The TaxPayers' Alliance - Campaign

The Full Tax Receipt Movement

Working as we do to highlight the massive cost of the Government's tax policies, we often get asked how people and businesses can spread the word. One great way to do so is for businesses to adopt a policy of producing full tax receipts, so that their customers find out exactly how much tax they are paying.

Normally, receipts will mention the amount of VAT paid by the customer, but National Insurance, Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Business Insurance Tax, Climate Levy, Landfill Tax and all sorts of other taxes also push up the cost to the customer and reduce the money that actually goes to the business in question.

As well as making a political point about taxation, this also works for the business, too, by demonstrating to customers quite how little of the till price actually goes to them in profit.

One example of the growing number of businesses producing full tax receipts has recently been sent in to me by Michael Van Clarke, who runs a hairdressing business. This receipt is very revealing:

 

The trend is a growing one, and I would urge any business owner or manager reading this to follow suit. It is simple to do with a till receipt programme, and after a few weeks Michael is apparently starting to see a strong reaction from his customers. He has calculated that:

Of an average bill of £100, more than £13 makes up VAT, over £26 goes towards staff national insurance and income taxes, and almost £9 to over a dozen other business taxes including; rates, insurance tax, climate levy tax and even landfill tax, adding up to £48 of tax - almost half the bill.

He goes on to say:

The feedback from our clients has been amazing. It has come as a shock to see how most people are totally unaware of their true tax charges. Even after the government has taxed our salaries a massive 41% and rising, plus council taxes, vehicle and tv licence taxes etc, as consumers we’re still subject to further rip-off taxes, almost half of our spendable earnings.

Effectively, for every £4 we work hard to earn, over and above our subsistence income, we’re rewarded with a value of £1 spending power….the rest goes to our shamed government. It’s a scandalous situation, and we hope our full tax receipts will go some way to highlighting the state of affairs!

Transparency isn't only important to let people know how their money is spent, but actually to let them know how much tax they really pay.

The transparency bug spreads to Bedford

You may recall that a few weeks ago I was invited to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to witness their decision to become the first transparent council in Britain by publishing details of all theri spending ove £500. I'm pleased to report that the bug appears to be catching on elsewhere, too. Cllr Andrew McConnell has today launched acampaign for Bedford Borough Council to follow suit.

This is great news. As we'd hoped, once one council demonstrated that it is possible to be open about spending without the sky falling in on their heads, others are now realising the potential of the idea.

Cllr McConell, a TPA supporter, is to be congratulated for leading the way in giving Bedford's taxpayers the right to see how their money is spent and thus to be able to hold the council to account. It is refreshing to see a councillor who puts taxpayers first.

Lib Dems complete the transparency hat-trick

The weekend saw another victory in the drive for transparency in how taxpayers' money is spent. After the Conservatives a month ago and the Labour Party a fortnight ago, the Lib Dems have completed the hat-trick by committing to publishing the details of senior public employees' pay and perks.

This shows the great benefit of having the parties in competition to satisfy public demand. Our work in recent years to publicise the high - and swiftly rising - levels of senior salaries through the Town Hall Rich List and the Public Sector Rich List made this an issue, and created a public demand for more transparency on the topic.

As soon as the Tories made a pledge on publishing council senior remuneration, the Government had to follow suit to avoid being outflanked, and the Lib Dems have done the same. The next step is to encourage them to go further.

Interestingly, the quality of the three parties' pledges is not uniform, and there is more levelling-up to do. Here is the detail for each of the three:

Labour: Full publication of pay and perks for senior local government staff

Conservative: Full publication of pay and perks for senior local government staff, and detailed transparency of public spending in general

Liberal Democrat: Full publication of pay and perks for senior staff throughout the public sector

So all three agree that town hall senior staff should have their remuneration published. However, the Lib Dems are lagging behind the Tories in transparency on wider public spending, the Tories are lagging behind the Lib Dems on publishing the remuneration of senior staff in the public sector beyond town halls, and the Government are lagging behind both parties on both counts.

The public want to see how their money is spent, the technology is easily available to do so and such transparency can bring great benefits in terms of accountability. The first hat trick shows that the campaign is working - we must now press on for more.

Beware of the statistician - he bites

The term "watchdog", when applied to public bodies, is often a bit of an overstatement. The various quangos and committees intended to scrutinise the performance of politicians and public services are sadly more likely to whimper than bite. That cannot, however, be said of the UK Statistics Authority, whose head, Sir Michael Scholar, has run a very effective campaign in recent weeks to stop the Government abusing official statistics for political ends.

