tax avoidance. Duncan Bannatyne reinforced his position on paying taxes telling Business Matters

"As I pay UK tax on all of the earnings that fund my lifestyle, and corporation tax on all of the profits made by my businesses which employ 3421 people, I am clearly at an unfair disadvantage if someone enters my business sector with a non-dom management structure as they will be operating from a far lower cost base."

Sorting out tax avoidance should be a priority for the government in supporting those like Duncan Bannatyne  investing in growth in the UK. (I'm out!)

Peter Jones:

And what of Dragon Peter Jones?  Speaking last year about the cut in top rate tax from 50p to 45p he said:

"As a high-rate tax payer, I'm disappointed. I would have like to have seen that 5p go to support young people in this country." Furthermore he said other high earners feel the same.   (I'm out!)

So what about Theo Paphitis?  Any joy for Osborne here? 

He told the Daily Mirror: "It's easy to cut costs, any halfwit can do that. But they've not stimulated the economy, or jobs, or growth." (I'm out!)

Of course I can't speak for the Dragons. But would Osborne succeed in the Den? I'll leave the verdict to Theo Paphitis:

"If George did a pitch to me, I think he'd probably fail."

Many have tried and failed in the Den: George Osborne is one of them. 




  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they