The Tories are sorting out the wealthy tax-avoidant

[LittleFrieda]

members of our society. Why on earth did Labour fail to act during their long term in office? Eh? Eh?

I can't believe people are complaining about George Osborne doing something about it.

Will there be 'swap products' that swap state care for philanthropic care? Will the 'philanthropist' care and pay a fair share?

I think you are right, minimathsmouse. It does seem that there is money in it. "Market returns", "investment", "enterprise".

If the state sector declines and the 'third sector' increases, what will it mean for our services? Will there be regulation to prevent 'innovative' products and collateralised care?

So good, we said it twice

I seem to have posted the same thing twice, bloody talktalk, don't sign up to talktalk.

I think the idea is to find a new area and a new way of exploiting it. I don't think changes to how care or welfare is regulated will happen because the structure is already in place. It comes down to the banks and the financial services sector and how that will be regulated.

It seems that some of these bonds and investments into social enterprise will be wrapped up with riskier loans as well, so the investor who likes a sure bet will probably receive his money first and those that like to see a greater return but are prepared to take greater risk will receive just that except when the whole thing comes crumbling down, it's the tax payer that will be paying. The other thing is that if all welfare becomes privatised ie, contracted out to third sector providers (which are permitted to make profits, float shares etc) if these enterprises fail we will also have to step in just as we saw with the Southern cross panic.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if we see something like that in years to come, unfortunately.

This is all going to end in tears. I remember leaving college under Maggie, what a totally crap time, I recall having 11 good years before Dave came to town to privatise yet more missery and sell shares in yet more social decline and I guess my old age won't be too secure either, ho hum.

The only realistic one is harmonising taxes across the EU but I cannot see that realistically happening in my lifetime Niceguy2, if you look at what has happened to the poorer states in the Euro, I'm not sure if that would work. How do you think it might help, out of interest?

Dear Claig, excuse my ignorance but I'm not too sure what Osborne proposes as a way forward with taxes and accountability.

The health service scares me - bringing in competition and GPs having choice over which facilities or treatments we receive, possibly looking to keep their surgery budgets down or receiving benefits for offering certain services irrespective of what is best for the patient.

I'm just not convinced the big society, local philanthropists or large scale business philanthropy can be relied upon.

The argument I hear is privatisation causes competitiveness and increases productivity or efficiency - how has this been shown to work with water, trains or gas and electric? It costs more and possibly customers receive a less decent service. As for the postal service, who benefits with more competition? =the companies themselves , costs the customer much more.

I don't generally find businesses efficient - I find they are efficient about cost cutting to stay afloat not about customer care.

Business is for profit - how do we make the world care more about benefits for all? It is through the law being constantly tweaked while accountants continually try to find loop-holes. Governments need to be one step ahead or behind taking charge.

Who cares what that war criminal says?

And are you, of all people, quoting him, Claig?

Osborne wanted to cap some of the tax relief on 'philanthropists'. He was shocked to see that some of the millionaires were paying only 10% or even less tax. He wanted to do something about it, to create a fair society and this was welcomed by Daily Mail readers and the public at large. But the great and the good, some pop stars and film stars and many MPs didn't like it. So I am not sure if Osborne will be able to implement the policy of the people or if the 'philanthropists' will keep their tax relief.

I agree with you, I don't like teh sound of the Big Society either. I don't like the privatisations you talk about either. But many were done years ago under Thatcher and Blair and Brown never reversed them.

Business is for profit. Business is great because it creates wealth and allows us ordinary folk to share in the wealth that teh 'philanthropist' already has.

Look at Steve Jobs. He was adopted and his family was not wealthy, but through business and his brain, he became richer than any one of the 'philanthropists' on our TV screens. He was an ordinary person of outstanding ability and through business he gained great wealth and made products that impacted the whole world. And the ordinary people who were there at the start of his business also became rich. That is great.

But there are some things the government should do, and other things that business can do.

Osborne was right about capping the tax relief for 'philanthropists', but the great and the good may be too influential.

'And are you, of all people, quoting him, Claig?'

I'm quoting him because his support for 'philanthropism' indicates the direction the progressives are going.

You ask who cares what Blair says. I think the 'philanthropic sector' cares, at the 'Global Philanthropy Forum'.

Personally I think that capping tax relief on philanthropy is a sound idea but perhaps a more sensible thing to do would be to phase in the changes over a few years to ensure charities have time to adapt.

It sounds to me like this change was another rushed in, ill thought out policy like the child benefit debacle. I bet it sounded great in the cabinet meeting as a way of showing the electorate that the Tories will clamp down on their rich tax avoiding mates. But in actual fact I think it's caused an own goal as now charities are going to really suffer unless the plans are watered down.

@mini. Harmonising tax rates in the EU would mean we don't get a load of large corporations setting up in the lowest tax regime. The poorer states would still be able to compete on price, ie. their lower labour costs but the profits would be taxed at the same rate as in a richer nation so from Amazon/Google's point of view, it would make more sense to look at other factors such as employee education/skill base, languages available, average weekly working hours etc. rather than just "Where can we set up where we pay the lowest tax"

But like I said, I can't see it happening in my lifetime......

I think that tax harmonisation will eventually happen in order to avoid a race to the bottom, as niceguy2 says. It will stop governments and corporations playing countries off against each other. It will create a level playing field in a common market.

