“Tax land” from Islay

Always nice to get away from things for a while.  Islay gives you a different perspective.

Tax has only featured in three conversations here and as each also mentioned whisky I felt that made it acceptable.  The general sentiment seemed to be: “Islay gives a lot to the UK Exchequer every year and we get very little back in return”.

One person I spoke to told me that: “Islay’s whisky industry contributes approximately £100 million a year to the UK government in excise duty and value-added tax.”  To put that into context, and if that figure is correct,  that is about £30,000 for every man, woman and child on the island.

The main tax stories of the past week have a familiar feel to them.

The debate over devolving complete control over corporation tax to the Scottish Parliament has continued.  This week saw HM Treasury predicting doom and gloom if such a thing were to come to pass.  More ammunition for those wanting to see a Scottish Exchequer.

In a connected issue, Scotland’s First Minister said that the oil industry should be consulted on any new changes to offshore taxation.  The background to this is the proposal by the UK government to increase the supplementary charge on oil production from 20 to 32 per cent.

The other major political tax debate also rumbles on.  That being the top rate of income tax.  This still feels like a “phoney war” but you also get the feeling that a formal start to hostilities might just be round the corner.  The main warring parties in this case being the coalition partners of the UK Government.

This week saw twenty economists (makes you wonder what a group of economists is called), in a letter to the Financial Times, urging the UK Government to drop the top 50p tax rate.  They claim it is doing “lasting damage” to the UK economy.   The top rate is paid at 50p for each pound earned over £150,000 and affects around 310,000 people.  Opponents say cutting the top rate at a time of cuts would be “monstrously unfair” and “phenomenally immoral”.  UK Government Ministers continue to hedge their bets by saying that the 50p rate is temporary and that their policy is to first increase the income tax threshold to £10,000.

Although not as widely reported as the two issues above, I did like the council tax news item from the Courier.  The report explained how funds raised by increasing the council tax on second homes had helped to pay for affordable housing projects across the Perth and Kinross Council area.

In February 2005 Perth and Kinross Council agreed that additional money collected by reducing the council tax discount on second homes and long-term empty properties could be used to support the development of affordable housing.   The Council  reduced the 50% second home discount to 10%.  The reduction covers around 1,800 properties.

Back to the mainland tomorrow!

Comments Off

Good news for pension policyholders

A provision of the 2011 Finance Act could help the relatives of people who have died before taking their pension rights
The change is that if you die before reaching the age of 75 and you have not taken your pension rights you will not be taxed as if you have made a gift.  Prior to this change this could have substantially increased the amount of inheritance tax payable.
Well done to HMRC for listening to the arguments made on this issue.
Comments Off

Another interesting week in “tax land”

A week that saw HMRC step up pressure on Rangers FC, calls for a tax on “junk food” in The Lancet and reports on how Bonn uses a  meter to tax its prostitutes.  I did like the argument put forward against the use of this meter by a prostitutes’ rights activist: “double taxation”.

The Liberal Democrats are making almost all of the running on tax ideas and policy just now.  The debate, for debate read argument, over whether to retain the present top rate of income tax and/or introduce a “mansion tax” continues between the partners in the UK coalition government.  In addition the Liberals are calling for a proper examination of how a “land tax” might work.

Attendees of last night’s annual CBI Scotland dinner heard, in between the odd constitutional reference, its UK President Sir Roger Carr, criticise the UK’s “punitive” tax regime and HM Treasury’s “misguided” levy on North Sea oil production.

Not surprised to hear of HMRC’s role in the “Mortgage Verification Scheme” and that it is to start scaling back its “time to pay policy”.  That is a scheme that allows a businesses additional time to pay its tax bill.

Surprised that those calling for a reduced rate of VAT on home repairs and renovations are not making more use of the fact that the Isle of Man has negotiated such an agreement with HM Treasury.

Not a dull week.

Comments Off

Seven steps to surviving restructuring

Guest article is by John Cooke, chief executive of a trade association in the telecoms sector.

