The UK Taxpayers Alliance is led by Crooks

[Louis VI the Fat]

A campaign group which claims to represent the interests of ordinary taxpayers is using a charitable arm which gives it access to tax relief on donations from wealthy backers, the Guardian has learned.The Conservative-linked Taxpayers' Alliance, which campaigns against the misuse of public funds, has set up a charity under a different name which can secure subsidies from the taxman worth up to 40% on individuals' donations. In one example, Midlands businessmen said they channelled funds through the Politics and Economics Research Trust at the request of the Taxpayers' Alliance after they asked the campaign group to undertake research into policies which stood to damage their business interests. The arrangement allowed the Taxpayers' Alliance to benefit from Gift Aid on the donations, a spokesman for the donors said

[...]

The Taxpayers' Alliance is one of the most influential pressure groups in the country and has established close links to the Conservative party frontbench. It campaigns for less waste in government and lower taxes, and earlier this year it emerged that it is funded by leading Tory donors. It claims to represent "a grassroots army of 32,000 supporters" but it has also emerged that a director of the alliance, Alexander Heath, does not pay British tax and lives in France.

[...]

Unusually for a charitable trust, the accounts do not name the grant recipients.The Midlands Industrial Council, a powerful business group which has donated £1.5m to the Conservatives (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives) since 2003 and represents the owners of private companies in the car, haulage, property and construction industries, said it has donated both through the Taxpayers' Alliance, which as a company does not attract tax relief on donations, and the Politics and Economics Research Trust, which does.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/20/taxpayers-alliance-tories-charitable-donations
Dear oh dear, oh dear. :laugh4:

So, the Taxpayers Alliance is

A rich man's lobby club pretending to be a grassroots organisation,
pretends to stand up for the ordinary taxpayer, while sucking the taxpayers dry through haute finance constructions,
campaigns against subsidies, but through an elaborate scheme sucks the government dry,
has a director who himself does not even pay taxes in the first place.




Asked about the impression that the alliance was in effect benefitting from a subsidy from taxpayers to carry out work funded by rich businessmen, Elliott declined to comment. "I will talk about the work of the Taxpayers' Alliance, I will talk about Christmas, but I don't want to talk about this," he said.That's right, Elliot, talk about Christmas, but whatever you do, do not tell the ordinary taxpayer you're sucking him dry while pretending to stand up for him.

[rory_20_uk]

Making a research arm isn't exactly that complex, is it? One question is why did it gain charitable status in the first place?

WWF asks me to channel money to their charitable arm to gain tax relief - gasp! ALL charities are bleeding the government dry with tax rebates.

I'd've thought you'd be happy that there's a proper international flavour to these things, as it's not merely a parochial, inverted organisation.

I don't hear many politicians talking shop when they can speak about some feel-good puff.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

"It campaigns for less waste in government and lower taxes"

Awesome. Give me more. Thanks.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Dear oh dear, oh dear. :laugh4:

So, the Taxpayers Alliance is

A rich man's lobby club pretending to be a grassroots organisation,
pretends to stand up for the ordinary taxpayer, while sucking the taxpayers dry through haute finance constructions,
campaigns against subsidies, but through an elaborate scheme sucks the government dry,
has a director who himself does not even pay taxes in the first place.



That's right, Elliot, talk about Christmas, but whatever you do, do not tell the ordinary taxpayer you're sucking him dry while pretending to stand up for him.

Non news, the Taxpayer's Alliance pitches itself on the grounds that taxes are too high, that they then work to get a legal rebate from the government is not surprising. Also, rich people are allowed to agree with poor people Loius.

This isn't exactly thrilling, but one can look at the situation and say "told you so" to the government, who decides the tax laws to begin with.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So, the Taxpayers Alliance is

A rich man's lobby club pretending to be a grassroots organisation,

Rich people can be involved in the same things as poor people in a free and democratic society.


pretends to stand up for the ordinary taxpayer, while sucking the taxpayers dry through haute finance constructions,

Tax rebates? Legal and nothing wrong with those. In fact I believe it is quite common in Britain, I am surprised that the French don't have a similar system.


has a director who himself does not even pay taxes in the first place.

Yes he does, just not British taxes.

[Beskar]

and every rightwing member of the forum jumps out the closet.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Lots of persons and organisations have helped themselves to taxpayers money.

However, when an organisation named the 'Taxpayers Alliance', with the stated goal to reduce the burden on ordinary taxpayers, is caught with its snout in the through it is an aggravated embarrassment.

Apart from robbing the ordinary taxpayer in this manner, one can question the commitment of this Lobby Group in other respects too.