The headline in tomorrow's Independent is
'Crisis in care of elderly as £1bn cuts start to bite'

Where is the 'third sector', where are the 'philanthropists'? Maybe some of the 'philanthropic sector's' tax relief could have offset the £1bn cuts to the vulnerable?

Philanthropists help donkey sanctuaries, theatre, the arts, cathedrals, Romanian orphans and starving Africans, not old people in England.

I can see there are some posts to read which I can't read yet as I'm getting my DCs off to school.

I worried about my MN post - I reflected my rant will have made me appear anti-business, not at all. I see the need for the drive to create, invent, create, sell and make profit - a desire that keeps many gainfully employed and our world vibrant. What bothers me with the global market is that business can dictate to government and they ( governments) are afraid to upset them and then our hard fought for ( literally) welfare system will shatter. There has to be a way for others to share a little in the massive wealth created and I think taxing is one sensible solution.

I have no problem with a drive to create, invent, sell and make a reasonable profit. I do have a problem with the only driver being profit and ripping everyone else off if it's the only way to make a profit big enough to satisfy you.

Daffy, to a certain point I do agree with your sentiments. Companies should not be able to dictate to governments but they do. Especially large ones who can literally cherry pick their terms. But then that's what happens when you have something someone else desperately wants.

I work for a large multinational who outsources to low cost countries. The countries we go to are desperate for the jobs and bend over backwards. They offer tax free periods, subsidies, transport costs for staff, subsidies for our IT costs (which is ironic given we're an IT firm).

It's not right but it is reality. Even if we got a harmonised tax rate, we'd still need to compete and to a lesser extent we'd still have to spend money to attract companies. The problem of tax avoidance would just be reduced.

But there has to be a sensible balance. Tax the rich too high and we remove the incentive to innovate and create. Sensible taxation must go hand in hand with sensible spending. We cannot continue to spend what we think we deserve and then expect taxation of the rich to plug the gap. It doesn't work, it will never work.

All I'm arguing for is that our government must spend within it's means just like the rest of us must.

Harmonising tax rates in the EU, hmmm, I wouldn't rule it out. It could happen but would it really help those most vulnerable or those less skilled.
Companies would consider education and skills but they would also have to consider that healthy workers create greater output. And like Niceguy2 points out low wages/deregulated/non unionised labour markets would be advantageous to attracting business but would that benefit workers?

I don't think it will in any way address the fundamental profit imperative which dictates efficiency savings. For workers this means less hrs, more output per hrs worked, greater reliance on technology, a need to upskill but no investment in such and more unemployment and a greater gap between the value of what we produce and our ability to purchase the commodities we need. . This has been the general picture since the 19th century, I don't see anything changing!

What would really make a huge difference is workers controlling and owning the means of production and changes to the way in which companies are owned and managed. This would alter the way in which we invest and who owns what and would wrestle control away from the corporations.

At the moment we have a WTO that is totally corrupt so that would be another great place to start.

Christ. The idea that charity can take the place of welfare is an outdated idea which was tried over 100 years ago. It failed.

The failure of charity to fulfill state functions like health, education, and welfare is the reason the welfare state was born in the first place.

Those of you who are calling for charity to replace state services are calling for a return to Dickensian social conditions. Where the poor and vulnerable are at the mercy of rich philanthropists.

This is the exactly the sort of mentality which the Tories have, and, left to their own devices, they would transform the UK into exact that: pre-welfare Britain.

But there has to be a sensible balance. Tax the rich too high and we remove the incentive to innovate and create. Sensible taxation must go hand in hand with sensible spending. We cannot continue to spend what we think we deserve and then expect taxation of the rich to plug the gap. It doesn't work, it will never work.

All I'm arguing for is that our government must spend within it's means just like the rest of us must.

I give up. You really are a moron.

Just because niceguy2 doesn't agree with the economic policies of Chairman Mao, does not make niceguy2 a moron.

Everyone on this thread has made interesting points.

'Those of you who are calling for charity to replace state services are calling for a return to Dickensian social conditions'

I am not sure who you mean by this. Do you mean Tony Blair? Most posters on here preferred state services to the chaitable donations of philanthropists.

There haven't been many champions of the 'third sector' on here.

Have read posts. Osborne taxing philanthropists interesting. Did I miss the gist in passing but didn't he also lower highest tax band somewhere?

A philanthropy conference - intriguing I think while plaudible will only be a drop in the ocean but I do wonder if a trend will be that big business need to donate.

Dear Rabbit - who is "you" in big enough profits - I deplore companies that go for maximum growth despite the pain to the workforce or customer. I think ethical consuming should become the fashion and more transparency for people to make their shopping choices conscious.

How are large multinationals to be made accountable - if banks have the squeeze on them will they lend more discerningly? Power is not all about money; power has to be ethical and governments must fight their corner. Trouble is , each country wants their share of the company investment pie and so legislation appears to be very slow - banking debate in EU an example.

Transparency won't stop people flying with Ryan Air.

Multinationals will not become more accountable so long as their shares are traded on international markets by people who are only interested in the dividends they can get from the shares or the money they can make buying or selling as the markets go up and down. And pretty much anyone saving into a pension is involved in encouraging multinationals to put profit before ethics. We all encourage the system as it is, often without even realising it.