These are some thoughts about what leaders and managers should do to cope in the midst of major restructuring exercises, especially those involving redundancies. It came about from a talk I gave to a group whose members were about to start some major restructuring programmes, and had asked me for my ‘top tips’ on surviving restructuring. This certainly isn’t a definitive or comprehensive guide to the subject, but I hope that it might be of some use to anyone facing a restructuring exercise, especially if you haven’t been through it before.

It is based on personal experience and observation of three major mergers, of several other major restructurings in between times, and of leading the stakeholder communications around the closure of a variety of industrial and commercial facilities. The merger experience covers once as part of the team doing the taking over, once in a ‘merger of equals’, and once in a firm being taken over: I’ve done some restructuring, and I’ve also been restructured.

Here are seven things to think about during restructuring. They are:

  • Look after yourself.
  • Remember your personal brand.
  • Don’t get mad. Don’t get even. Think instead what you can learn.
  • Be true to yourself.
  • Don’t spread yourself too thinly.
  • The Western Front and Eric Cantona
  • Look after your people.

Why are there seven steps? That’s simply because that’s how I’ve chosen to arrange these observations. I could have made it five, or twelve, or seventeen, but opted for seven because lots of lists come in sevens, like dwarves, wonders of the world, samurai, or gunslingers led by Yul Brynner.

They are in no particular order, with two exceptions. The advice to look after yourself is deliberately first, because if you don’t do this first, you may not be in a fit state to do the other things. The advice to look after your people is deliberately last, not because it is of least importance, but because you’ll be much better at looking after your people if you’ve thought about all the other things first.

1. LOOK AFTER YOURSELF

If your organization is restructuring, and you might up with a less enjoyable job or no job at all, it’s important that you look after yourself. This is first on the list because if you don’t do it, you may not be in a fit state to do the other things, and because managers in a crisis often do forget to look after themselves.

If you don’t have any people to lead, it’s entirely reasonable to look after yourself, because looking after you may well not be a priority for anyone else, including HR or your manager. But if you do have people to lead, and are trying to be fair to them and to maintain their morale, it’s very important that you look after yourself, too. That isn’t being selfish, either. Rather, it’s because as a leader, you have a duty of care to those whom you lead. How can you fulfil that duty of care if you yourself are stressed-out and demoralized, and operating below par?

Think of it like the oxygen masks on a plane. You are told to put yours on first before helping others. If you are sitting next to a loved one, that may sound selfish. But if you’ve passed out, you won’t be able to help them.

Part of looking after yourself is remembering not to beat yourself up if you have to break bad news to others, or thinking that if something has gone wrong you must be to blame. Hand-loom weavers didn’t lose their jobs in the Industrial Revolution because they were bad weavers, but because Mr Hardwood had invented the steam-powered ‘Ravelling Nancy’ or whatever. Most of the crew of the Titanic had nothing to do with it hitting the iceberg. Redundant video or cassette tape salesmen aren’t redundant because they were bad salesmen, but because we moved to DVDs, CDs and downloads. Stuff happens, and in most cases, it’s almost certainly not your fault, so don’t go thinking that it is. You are probably just someone trying to do his or her best to cope with the fallout. This advice does not apply, of course, if you are the general who thought it would be a good idea for the Light Brigade to charge into the Valley of Death, but it does apply to most of the people most of the time.

2. REMEMBER YOUR PERSONAL BRAND

In managing one’s career, a good bit of advice is to think about your own personal brand – how you want others to perceive you. . Like any other brand, its reputation must be protected. And that seems to me to be as true during difficult times as it is in good times, though few of us remember to do it.

Many people think of a brand just in terms of a product, or a service, but it also covers people. That may be true for the likes of a politician or sports personality, you may think, but not for most people. You may think that, but you’d be wrong. Everybody is perceived by others in a certain way, and has certain attributes attributed to them, whether they like it or not. Think of your colleagues, and you will almost always think of an attribute that they have: Ben, in finance, may be known for his passionate support of Partick Thistle; Julie in HR for wearing short skirts; Bill, in marketing for being determined to get the job done; and Sandra, in sales, for being creative. Whether or not you have your own marketing campaign and registered trademark, you have a brand, i.e. a quality or qualities that people think of when your name comes up. And it’s something you should probably work on, rather than just leaving to chance. You wouldn’t do that in a job interview, and nor should you the rest of the time. And in a crisis, your brand is particularly important.

