The TaxPayers' Alliance - Campaign

The EU takes the biscuit

Regular readers will recall that the last time I blogged about confectionery it was with good news, that the State and the taxman had shoved off and left chocolate teacakes alone, though not before a long fight. It's saddening, therefore, to see in today's Irish Times that the ratchet of big State involvement in every imaginable nook and cranny of people's lives is working again. Those things that national Governments have yet to invade of their own accord, it seems, are increasingly being trampled by the EU instead.

Whilst British Government certainly qualifies as big, invasive, over-regulating, cumbersome, costly and inefficient in its behaviour, this is a stark reminder that it still has a way to go to catch up with the EU. With their tens of thousands of bureaucrats in Brussels slaving over hot keyboards, in their wisdom and zeal they've regulated the highly dangerous extreme sport of...baking competitions at fairs and fetes. That's right, they've banned anyone from consuming the cakes except for the mouthful the judges have to consume in order to assess the baked goods.

After the initial assessment sample has been consumed the cakes must be destroyed, not eaten.

What exactly is the point of this regulation? Why must innofensive events be regulated at all? Worse, why did countless bureaucrats and Commission legislators even bother to draw this law up in the first place - and make us pay them for their trouble?

If you like what you’ve read please join and become part of our grassroots campaign for lower taxes - for FREE - here

If it doesn't move, subsidise it

I got an email from a supporter that I thought I’d share.  This was a letter sent to David Miliband when he was Minister at DEFRA, beautifully articulating the absurdity of the Common Agricultural Policy: 

Dear Secretary of State,

My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. I would now like to join the 'not rearing pigs' business. In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy. I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?

As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this? My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.

If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?

Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear? I am also considering the 'not milking cows' business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares) In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.

Yours faithfully,

Keep the electoral register for elections

The LGA has published a survey today showing that the officials who manage electoral registers around the country believe that councils should stop selling the data to marketing companies. Too right - it's utterly wrong that councils are allowed to treat the private information of voters and local residents as an asset to be hawked around. Banning this practice will be a positive step towards reminding councils that they don't own us, we own them.

If you like what you’ve read please join and become part of our grassroots campaign for lower taxes - for FREE - here.

Let's face it: the Government will never be good at data security

Despite all of those claims that data security in the public sector had been tightened up so that the loss of the HMRC discs, the loss of secret files on laptops, and the leaving of top secret intelligence briefings on trains could never happen again, the Home Office have now managed to lose a file stuffed full of personal information about almost 130,000 convicts, laying taxpayers open to potential lawsuits and informants in danger of far worse.

It's certainly true that a lot of these cases are down to stupidity, incompetence, poor training, shoddy management and chaotic data management procedure. In this case the Home Office tried to blame the loss purely on their contractor, but have had to admit that they sent the information to the company in an unencrypted format in the first place. The question is, are these flaws in data management problems that can ever be stamped out? The fact that no matter how much the Government thinks it is tightening things up, huge amounts of data still get lost should by now have communicated the message that they are fighting a losing battle. 

It's not simply a question of piling procedure on procedure and eventually not losing anything - in reality they are gathering so much data, and operate in such a troubled environment of mismanagement and unaccountability, that they are bound to keep losing our information indefinitely. They are like Henry in the song "There's a hole in my bucket" - desperately trying to patch up an unpatchable system.

The solution, therefore, is to stop gathering so much information. There is little need for much of the screeds of information held on countless databases throughout Government - and if they weren't so insistent on centralised big government there would be even less need for it all.

Worryingly, the ID card and accompanying identity database threaten to take us in the opposite direction, collecting even more information of even more sensitive a nature. Unless the scheme is stopped in its tracks, today's news will seem like a tea party in comparison with the fiasco which we can practically guarantee will occur sooner or later.

If you like what you’ve read please join and become part of our grassroots campaign for lower taxes - for FREE - here.

Mortgages: if the experts are struggling, why let councils do it?

A letter in today's Times from several council leaders and senior figures in local government makes a request that could have disastrous consequences for taxpayers: they are asking the Government to let councils offer mortgages.

