Skip to main content

The rich are laughing all the way to the bank

UK Revenue and Customs loses billions in tax revenue each year due to tax avoidance and evasion. Meanwhile more than one in four of our children live in poverty,  that is  3.5 million children.  With an upward trend as a result of the coalition government's austerity policies this is expected to reach 4.7 million children by 2020. Millions of our children will go to sleep hungry whilst rich tax evaders feast themselves in some far away sun spot.

A lack of anti-avoidance tax law and cuts to public services are contributing to the UK's yawning tax gap.  The difference between the tax that should be paid in the UK if the tax system worked as parliament and HMRC intended, and the amount actually paid is a staggering  £119 bn.  I will repeat that:

£119 bn!

This is the figure produced by research commissioned by the Public and Commercial Services Union and published last year. Their research estimated  that in 2013 the UK lost £73.4bn to tax evasion. Evasion is when a person or company deliberately and unlawfully fails to declare income for tax purposes.  The official estimate is still a whacking £22.3 bn. 

£22.3 bn a year!

Whatever figure we chose to believe it is a shocking indictment.

During the last five years of austerity measures the government has pursued 'benefit cheats' with determination and in doing so it has cut benefits for the deserving working poorest in our community. The bedroom tax has been forcing families out of their homes.  The disabled have faced irresponsible assessments to determine their 'fitness to work'.  Meanwhile the rich have been laughing all the way to the bank - literally so as the HSBC scandal demonstrates.

It seems there is no moral compass. They show no distinction between what is 'lawful' and what is 'ethical'.

So what is the government doing to pursue the tax cheats?

Last year HMRC closed all of its 281 Face to Face Enquiry Centres, months after it had also announced the loss of 8,000 jobs this year.

There is a clear question to be put to the leaders of all main political parties in the coming general election: what are you going to do to ensure that the rich are paying the taxes that are due?


 

Read Ray'a Novel: It wasn't always late summer 

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As