In a crisis, you will be watched by your peers, by those above and below you in the management chain, and, possibly, by potential alternative employers. How do you want them to think of you? Do you want them to think of you as someone unable to cope in a crisis, or as someone keeping his or her head in difficult circumstances? Do you want to be pitied, or respected? That last is, of course, a rhetorical question.

Make sure that they all see the image that you want to convey – the swan gliding serenely over the surface of the water, not the angst-ridden, mad paddling below the surface. Remember, most others around you, including those who appear calm in a crisis, will also be racked by internal doubt: it’s just that they don’t show it. Either that or they are from the planet Vulcan.

Your brand is particularly important when you are leading people through a crisis. Think of it as if you are the captain of a ship in a bad storm, and your team is the crew. The captain might say, “Look, this is a really serious situation, but our best chance is if everyone does their jobs as well as they can”. Or he might say, “We are all doomed”. One of these approaches is likely to produce a better outcome for all concerned than the other.

3. DON’T GET MAD, AND DON’T TRY TO GET EVEN; THINK INSTEAD WHAT YOU CAN LEARN

Restructuring very often involves a breaking of what we see as the unwritten moral contract between an organisation and its employees. That contract is that if you work hard and conscientiously, and deliver what you are reasonably asked to do, the organisation will do right by you in return. Sometimes, the organisation can’t deliver its part of the bargain. That’s not necessarily because management is stupid, or doesn’t care, or is trying to exploit you: sometimes, an organisation and its managers are simply overtaken by events.

Whatever the causes of the breakdown, two possible reactions to it are: first, a sense that it is unfair; and, second, a desire to lash out in anger at the party that has ‘betrayed your trust’. These are perfectly normal, understandable human reactions. The problem with them is that you can expend a vast amount of time and, more importantly, emotional energy thinking about the injustice that’s been done to you and working out how to get revenge. But that doesn’t really get you very far in improving your situation. It’s easier said than done, but when you feel let down and angry, don’t get mad, don’t waste time trying to work out how to get even, just accept the situation you are in, and try to work out how to make the best of it.

The main thing is this. Imagine yourself in a job interview, six months or a year from now. The interviewer asks something like “So, you were in the midst of this awful restructuring. What did you learn from it?” And you answer “Well, I learnt X, Y, and Z. And I can now apply that learning in this role we are discussing now”. So, despite all the crap going on around you, ask yourself at the end of each day or each week what you have learned and how that enhances your CV.

I said earlier that bad stuff happens, and in most cases, it’s almost certainly not your fault. While that’s true, it doesn’t mean that you have no responsibility for anything, or that you won’t make mistakes. You do, and you will. Just remember to learn from them – a lesson that applies at all times, not just in restructuring. “Mistakes”, said James Joyce, “are the portals of discovery”. Or, as Plutarch put it “to make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes, the wise and the good learn wisdom for the future”. At least that was the gist of it, as he was talking Ancient Greek, obviously.

4. BE TRUE TO YOURSELF

During difficult restructuring, simply surviving may well represent success, and it has a lot to be said for it. However as Jimmy Reid said in his inaugural address as Rector of Glasgow University, in 1972:

“Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement. This is how it starts, and before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the rat-pack. The price is too high. It entails the loss of your dignity and human spirit. Or as Christ put it, “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?”

Few of us are lucky enough to have our ideal job, and life is often about some compromises at the best of times. So we should be particularly willing to compromise in a restructuring. Compromise may be essential if you are to be able to feed and clothe your loved ones, or indeed yourself. But whatever you do, don’t compromise your core principles or core values. If you do, you’ll end up disliking yourself, and that will inevitably turn into a downward spiral of low self-esteem, low achievement, failure and despair. Just don’t go down that route. Remember Jimmy Reid’s advice.

5. DON’T STRETCH YOURSELF TOO THINLY

If you are the manager working out how to do stuff with fewer people or less money, be realistic about what you can achieve.

There’s always a bit of waste in any organisation, so you should look for maximum efficiency, but ‘efficiency savings’, much beloved of all politicians everywhere, will only get you so far. You need to avoid overstretch. It’s much better to do a few important things and do them well, rather than trying to do too much and doing it all badly. With the former you’ll please some of the people, and the rest will understand if you explain it to them. If they don’t, that’s tough. And you will have by then agreed with your line manager what’s most important.