Readers may remember that Sir Michael scored a direct hit back in December when the Government announced proudly that official statistics showed that their policies on knife crime were "making a real difference on the ground". He went public with the shocking revelation that Number 10 and the Home Secretary had wrongly published the figures too early, without proper checking by statisticians and without full context. In doing so they had broken the code on statistics which they had introduced and which he is charged with policing.

At the time, Jacqui Smith eventually gave a non-apology saying she regretted being "quick off the mark" in publishing the figures. Of course, she wasn't "quick off the mark" she was cheating at the race altogether. A lot of other watchdogs, if they even had the guts to have taken things that far, would have left it at that and counted themselves lucky not to have been sacked or smeared by the Government for their efforts. Not Scholar and his statisticians.

Now they have published a blow by blow account of how the Government took the figures out of context, made "selective or otherwise inappropriate comparisons", drew "inappropriate conclusions" and made "unsubstantiated claims". They have also toughened up their Code of Practice and started presing for 340 extra types of official statistics which are not currently regulated to be brought under their oversight. 

Good on them - finally we have a "watchdog" that actually does some watching and some biting. We must be vigilant to make sure that Sir Michael and his colleagues are not nobbled, intimidated or abolished in return for their good work - as has happened in the past all too often.

Having effectively brow beaten the Government for their misdeeds on this occasion, Sir Michael has one more ace up his sleeve, which would truly revolutionise the way that the performance of the Government and the public sector is monitored:

"I think the correct principle is everybody should get the figures at the same time: ministers, Parliament, the press, the public, Until it is like that, the public will always be thinking that politicians have been able to get at the figures.”

Here, here. We've known for some time that they can't be trusted with this information, and in December they proved it conclusively. It's time they were put on a level playing field with the rest of us, without advance notice time in which to skew and spin the facts to their advantage. Then they might start working to make things better, rather than just to make things seem better.

If you agree with what you've read here, you can join the TaxPayers' Alliance for free through this link.

J P Floru: Buying Votes

The only way to stop politicians buying their votes with your money is to shrink the size of government and to cut taxes.

We already knew that the rise in stamp duty threshold was not exactly going to benefit Londoners or the South East.  But now it’s official: three out of four constituencies who will benefit are Labour-held, according to Harry Wallop of the Daily Telegraph.  In the 2005 election Labour did well among home owners with a mortgage grateful for the rising property prices.  Now that they are falling Labour is in deep trouble and if the housing market does not revive within a year or so more handouts are to be expected.

Giving a benefit to a particular group of voters to gain elections is nothing new.  Northern Rock was famously bailed out because of its importance in Labour heartlands.  Labour introduced vegaid, a £120 cheque for pregnant women to buy healthy food (for all we know some will spend it on cigarettes because the cheque is irrespective of actual purchases).  A month ago a top official was overheard saying that Brown would give a £150 fuel cheque to every family receiving child benefit.

Buying votes is not limited to the Labour Party.  Giving help to “hard working (swing- voting) families” is on every politicians’ lips.

Another characteristic is that when large numbers of voters are made to believe that they benefit from a particular financial measure or a service, that perceived benefit will never be abolished.  The CAP and the NHS are good examples.  Politicians in rural seats dare not propose the abolition of the expensive, wasteful and market hostile Common Agricultural Policy.  Numerically there are few farmers.  But many country voters believe that subsidised farming protects their own way of life.  This belief differs from factual evidence.  Since New Zealand abolished all its farming subsidies it has become the most profitable farming country in the world.  More people work in it than before.  Promoting a particular interest as a general benefit is of course what every lobby group does.

The NHS is still pretty much untouchable even though the great majority of us will never take out more than we put in.  It could be replaced by insurance a private sector provision but not politician will take that electoral risk.

How do we stop politicians from buying their votes with your money?  There is only one way: to shrink the size of government and to cut taxes.  So you can keep and spend your hard earned money as you – and not the politicians- see fit.

Councillor JP Floru
Prospective European Parliamentary Candidate 2009 (London)

Withholding and I

A bit of pub philosophising here – or rather the outcome of a discussion at the weekend over a few jars – but what would get this country further up in arms over all issues relating to tax?

One gem is to abolish what is called ‘withholding’ – the policy of automatically taking income tax from people’s pay cheques.  Now I know there are positive and negatives to abolishing withholding.  The efficiency argument is there, that if the income tax is taken automatically then there need not be form filling and the payment can be instant and much smoother.

