Update: Autumn Budget 2018

As far as I know it is civil servants who are responsible for carrying out the government’s policies. Their competence or otherwise will remain the same, whichever government is in power.

Thanks Malcolm, that’s so and these are the people who are still “Rewarded” with Tax Payer Funded Salaries and Pensions. “There ‘Aint Not No Justice”

In the past, I sometimes travelled on the train from Northwich to “Personchester” in the morning rush hour. Often the train got so crowded that the Guard could not come round to check tickets and collect all the fares.

I was certainly happy that I didn’t have to do that every day – but many obviously did.

Business rates need to be replaced by a tax on profits, a local corporation tax. Business rates can drive businesses into failure, which means empty premises and the possibility of redundant staff needing benefits.

Similarly with council tax. Instead have a local income tax assessed annually like income tax by HMRC. That would be very easy. A proportion of each person’s income tax bill would be assessed as the amount paid to local authorities wherever that person has a home. Of course if someone has lots of homes his tax may exceed his income. But no one can live in more than one house at the same time, so the solution of selling some of them would reduce his tax bill to a manageable amount.

All need to pay for the services they receive from their council. I do not see why it should be related to income. Businesses should factor in business rates as part of their financial operating model, just as they need to pay for water, energy, and other overheads. If the business model is not viable it is not for everyone else to subsidise them.

Perhaps business rates should be paid on a totally different basis. Maybe pay directly for the services they use – waste disposal say – and on their occupied square metres for fire, police, education, social services contributions. Irrespective of whether they are in a high street or in the countryside. There could be differentiation between types of business – farming with large land requirements, and separately for farm shops and enterprises.

I agree 100% the tax system lets them get away with daylight robbery, meaning other companies have to pay more to cover the shortfall in not taxing these companies in the first place. Either we legislate to tax them or massive tax per square meter on their warehouses.

The beauty of a premises-based tax is that the it is hard to fiddle, massage away or disguise through some other artifice.

Business rates are a basic tax – they don’t cover the provision of any specific services such as waste disposal but they contribute substantially to the revenues available for roads, policing, street lighting, street cleansing and fire & rescue services as well as education, social services, leisure and recreation services, and parks and open spaces which businesses might not think they benefit from but they certainly do.

The business rate is determined independently of local authorities by the Valuation Office Agency, a branch of HMRC, and is based on the property’s value according to its location, size, condition and potential rent level. Unlike council tax it enables a degree of redistribution so that high value areas [such as Westminster] subsidise areas with lower property values.

I don’t think we should tinker with the fundamental basis of the business rate and replace it with something else which would probably have various drawbacks, but I see no reason why its impact cannot be moderated from time to time for overall economic reasons.

The problem that is leading to calls for reform of the business rate is that there is no longer a level playing field in terms of input costs for businesses (a) that serve people directly in towns, cities and villages and therefore have to maintain commercial frontages and employ specialist or professional staff, and (b) that operate in basic premises in remote locations and can manage to attract enough employees even at lower than average wage levels because they are basically on-line sales platforms with a fulfilment function. The on-line businesses are sucking the profit out of the high street and not providing expensive showroom and after-sales service. If someone visits a website but doesn’t buy it costs the company nothing but the same experience in a real shop has a cost impact in terms of staff time and engagement, product handling and spoilage, shoplifting, high-standard premises maintenance, customer toilets and other facilities, and presentation. I feel that the best way to deal with the imbalance is through the tax system and by removing the opportunities to export profits and import cost centres solely in order to reduce tax liabilities.

Totally agree with Mr Howard’s comments. Amazon and others have, for far too long, been allowed to get away with paying far lower rates of tax on their huge profits( Corporation or otherwise )compared to conventional high street retailers such as Debenhams, John Lewis, HoF, etc. With a resultant decline in high street buying and huge losses as announced by Debs. [ £500 million ]. There does indeed need to be a ‘re-balancing’ of business rates. Money made in the UK must be taxed in the UK – not allowed to disappear into Luxembourg, Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Caymen/Virgin Islands or anywhere else. Any form of tax ‘avoidance/evasion’ is morally indefensible – particularly when it is allowed to happen on such an eye watering scale. It doesn’t matter who’s doing it – HRH’s, Lords /Knights of the Realm, pop/ film/ fashion, etc ‘celebrities’, dodgy businessmen/oligarchs !!! – Mr Hammond – PUT AN IMMEDIATE END TO THIS DESPICABLE PRACTICE. It’s not enough to name and shame – hit these people where it hurts – in their bulging pockets and with a huge tax bill ! Whatever happened to the much promised action following the scandal of the Paradise and Panama Papers ? What action is Philip Hammond, HM Treasury and HMRC taking to stop money being ‘sent offshore’ thereby avoiding much needed tax revenue being collected for our hard-pressed public services. This would also go along way to addressing the damage being done by this Government’s Universal Credits shambles ( yes senior government advisors and civil servants should have their salaries stopped for 5 weeks – but they likely have many months of cash stashed away to tide them over.) Then address the WASPI issue of woman born after 1953 now waiting an extra 6 years before being able to receive their state pensions. At an average of £160.00 per week over 6 years that equates to over £50,000 being lost to an individual – which can’t be reclaimed !!