If something is a statutory obligation, you’ve no choice but to do it. For everything else, you do have a choice. So ask yourself, “is this activity critical to our success, and would the sky fall in if we stopped doing it?” If yes, keep doing it. If no, it’s a candidate for the chop.

In doing this exercise, be ruthless in considering what’s critical. ‘Critical’ means ‘critical’. It doesn’t mean ‘handy’, or ‘useful’, or ‘desirable’ or something that must be done ‘because we’ve always done it that way’ or because the Head of Paperclips requires a weekly report on it.

You will win no friends and do nothing to further your career if you meekly accept being told to do the impossible, and then fail to deliver the required miracle.

6. THE WESTERN FRONT AND ERIC CANTONA

In case the title of this bit isn’t self-explanatory, let me elaborate. There are two parts to it. The first is to remember that there’s always someone worse off than you. The second is to remember Eric Cantona, and I’ll get to him in a minute.

One of the most excruciatingly irritating things to be told when you are in a painful or stressful or upsetting situation is that someone else is experiencing something similar or worse. When I’ve broken a finger, or have had toothache, I haven’t felt less pain if someone told me that it’s not nearly as bad as childbirth or whatever. One reason someone else telling you this sort of thing is so annoying is that you might recognize more than a grain of truth in the argument. And if you tell yourself that someone is worse off than you are, that can help.

I’ll tell you what has sometimes worked for me.

That has been to remember that, though I may, at times, have been unhappy with aspects of my job, or my then manager, or facing potential redundancy, if I’d been born in a different generation, it could have been worse: I might have been in a hole in the ground in northern France, covered in mud, and being shelled. That sometimes works for me, because it happened to my grandfather when he was a young man serving in the Gordon Highlanders, and I have fond memories of him. Not that he ever really talked about it, but I do have a photo of him on my mantelpiece. Find an image that resonates with you, assuming that you don’t also remember my granddad. It might be something that you’ve read about or seen on TV: the image of a starving child in the Horn of Africa does rather put a different perspective on a slightly lower than expected pay rise or missed promotion.

Now let me turn to Eric Cantona.

Let’s suppose that you are facing redundancy. It happens. Redundancy and unemployment are bad. They are scary, demoralising, can lower your self-esteem and are bad for your physical and mental health. So I don’t want to play down the impact. However, lots of people who are made redundant do end up with better jobs and with happier more fulfilled lives. It is not the end of the world. It can be, especially if you let it, but it doesn’t have to be. If you do get made redundant, remember Eric.

In 1992, Eric was playing for Leeds. His then manager, Howard Wilkinson sold him to Manchester United. This wasn’t because Manchester was offering a king’s ransom of a transfer fee that Leeds just couldn’t refuse. On the contrary, they paid about £1.2million – chickenfeed in football transfer terms. It was simply that Wilkinson and Leeds thought Cantona surplus to requirements. Or, put another way, ‘redundant’. Wilkinson was not a bad manager – he guided Leeds to the English championship in 1992. If you know anything about football, the rest, as they say, is history.

However, if you don’t know football, I will explain. Man. United had spent a quarter of a century, without Eric Cantona, failing to become English champions. With Cantona as star player, they won four titles in five years, including two League and FA Cup Doubles. It wasn’t all down to Eric, of course. But Man. United is one of the world’s most famous and successful clubs, with a host of star players in its history. Among United fans, Cantona is an idol, a demigod, a legend amongst legends. Not bad for someone deemed ‘surplus to requirements’.

So if you do get made redundant, don’t automatically think that you are a worthless failure. You are simply surplus to requirements in somebody’s subjective opinion – however objective they say they’ve been in reaching that decision. Remember Eric Cantona!