When the leaders of a lobby group pretending to stick up for ordinary taxpayers turn out to be rich people with offshore family trust funds, or a tax refugee in France, in both ways leaving the burden of tax for the ordinary taxpayer, two reactions are possible: 'good for them, I loves me a 21st century Robin Hood: stealing from the poor and giving to the rich', or 'what a sorry bunch of hypocrites'.


Who is behind this grassroots organisation rich man's lobby club anyway?



Since it was launched six years ago the alliance has become arguably the most influential pressure group in the country, yet neither the people who run it, or the backers who pay for it, have come under a great deal of scrutiny.
Its critics ask whether it really is an alliance of ordinary taxpayers, as the name is clearly intended to suggest, and how close it is to the Tory party hierarchy which seems to have adopted some of its radical ideas.


Certainly not all is as it seems. The same group that speaks out against government waste on Newsnight and in the pages of newspapers also runs a campaign against radicalising schoolbooks published by the Palestinian Authority and has formed an alliance with a Slovakian rightwing group
The group's leadership is no less esoteric. Alongside a fund manager, a petroleum geologist and a former chief economist at Lehman Brothers on the board, the directors include a retired teacher who lives in France and does not pay British tax.


But none of that has stopped frontbench Conservatives (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives) and business leaders flocking to the TPA, and at the Tory conference policy after policy seemed to bear the TPA's stamp.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/09/taxpayers-alliance-conservative-pressure-group

[Furunculus]

and every rightwing member of the forum jumps out the closet.

i was never in the closet.

what has been hiding is the shabby truth that we waste 43% of GDP on public spending, a fact that lurches ever further into the light as our budget deficit soars.

[Beskar]

I wouldn't care if Public Spending was 100% of GDP. What matters is the quality of life and living that we have and the rights and benefits we recieve.

[rory_20_uk]

I wouldn't care if Public Spending was 100% of GDP. What matters is the quality of life and living that we have and the rights and benefits we recieve.

Neither would I. But we've had a decade or increased Public Spending and we are also the last developed economy out of recession. Yeah, the "investment" really helped us onto the forefoot...

IBM has won a contract here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6964557.ece) and if the results are similar to those in Canada this will help money go further.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

we've had a decade or increased Public Spending and we are also the last developed economy out of recession. Yeah, the "investment" really helped us onto the forefoot...

IBM has won a contract here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6964557.ece) and if the results are similar to those in Canada this will help money go further.

~:smoking:

agreed, and fantastic news.

"Unions have warned that the Essex deal, the largest of its kind in Britain, could result in thousands of job losses as services are merged and workers are replaced by technology. "

suck it up, go out there and create wealth rather than spending your life soaking up public funding like a cancer, steadily withering the host from which you seek succor.

[Beskar]

I will agree that if something is better, then do it. If privatising something really did bring far better results at a lower cost, I would support it. Also, admittedly, if they even came up with unmanned manufacturing, I would support that, even if there is a loss in jobs. It is just simple technological evolution.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wouldn't care if Public Spending was 100% of GDP. What matters is the quality of life and living that we have and the rights and benefits we recieve.

That would be communism, essentially everything would be taken in in tax, and then handed out again. Alternatively, everyone would work and no one would be paid.

The system doesn't work. Practically, I don't believe gross tax should ever be above 50%, given the fact that we now have a 50% income tax, and local, road, fuel etc. taxes on top; one might ask what the gross tax burden is now.

It has to be above 50%, which means people work more to support the State than themselves.

[Beskar]

The system doesn't work. Practically, I don't believe gross tax should ever be above 50%, given the fact that we now have a 50% income tax, and local, road, fuel etc. taxes on top; one might ask what the gross tax burden is now.

It has to be above 50%, which means people work more to support the State than themselves.

But mantaining the roads, hospital bills, education, pension, etc = people working to support themselves (though through the state).

There is obvious practical reasons I wouldn't ever advocate a 100% tax as I doubt it would ever be the situation like Steve Jobs (CEO Apple) who only gets paid $1 per house (he lives off his companies expenses account, no personal money himself)

[Furunculus]

That would be communism, essentially everything would be taken in in tax, and then handed out again. Alternatively, everyone would work and no one would be paid.

The system doesn't work. Practically, I don't believe gross tax should ever be above 50%, given the fact that we now have a 50% income tax, and local, road, fuel etc. taxes on top; one might ask what the gross tax burden is now.