Thank you for that comment.

Basically it seems to be that capital taxes are harder to avoid as opposed to income or profit taxes. It is analogous to the fact that capital punishment can’t be reversed by an appeal court years after the sentence is carried out.

Unfortunately enthusiasts of capital taxation do not address the point that capital taxes can drive the taxpayer into debt and ultimately bankruptcy. In the case of a company this can mean employees being redundant and going onto benefits, and in the case of an individual also going on to benefits, and possibly his family as well. However the owner of empty premises on high streets is still subject to the capital tax penalty. But there is nothing to stop them being auctioned with a low reserve and then bought by someone who demolishes and leaves the site vacant for speculative purposes. Empty industrial premises are often rendered nontaxable by smashing in their roofs, in an act similar to bricking up windows to avoid “window tax” years ago. High street premises so treated would be more costly to reinstate.

Empty premises on high streets that are vandalised and burned down are often not replaced.

There is another point that capital taxes are governments behaving like individuals who spend their capital down – eventually it goes and does not generate income. A government dependent on capital taxes also faces reduced income tax, which means that the rate of either or both has to go up, until the entire nation is bankrupt.

I wonder how many tax avoiders use the virtual office at:
152-160 City Road London EC1V 2NX

There are 159,902 registrations on Companies House at this postcode and most of them seem to be at the above address.

Future Renovations UK possibly taking over the contracts from SafeGlaze UK who have recently gone out of business give this virtual office address on Trustpilot.

Companies should not be able to hide behind virtual addresses. Any reputable business should have a valid operating address and it is time all businesses used the address they operate their business from.

They know who we are and where we live, and we should know the same.

Traditionally a lot of companies had a registered address at the office of their company secretary which was often a solicitors’ practice. They are commonly known as Brass Plate Companies because the only sign of their existence is a brass plate [or some other permanent notice] to indicate their presence.

I am intrigued at the possibility that there are nearly 160,000 brass plates in such a compact location. That’s a big order for Brasso [other metal polishes are available].

There is a Wikipedia article on Brass Plate Companies which gives more information.

I have located the premises in City Road on Google Street View but it is not possible to see who the occupiers are. Some commercial services provider no doubt.

I agree there now should be much better control over the locations of companies as well as the creation of parallel companies with the same directors.

I won’t deal with firms that hide behind mobile phone nos. and roller shutters and don’t have a verifiable physical address and landline phone no. on their literature, stationery, premises and vehicles.

WRT landline phone numbers on literature: Most of these that do exist are to call centres whose telephonists know little about the goods and services being offered. In addition, some of these call centres collect money for the company by charging people via their telephone bill to wait in queues.
Many government agencies use call centres as well, the most infamous being HMRC, Benefits Agency, and the NHS. Government needs to set a better example.

Interesting read John.
Brass plate structures are associated with tax havens, corporate tax havens and offshore financial centres.

It just gets me that:
those at the bottom exploit benefits on offer
those at the top exploit loopholes to get richer
those in the middle who have worked hard for their properties and savings get exploited to prop up the rest.

The internet has bred a new form of Brass plate companies in the guise of virtual offices. It is time they were all exploited to prop up the rest of us.

I also don’t deal with firms in hiding, but many people will be caught out by them and their dodgy dealings.

Your words should be set in stone Reg and the stone set up outside Westminster , they are “Stateman like ” but alas small minds and fixed dogma rules us now.

Maybe so Deja vu but what about -quote-

We found a load of UK household plastics in illegal dumps in Malaysia

We traveled more than 6,000 miles to find everyday British products exported as recycling discarded at multiple illegal dump sites in Malaysia. Unearthed found brands familiar to UK supermarket shelves strewn across a vast pile of rubbish standing 10 feet tall on a site measuring nearly three acres. Packaging for Fairy dishwasher tablets, Yeo Valley yoghurt and Tesco Finest crisps was scattered across the pile, alongside plastics from Spain, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan and Australia. News today suggests things could be about to change, as the ——– reports.

Blocking scams and nuisance phone calls – As part of the government’s efforts to tackle nuisance calls, National Trading Standards will receive further funding to extend their project providing telephone call blocking technology to vulnerable people.

Nowhere near enough as only a few lucky people will benefit. When is the government going to tackle putting a stop to nuisance phone calls. They could start by making spoofing websites illegal.

Agreed, Alfa. The whole package is pretty pathetic.

The new railcard for 26-30 year olds can only increase the cost of rail travel initially for the last segment of the market that is not eligible for a railcard – those between 31 and 59 who are not in HM forces, not disabled, not two together, not with friends and family, not travelling as a family, not on a rail rover, not with a Job Centre Plus card, etc, etc – but ultimately it will increase ticket prices across the board. It would surely be better to just have peak [premium] fares and off-peak [ordinary] fares without all these discount qualifications and make the ordinary fares affordable for everyone, or – using the tax, pensions and benefits mechanisms – ensure that everyone can afford the ordinary fares.

🙂