7. LOOK AFTER YOUR PEOPLE

Big restructuring programmes involving, or even potentially involving, redundancies are bad for morale! They can lead to a sense of alienation and disaffection. People worry when there’s uncertainty. As a leader or manager, one of your jobs is to manage this. How you do so depends on the situation, but some generic tips are:

Talk to your people more than usual. Listen to them even more so. Don’t assume what they are thinking or feeling. Don’t think “if I were so and so, I’d want X to happen/the logical course would be Y”. For one thing, logic often flies out of the window at times of stress, but more fundamentally, you are not so and so, and you don’t know what’s in their mind. If in doubt, ask them.

Keep asking them, because their view might change. I recall one colleague who, in a particular restructuring, wanted redundancy. They didn’t want to work in the new set up, and they wanted the payoff. But when the letter arrived, they felt ‘rejected’ and needed support.

Pay particular attention to younger, less experienced staff members. You might think they’ve less to worry about, e.g. no kids, no mortgage, etc, but they can be hit hard by the threat of redundancy, when older hands, who’ve seen it before, may be much more relaxed.

If someone is appearing to be coping well, don’t take that at face value. They may be coping well, in which case, that’s fine. But check that they aren’t in denial. It can happen, and if it does, you’ll need to work with the person to get them to address the reality of the situation.

There isn’t a golden rule about how different people will react, so treat them all as individuals. It may be that the one you think will cope best won’t, and the one you think might cope worst will be fine.

Try to be as reassuring and empathetic as possible, but don’t patronize or give them some old flannel that you don’t believe and they won’t believe either. Subject to HR constraints (ask HR for guidance on this) be as open and honest as possible. Don’t hide bad news; just try to break it gently, and do your best to help people find a way through.

Where redundancies are involved, don’t assume that those keeping their jobs are fine. Seeing friends and colleagues getting the chop can lead to ‘survivor guilt’.

Where people are being made redundant, you still need to look after them. It’s morally the right thing to do. And it could happen to you, one day, so do unto others etc. Also, remember that those left behind will see how those being made redundant are treated: their view of you and of the organisation will be affected accordingly.

Give people something positive to think about and to work towards. Give them something to learn. (See ‘Don’t get mad’, etc)

If you are in a position of authority, don’t encourage mutiny. People will grumble. That’s natural. Accept it. Letting them let off steam may help morale. But be careful to avoid being seen to agree too much with criticism of senior management, even if you think your people have a point. Think of Tom Hanks in ‘Saving Private Ryan’. In a crisis, people will cope better if they think someone in authority has at least some notion of how to fix it. If you agree too readily that the high heid yins in your organisation are a bunch of numpties who couldn’t run a whelk stall, this risks undermining morale even further. Caveats to this advice are that you should not blindly defend things that are immoral (see the Jimmy Reid quotation in ‘Be true to yourself’), or just plain daft, and also remember your brand.

John Cooke

John Cooke is chief executive of a trade association in the telecoms sector. His background is in public affairs and policy, and his career has included senior roles at HBOS, in financial services, and GlaxoSmithKline, in pharmaceuticals. A former Chair of the Scottish Government’s Financial Services Implementation Group(FiSIG) John remains passionate about creating a more successful Scotland, where sustainable growth provides opportunities for all her people to flourish. He is a regular commentator, in a personal capacity, on a range of Scottish policy and economic issues, and on other business matters. One of the Diaspora who has returned, he now lives in Edinburgh.

Comments Off

Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011

This is the first in a series of articles by Paul Thompson of PT Legal.  Paul specialises in mental health and incapacity matters.

Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011

My first article focuses on the new Patient Rights Act and the proposed secondary legislation which is currently under consultation.

Background

The aim of this Act is to improve the experience of using the NHS in Scotland and getting patients more involved in their health care.  The Patient Rights (Scotland) Act received Royal assent on 31 March 2011 and the main statutory provisions come into force on 1 April 2012 [1].

New Rights for Patients

The Act gives all patients the right that the health care they receive from the NHS in Scotland should:

-          take into account the patient’s needs

-          consider what health care would be most beneficial to the patient

-          consider each individual patient’s circumstances and preferences

-          encourage patient participation in health care decisions

-          provide the patient with information and support allowing them to participate

Health Care Principles

In addition to the above rights patients will now benefit from “Health Care Principles” contained in the Schedule to the new Act. The following principles must be applied by all providers of NHS health care in Scotland: Patient Focus; Quality Care and Treatment; Patient Participation; Communication; Patient Feedback; Waste of Resources. A more detailed look at these principles will be the subject of a future article in this series.