The question in response to that letter is this: if the thousands of experts in banks across the world are struggling to succeed in the current rocky mortgage and housing market, what reason is there to think that councils would do a better job?

A look at the performance record of the councils signed up to the letter suggests that they would do better - and our money would be far safer - trying to get their existing job right before wading into a market they don't understand:

Manchester City Council: £11 million budget overspend in 2006/07
Bristol City Council: £7.9 million overspend on five school projects in 2007/08
Portsmouth City Council: £4.8m overspend in 2006/07 - and forecasting £12.6m in 2008/09!
London Borough of Lambeth: Overspend of £14m over two years
London Borough of Hackney: Leisure centre goes £30m over budget

And these people think they should be put in charge of providing mortgages that will be underwritten by taxpayers?

It is an even more worrying prospect when you consider that those people they want to give mortgages to are those judged too risky by the banks - so councils would be handing our cash over to the riskiest tranche of borrowers.

It never ceases to amaze me that councils can look at their own books and bewail their dire financial straits year upon year yet the next minute they think it is a good idea to take on more varied, complex and costly responsibilities. They would do us all a favour if they stuck to the job they are struggling at already and tried to get that right.

If you like what you’ve read please join and become part of our grassroots campaign for lower taxes - for FREE - here.

Equality - the right way and the wrong way

George Osborne made some interesting comments on the Today Programme this morning about equality and tax. Further to Ivan Lewis' misguided article in the Sunday Times arguing for higher taxes on the wealthy, he made the very good point that the way to help the poor is not to drag down the rich.

All too often the debate about equality, be it financial, social, educational or anything else, is twisted into a forum for what is at best over simplistic, poorly thought out ideas and at worst old-fashioned jealousy.

Osborne is right to say that if you want to help improve the lot of an office cleaner, you do so by cutting his or her taxes, not by beggaring the directors of the office the cleaner works in. If you start slapping extra super taxes, windfall taxes, private plane taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes and all manner of other taxes on those directors, they will either lose their ability to invest in the company or move the company abroad to find a country that actually wants their industry and profitability. Result = the cleaner is out of work.

Unfortunately, the tax raisers in this country have time and again set out to do what they think is the right or "progressive" thing by hiking taxes, and turned a blind eye to the fact that the people who suffer most, lose their jobs quickest and are let down as a result are the poorest. They might have had the best of intentions, but they have been doing the wrong thing - and some of the most vulnerable people in our society have suffered as a result.

If you cut taxes on goods, income and basic living essentials, which are the factors that contribute to the poor paying such a higher percentage of their income in tax, then you would genuinely make a difference to peoples' lives. Increasing the basic allowance for income tax would be a great way to start.

Osborne's clearly starting to warm to the theme that tax cuts can be used for social good and to help people - let's hope he follows it through into genuine tax cuts, tax simplification and a reduction in the overall burden of tax. With the Lib Dems recently starting to talk about the harm done by the excessively high tax burden, it could be a very interesting competition to watch between the two.

Wheely annoying

Rushmoor Borough Council have hit a new low in the already shoddy saga of councils attempting to withdraw bin services from overtaxed residents. Most readers will no doubt be well aware that despite council tax having soared across the country in recent years, well over a third of councils have now cut bin collections to once every fortnight rather than once a week.

Having trialled fortnightly collections but ditched the plan due to the furious reaction of residents, Rushmoor have shown all the ethics of a snake and simply halved the size of the bins instead. This is typical of the increasingly patronising, dictatorial attitude taken by too many councils who seem to have forgotten that they are meant to serve the public, not boss us around.

When, a few weeks ago, I spoke at a conference on what local authorities like to call "Alternate Weekly Collections" - or a service cut to you and me - this approach was widely displayed. Several councils openly espoused the view that it was ok to ignore consultations that showed people want weekly collections on the basis that "they would say that, wouldn't they". Having ignored the public's requests, the next stage was "behaviour changing", which consists largely of spending even more taxpayers' money on propaganda, followed by more intensive beating of people with fines and charging.

It's this arrogance that really angers people, and Rushmoor are a particularly notable example of that. Having tried halving the service by making it fortnightly, attempting to halve the service by other means is simply underhand. Perhaps they'd get a better response from people if they acknowledged who pays the bills, and started doing what local people wanted instead of throwing their weight around in this disgraceful manner.

