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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,