Treatment Time Guarantee

Health Boards in Scotland must ensure that certain groups of patients receive medical treatment within 12 weeks from the date the treatment has been agreed.  Secondary legislation is currently under consultation and will detail which groups of patients will be covered by this new guaranteed treatment time. The draft legislation applies to patients due to receive planned or elective treatment on an inpatient or day case basis, however, it excludes specific treatments such as assisted reproduction and transplants which are dependent on the availability of organs.

Patient Advice and Support Service

The Act creates a new Patient Advice and Support Service to help patient’s understand and exercise their rights under the Act. This new support service replaces the current Independent Advice and Support Service provided to patients by the Citizens Advice Bureau.

Hepatitis C compensation payments

The Act extends the current compensation scheme contained under Section 28 of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 which is currently applicable to those who acquired hepatitis C as a result of NHS treatment and who did not die before 29 August 2003.

The Patient Rights Act amends the 2005 Act to allow for compensation payments to be made to dependents of patients who acquired hepatitis C as a result of their NHS treatment but died before the cut off date of 29 August 2003.

Protections and Limitations

If you have been reading this article and thinking, as I did, that these guaranteed patients rights sound too good to be true, then read on. Section 20(3) of the Act will be of particular interest to lawyers as it contains a “get out clause” for NHS Health Boards and provides:

(3)  Nothing in this Act gives rise to—

(a) any liability to pay damages,

(b) any right of action for specific implement,

(c) any right of action for specific performance of a statutory duty,

(d) any right of action for interdict,

(e) any right of action for suspension

Imagine the situation where a doctor has agreed that a patient requires life saving treatment. The Act now guarantees that the patient will receive treatment within 12 weeks. If the patient does not receive the treatment within this guaranteed time scale (for example due to lack of funding or bed availability) the patient is then left with no legal remedy for the breach of their rights.

On closer examination this Act appears to provide patients with new rights and guarantees whilst at the same time deliberately rendering them unenforceable. In direct contrast to this odd state of affairs we have the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.  The 2003 Act contains “Guiding Principles” which guarantee a patient rights when receiving compulsory medical care and treatment and these rights are legally enforceable. These principles must be adhered to and the act provides specific legal remedies to ensure they are complied with[2].

In light of the lack of enforceability of the rights and guarantees contained in the this Act the following point still needs to be debated: could the money spent on producing this Act and subordinate legislation have been better invested in providing patients with actual medical care and treatment.

It could be argued that these new rights and guarantees could simply have been incorporated into NHS Health Board’s policies as the limitations and lack of enforceability of these rights under the Act add no greater legal protection to the existing rights of patients.

A full copy of the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011 can be found at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2011/5/contents/enacted

Paul Thompson
Principal Solicitor

      Tel: 0800 118 5240
      Fax: 01475 600 377
      Mobile: 07950 948837
      Email: paul.thompson@ptlegal.co.uk
      Web: www.ptlegal.co.uk

 

 

 


 [1] The sections of the Act relating to the Treatment Time Guarantee will come into force on 1 October 2012 and the provisions relating to payments to patients infected with Hepatitis due to NHS treatment came into force on 31 March 2011.

[2] An example of this is a Patient’s Right to be treated in a manner which is least restrictive on their freedom. The 2003 Act provides a specific right of appeal against detention in conditions of excessive security.

 

 

 

Comments Off

Taxing “junk food” – some thoughts

It was reported in The Lancet last week that an international group of researchers are recommending that “junk food” should be taxed.

Watching a piece on the news last night on this issue it seemed that this proposal will follow what I see as the “usual pattern”.  Recent examples include: “transient guest” or bed tax, minimum price for alcohol, plastic bag levy, European transaction tax, bank levy, carbon tax and non-doms charge.

An organisation or government suggests a tax or charge.  The press report it.  A debate begins on whether the tax is to change behaviour or raise funds.  Often the proposer suggesting the tax is not sure or fails to make clear that the answer is both.  That often provides its opponents an easy line of attack.  In most cases no thought has been given to what rate the tax will be charged at or how and by whom it will be collected or even how much is likely to be raised.  Again if the proposers have not thought of this its opponents have an easy line of attack.