It has to be above 50%, which means people work more to support the State than themselves.
it is a simple fact, as i am sure you are not unaware of, that lowering the level of taxation relative to total wealth increases the rate of growth, and that this has been shown in recent british history to increase the revenue take brought into the exchequer and thus boosting public spending, and all this is done while leaving more money in the pocket of the man on the street.

his welfare is principally derived by how much he can make and keep, not by how much the government can give back to him in public spending.

let me re-iterate for Beskars purposes:

> less taxation = more public spending
> public spending of 43%+ of GDP is depressing growth = poorer people and lower public spending long term
> public spending of 43% of GDP + massive deficit borrowing in boom-time whilst doing nothing to save for the other end of the cycle is gross negligence

interestingly enough, and article on Gladstone discussing exactly this issue:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/6868274/How-the-great-Mr-Gladstone-saved-our-fallen-country.html

[InsaneApache]

If it's fake charities your after, rather than having a bop at the right have a look at this....

http://www.fakecharities.org/

Boggling. :dizzy2:

[Tellos Athenaios]

If it's fake charities your after, rather than having a bop at the right have a look at this....

http://www.fakecharities.org/

Boggling. :dizzy2:

A rather tendentious site, if ever I saw one. Most of what it lists seem to be your run of the mill NGOs/trusts/funds anyways which do not do charity sensu strictu but concern themselves with some (other) issue -- and are consequentially far more political in nature.

[Duke of Gloucester]

That would be communism, essentially everything would be taken in in tax, and then handed out again. Alternatively, everyone would work and no one would be paid.

The system doesn't work. Practically, I don't believe gross tax should ever be above 50%, given the fact that we now have a 50% income tax, and local, road, fuel etc. taxes on top; one might ask what the gross tax burden is now.

It has to be above 50%, which means people work more to support the State than themselves.

Income tax of 50%? The 50% rate is only on earnings of over £150 000 and comes in next year. The basic rate is 20% and the higher rate is 40%. The first £6000 plus is tax free. Even if you take NI contributions, council tax and VAT etc. into account then the overall tax rate is nowhere near 50%. In 2007/8 net taxes were just below 37% of GDP. This will have gone up but 50%? I don't think so!

[InsaneApache]

Nice to see you again DoG. :san_cool:

[Furunculus]

public spending is ~43% of GDP:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1986_2011&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2009&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/06/map_of_the_week_public_spendin.html

http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2009/12/pbr-the-balancing-act-by-colin-talbot/

national debt, before financial services intervention stood at 48% of GDP:

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

immoral.

[Beskar]

let me re-iterate for Beskars purposes

Hey, trying to say I am stupid? :cry:

There are ways for a government to make money with our taxes, which would increase GDP, and could argubly lower taxes as well, wouldn't it?

[Furunculus]

yes, provided you have faith that government can act as efficiently as the private sector, and as long as you ignore the fact the capital required for them to make this venture will be financed by removing it from the private sector, who will be efficient wealth creators.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Income tax of 50%? The 50% rate is only on earnings of over £150 000 and comes in next year. The basic rate is 20% and the higher rate is 40%. The first £6000 plus is tax free. Even if you take NI contributions, council tax and VAT etc. into account then the overall tax rate is nowhere near 50%. In 2007/8 net taxes were just below 37% of GDP. This will have gone up but 50%? I don't think so!

I pay as much in private pension as I do in NI, the two together come to 15% of my monthly pay packet, then I pay income tax, local tax, VAT, I pay duty on things like wine etc. I don't smoke or drive, so I don't pay those... Then there are the taxes corporations pay, whose services I use, and which cost I incure through their charges.

Tax is cumulative in that everything is ultimately paid for by the consumer. Oh, and let's not forget my "Student Loan" which is really just a graduate tax.


But mantaining the roads, hospital bills, education, pension, etc = people working to support themselves (though through the state).

No, because taxes etc. are collected and used by the executive, an arm of the State. The State is not a "real" thing Beskar, merely a constructive used to refer to our collective identity and interest. The people who run the executive work for themselves, doing a job for the State. Like any individual, their power needs to be as limited as possible because otherwise they can become a dangwer either through incompetence or malevolence.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I pay as much in private pension as I do in NI, the two together come to 15% of my monthly pay packet, then I pay income tax, local tax, VAT, I pay duty on things like wine etc. I don't smoke or drive, so I don't pay those... Then there are the taxes corporations pay, whose services I use, and which cost I incure through their charges.

Tax is cumulative in that everything is ultimately paid for by the consumer. Oh, and let's not forget my "Student Loan" which is really just a graduate tax.


