LIVE24SEVEN // Lord Digby Jones
Digby Lord Jones THOUGHTS FOR MAY 2016
"There are few more ridiculous sights than the Great British Public indulging in one of their periodic bouts of hypocrisy."
So said Hogarth of another time, in another place, but events over the past few weeks have brought those words stampeding through the centuries straight up to the door of 21st century relevance.
It is frankly disgraceful that our laws allow Facebook to make sales in the UK of over £4 billion (yes, Dear Reader, that's
right...Four Thousand Million pounds!), yet pay the Exchequer tax on the profits deriving from those sales of...wait for it...£4,200!! So that means that most people reading this right now pay more tax to HMG than Facebook.
"Change the law" is the blindingly-obvious answer; I hope we do…and quickly. Taxing sales turnover (obviously at lower rates than taxing profits) in the jurisdiction where those sales occur is an answer, if not the answer.
But what amazes me is that whilst the GBP (Great British Public) rant about Big Business being disgraceful and not "paying their fair share of tax" ...whatever that Corbynesque flummery might
mean...they do absolutely nothing to register their dischuffment at Facebook in a meaningful way. When I point out to Facebook users the results of their enormous tax-avoidance scheme they tell me it's disgraceful. When I suggest they stop using Facebook until the company “pays its fair share of tax" they tell me they won't since, "Facebook's my friend" or, "I couldn't do without it". Starbucks have indulged in similar absolutely legal chicanery, yet people who think that's appalling still buy their coffee; personal inconvenience or a slight diminution in enjoyment is not on the, "Complain, it's disgusting" agenda. The smell of Hogarth methinks!
Our Prime Minister does nothing wrong, but is both guilty of being the beneficiary of what millions do every day – efficient tax planning – and also guilty of being (how do I put this delicately?)
...er...richer than most people, and the world falls in, socialists choking on the bile of envy scream for his head and now want the Bank of England's doorkeeper’s mother's second cousin once removed to put his tax return on the Internet for all to see. Financial voyeurism at its best. So you can be the beneficiary of a Pension Fund whose investment portfolio includes some offshore investments and that's ok…but only for you and your mates down the Dog & Duck…the PM cannot do what you do? An Upper Second in Double Standards here I reckon.
In one way, enforced publication of the tax returns of those in public life would be most illuminating. We would learn that many, many people earn a lot less than we think they do and millions of people give more to charitable causes than we'd ever guess. That'd
/ 66
of Birmingham
shut up a fair few. It won't stop the wealth-haters of course; those who spit (physically sometimes, metaphorically often) at the Rolls-Royce owned by someone who risked everything, worked ridiculous hours, employed hundreds, paid a shed-load in tax, sold out and made a few million quid, but applaud the new owner of a Roller who has done no more than just win the National Lottery! Jezza really means by, "Pay their fair share of tax" that tax rates for those earning over three pence start at 100% and head north. When will socialists understand that you never make the poor rich by making the rich poor?
At this stage, I hate to raise an inconvenient issue, but what about a little word called "privacy". So some of the Liberati would have closed- circuit cameras removed because our privacy is being impaired (never mind the thousands of criminals they catch every year), they don't want our security services looking at email traffic when clearly Isis would never have been so successful in a time before the Internet, BUT they insist someone in public life has to put all her or his finances, income, sale of capital assets, charitable donations, expenses out there for the public to pore over like so much dirty washing. So why not journalists, over-paid footballers, lobbyists, Trade Unionists, military personnel, Senior Local Government officials, teachers, police officers, activists? "Do as you would be done to" has a certain ring to it.
One final observation: if we as a nation continue this witch hunt against the successful, the ambitious, the wealthy, the lawful, if we continue to declare a "shoot-at-will" policy against those who choose to serve their country in public life, then we will find those people leave and the reservoir from which the country fishes for talent just gets smaller and smaller, since people will conclude it's just not worth it. We will be left with choosing from the genepool of those who are willing to make a contribution to the public realm, a bunch of individuals whom I wouldn't trust to run a whelk stall.
I started with Hogarth; I close, Dear Reader, with an old Chinese proverb:
"Beware what you wish for, because you might just get it!" Lord Digby Jones
Digby, Lord Jones of Birmingham KB has been a cross-bench Peer since 2007. He is the only Minister of Government in the history of the UK not to belong to the Party of Government.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148