G'day mates

Of all stories this week, this one takes the biscuit as the most bizarre.  You guessed right, it involves local government.

Mat Taylor, a finance officer in Cambridgeshire, is moving to Australia and will still claim a taxpayer-funded salary to manage Fenland District Council’s finances.  There are a number of reasons why this is potty.  How is he meant to be brought into conference call meetings when it’s night time in Australia during the day here?  Is his contract nocturnal?  Somehow I doubt his union would allow that!

First we get the Chief Executive of Suffolk County Council – you know, the one earning £220,000 – justifying her high salary because the job of a Chief Executive is “high risk”.  Yeah, those paper cuts can be quite the occupational hazard…

Now we get a bureaucrat flying off to the other side of the world, still earning a salary for a job he says he has to hold onto because “it was difficult to replace a senior person straight away”.  Rewind a bit and you’ll see he has already given his council 3-months notice, meaning he gave the damn council enough time to find someone to replace him!

I swear you could not make up a more ludicrous set of circumstances in government even if you tried.  Should any government apparatchiks read that last sentence, please don’t take it as a challenge, more a state of despair at the banality, incompetence and wasteful culture inherent in our governing class.

Debra Freedman: The Big Brother Tax

The ‘nosy neighbour’, who watches you behind twitching curtains and asks one question too many during the morning’s exchange of pleasantries, is one of those universally despised characters.  Another one is the taxman.  Now imagine what morphing these two figures together would create... our local councils? 

The trend towards an increasing surveillance society continues.  As well as monitoring our litter, Councils are now being encouraged to listen in on telephone calls and read emails to detect crimes such as employee truancy.  The Metro today reported that “More than 3,000 people are thought to have had their calls and e-mail records checked by local authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.”  This law granted authorities the powers to investigate private data for crimes involving terrorism.  This broadening of powers at the expense of our privacy is a worrying development.   

Councils are supposed to be a local representative body to serve the community.  After all, the average taxpaying household coughs up £1100 per year for this service.  So as council tax becomes more burdensome and the council ever more troublesome, one has to wonder: what exactly are we paying for?

It’s time we told the country we’re fed up of Councils abusing their powers, intruding into our lives.  Email a letter over to the Metro (mail@ukmetro.co.uk) opposing Council snooping or cast your vote (http://www.metro.co.uk/polls/index.html?in_poll_id=9395&in_page_id=1) and make your voice heard.

You have no right to park outside your own home

Hold on to your hats.  Calm yourselves.  Breathe regular. 

Councillor Mark Bradshaw, who sits on the Cabinet at Bristol City Council, proclaims that no one has a right to free parking outside their home.  As you have no right to park on your street this will mean Bristol taxpayers will pay £40 a year for one car, £80 for two and a whopping £500 a year for 3 cars.  Surprise, surprise, it’s another stealth tax. 

Why can’t these Councils be honest with the people and whack up Council Tax instead of bothering with these sly, snide stealth taxes that merely go to filling up Council coffers?

With the cost of living rising, Council Tax going soaring – Bristol increased their Council Tax by 4% this year – and families struggling to cope in these tough economic times, Cllr Bradshaw adds insult to injury by penalising families for owning a car. 

But why should he care?  After all, Cllr Bradshaw takes in a whopping £30,335 from his positions on the Council.  A look at his declaration of interests shows he has certainly earned it, with jollies to Ireland, Sweden, Hanover and Bordeaux.  He wants his constituents to go green all the while chalking up a fair few air miles.   

The rest of us and Bristol’s taxpayers by comparison have to struggle in hard economic times.  We can’t vote ourselves a pay increase subsidised by the taxpayer.  Bristol City Councillors can.  As always, it’s one rule for them and one way of life for the rest of us.

Do write to the Bristol Evening Post and explain your frustrations by emailing a letter over to epnews@bepp.co.uk.

Furthermore, kindly explain to Cllr Bradshaw how this is an unfair tax hitting families and serves as yet another stealth tax.  Email him at mark.bradshaw@bristol.gov.uk and let us know if you get any replies.