Which ever way you cut it Phillipvs, it is not going to come to 50% of your income even if you took up driving. As for your student loan, it isn't a graduate tax, is you paying for that university education that allows you to be a doctor and perhaps actually earn enough to pay tax at the 50% rate unlike 99.4% of the UK population. Don't forget your loan only pays a small fraction of the cost of educating you. If you had your way and tax was reduced we would all be paying for more.

(Actually the idea of a graduate tax is an interesting one. It might be a more efficient way of funding higher education. There is a lot of admin involved in the current system. Inland revenue are set up do assess earnings so the admin there would be much cheaper)


suck it up, go out there and create wealth rather than spending your life soaking up public funding like a cancer, steadily withering the host from which you seek succor.

Spare us the right wing "public sector - bad, private sector good" nonsense. I would like to see these "wealth creators" making all that money without a proper road system, an educated work force, police to keep public order, and don't forget the armed forces that protect us from foreign agression which could take all that wealth away. This idea that the public sector consumes and the private sector creates is false. What about the firms that build all those aircraft carriers and high tech weaponry you advocate? Are they consumers or creators? Do I, as a teacher consume wealth, but the firm that fixes the school heating system create wealth? No. We are all contributing to the nation's well being and ecconomy. We all sell our time, skills and effort for a financial reward. Of course, I am not arguing that council clerks in Essex should keep their jobs when they are no longer required because of new technology any more than workers at Ford's Dagenham plant should. However I am refuting the idea that they are mere drones in what they do at the moment.


Nice to see you again DoG.

Thanks, IA. How are you enjoying the snow?

[InsaneApache]

Thanks, IA. How are you enjoying the snow?

Not much chance of getting to Denholm for my Christmas dinner is there? :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

Spare us the right wing "public sector - bad, private sector good" nonsense. I would like to see these "wealth creators" making all that money without a proper road system, an educated work force, police to keep public order, and don't forget the armed forces that protect us from foreign aggression which could take all that wealth away.

This idea that the public sector consumes and the private sector creates is false. What about the firms that build all those aircraft carriers and high tech weaponry you advocate?

Are they consumers or creators? Do I, as a teacher consume wealth, but the firm that fixes the school heating system create wealth? No. We are all contributing to the nation's well being and ecconomy. We all sell our time, skills and effort for a financial reward. Of course, I am not arguing that council clerks in Essex should keep their jobs when they are no longer required because of new technology any more than workers at Ford's Dagenham plant should. However I am refuting the idea that they are mere drones in what they do at the moment.


I have never argued that there should not be a civil service or public sector, merely noted my rank disgust that nearly 6 million people suck on the tax teat right now, which IMHO is far to high given that there are only ~30 million wealth creators to suckle them.

Ah those aircraft carriers; the ones from companies that generate a 20% world market share in defence exports, a not inconsiderable figure as a percentage of the value of UK exports, and a fact which helps make our balance of trade so much rosier? i have no problem with those makers of aircraft carriers.

What you do is valuable, i simply do not value it at a cost of >40% of GDP as i believe the extra value of extra public services is more than compensated for by the retardation of private wealth creation due to excessive tax burden.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Spare us the right wing "public sector - bad, private sector good" nonsense.

Very few on the right think that. Rather, we think that government should be cut as much as possible because the private sector generally does a better job at many things. A lot of the debate on the right tends to be about how much we should cut and transfer. Of course, there are also right-wingers who advocate more government and more public sector services.

[Idaho]

Very few on the right think that. Rather, we think that government should be cut as much as possible because the private sector generally does a better job at many things. A lot of the debate on the right tends to be about how much we should cut and transfer. Of course, there are also right-wingers who advocate more government and more public sector services.

The private sector does a very good job of funnelling profits to key people at the top. The same key people who build relationships with politicians. The same key people who get knighthoods and employ those same politicians as non-exec directors.

Both public and private have their problems - the former suffers from conservativism and inflexibility, the latter from graft and structural corruption.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The private sector does a very good job of funnelling profits to key people at the top. The same key people who build relationships with politicians. The same key people who get knighthoods and employ those same politicians as non-exec directors.

Sure, suit yourself, I was just saying who believes what. In this case I wasn't providing an argument.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The private sector does a very good job of funnelling profits to key people at the top. The same key people who build relationships with politicians. The same key people who get knighthoods and employ those same politicians as non-exec directors.

Both public and private have their problems - the former suffers from conservativism and inflexibility, the latter from graft and structural corruption.

Both suffer from all the problems you listed, just to different degrees because of the different protections and pressures they have.