In some cases, such as when environmental taxes were being suggested, a cynical person might have concluded that the “change behaviour” argument was used by some backers when in fact they really just wanted the revenue.

Then the appropriate trade body argues that taxation is not the answer and some form of voluntary agreement will do just as well.  A trade body is used as individual companies do not want to be seen directly arguing about the matter in question.  If the proposal is by one government and affects a second government then a similar argument is likely to be used.

Then politics takes over!

A report from the BBC on taxing “junk food” can be found here and The Lancet here.

Comments Off

A week in “tax land”

More debate on the top rate of income tax.  John Mason, former MP and now SNP MSP, suggested that the top rate of income tax is increased when the power to vary income tax rates is passed to the Scottish Parliament.  This proposal was given short shrift by the First Minister.   Eric Pickles, UK Community Secretary, wants to slash the top rate of income tax and thinks that imposing a “mansion tax” would be a mistake.

The UK Government’s deal with the Swiss banks got a mixed reaction.  The Swiss government has agreed to tax money held by UK taxpayers in Swiss bank accounts for the first time, while still hiding their identity.  The mixed reaction is because the amount of tax likely to be paid will be just a fraction of what is actually owed.

The campaign to reduce the rate of VAT on domestic property repairs and improvements has continued.  One point that as yet has not received much coverage is the fact that the Isle of Man has already negotiated such a reduced rate with HM Treasury.  More on this can be found here.

The fact that the French and German governments are pressing for a unified rate of corporation tax for the Euro zone countries has received a fair bit of coverage particularly in Ireland.  I suspect the fact that the same governments are also again, and with a fair bit of urgency, pressing for a European “financial transaction tax” will receive increased coverage.  This is also known as the “tobin tax”.

There has been an increasing number of stories on the action HMRC is taking on VAT and other forms of tax fraud.  This makes sense given the cutting of HMRC’s budget.

 

Comments { 0 }

Scotland’s care industry – part 4

In my fourth article in this series I am looking at the UK Government’s decision to withhold Attendance Allowance funding when the then Scottish Executive decided to introduce its policy of Free Personal and Nursing Care (FPNC).

First thing’s first.  What is Attendance Allowance?.  Attendance Allowance is a tax-free benefit.  You may get Attendance Allowance if you’re aged 65 or over and need help with personal care because you’re physically or mentally disabled.

A reminder of what the 2007 Sutherland review of FPNC recommended on this issue:

“Address imbalance in funding streams.  The UK Government should not have withdrawn the Attendance Allowance funding in respect of self-funding clients in care homes, currently amounting to £30 million a year.  That funding should be reinstated in the short-term while longer-term work to re-assess funding streams takes place.”

When researching this issue I also found an interesting article by the economists, Jim and Margaret Cuthbert.  The main point of this article is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and HM Treasury breached their own rules in coming to this decision.  The full article can be found here.

The decision to withhold Attendance Allowance funding appears to have more to do with not understanding that devolution means the power and ability to do things differently.  When you consider the reaction to other proposals such as a local income tax or the devolving of corporation tax powers a pattern appears to be forming.   It is also worth noting that institutions such as DWP and HM Treasury are meant to act for the whole of the UK.

Comments { 0 }

Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011

The Scottish Government has launched a consultation on the proposed secondary legislation to support implementation of the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011 and in particular the regulations and directions relating to the treatment time guarantee, patient feedback, comments, concerns and complaints and the Health Care Principles to be upheld by relevant NHS bodies and service providers.

The consultation can be found here.

Comments Off

Campaign for a reduced rate of VAT on home repairs and improvements

Interested to see that this campaign resurfaced this week.

Main protagonists appear to be the Scottish Building Federation, Federation of Small Businesses and the Scottish Government.

I was though surprised to see no reference to the Isle of Man when this was being reported.  This was because the Isle of Man reached an agreement with HM Treasury last December to make permanent its 5% VAT rate on repairs or refurbishment of domestic property.

More information on this can be found here.   An article on this from the Scotsman can also be found here.

Comments Off