However, one of the reasons the anti-income tax movement has embraced the Fair Tax in the United States, is down to cross-the-board hatred of filling in tax returns.  If you have to sit down and write out a cheque each month to the government, it’s a deliberate task that requires thought.  You write out any cheque and you contemplate where it’ll go, what it’s spent on and used for, whether it’s a cheque for utilities and the like.

Now factor that in with government and having taxpayers write out a cheque every month to the government and you might get a lot more people asking – “where’s my money going?”

Just a thought.

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.

Expensive swings and roundabouts

Here’s a note I received from a supporter as to their dealings with HMRC recently:

“I act as a paying agent for three businessmen people with a total of 5 staff between them. Not earth-shattering numbers.

Because the tax/national insurance payments are less than £1500 per month, I take advantage of the option to pay only every 3 months.

The end of period payment for Months 1, 2 & 3 in 2008/09 was due on the 5th July - with a deadline for the payment to be in HMRC's bank by the 19th July.

Payment of the due amount was made to the nearest Post Office on the 9th July (it's not that convenient and more effort than doing it electronically - but I do it in the hope that a few hundred quid going through its books every three months might help save it from the chop!)

The cheque showed up in my bank statement on the 11th July.

Yesterday, 8th August, I got a Payment Reminder from HMRC (dated 29th July! - do they use a mule train for mail from Cumbernauld?) telling me I was late with the payment.

I phoned straightaway. The phone number printed on the reminder was met with a recorded message saying "This number is no longer in use. Call XXXX XXXXXX"

The gist of the response was - "There was probably a backlog in the dept that sees that the money is in the bank. I can see that you have paid it. Just ignore it.

What a waste of friggin’ time and money, both for me and HMRC. And if this is repeated on a wide scale how much of tax-payers cash is HMRC unnecessarily wasting?”

Perhaps I’m being too cynical, but isn’t this tactic used by HMRC merely a ploy to get people to pay twice?

If you’ve got any stories about HMRC giving you the run-around, join us for free here and email us your stories, which we will use anonymously as always.

Councils finding spurious reasons to avoid answering Freedom of Information requests

The excellent WhatDoTheyKnow online tool, developed by the MySociety group, makes it easy for members of the public to submit Freedom of Information requests and find out what public sector organisations are doing with their money.  It then makes the responses public so that we're all a little better informed and can try and hold organisations to account democratically.

Unfortunately, Rother council are resisting this British glasnost.  They are complaining that the electronic submissions don't give enough detail as they don't tell them where the person sending the Freedom of Information Request lives.  Apparently inquiries from people outside Rother can't have "serious purpose or value" unless they are from "a professional journalist or researcher".  This is incredibly dismissive of hard-working amateurs trying to do their bit for the community by scrutinising local government.  Julian Todd, who submitted the original FOI, sets out in detail why Rother are wrong to refuse to answer here.

Don't let council officials get away with refusing to respect your right to know.  Get in touch with the leader of Rother council and let him know what they've been up to, and that you aren't impressed!  Here are his contact details:

Cllr Carl Maynard (Leader of the Council) - cllr.carl.maynard@rother.gov.uk / 01424 756586

Dodging the buck

The Audit Commission's biennial National Fraud Initiative has made headlines today after uncovering £140m of fraud across England. Cross-referencing records from councils, public sector payrolls, GPs' surgeries and other bodies allows them to uncover fraud that had so far gone unnoticed, which is of course a welcome programme.

Time and again cases crop up of fraudsters who have conned taxpayers with scams that should have been picked up by the most feckless work experience staffer in the benefits office, but have somehow been allowed to continue for far too long.

For example, in this case Victoria Young was of course wrong to fraudulently claim child benefit for seven fictional children, but surely the authorities should have noticed something was up when she claimed to have had her sixth child only a week after the birth of her fifth? Next time you see a report of a benefits fraudster being sent down, check how much they stole - odds are it is in the thousands, as far too many people are getting away with it for far too long before being detected. If, of course, they are detected at all.

It's a certainty that some councils and agencies are better at this than others, and that some are really failing the public by their incompetence. The former deserve to be praised, and their successful anti-fraud techniques should be replciated, whilst the latter should be named and shamed to spur the improvement that is so sorely needed.

Why, then, have the Audit Commission refused to publish this information? The total figure alone is interesting, and certainly shocking, but it is of little use to man or beast in terms of solving the problem. By releasing the headline figures, it's evident that the Commission to recognise that the media and the public are interested in this issue, so they should take it one step further and harness that interest. Public opinion is a powerful tool, and people are annoyed that their money is being stolen from them - releasing a list of poor performers would be a great way to encourage improvement.