Cameron tells Pakistanis tax non-payment is unfair

David Cameron criticises Pakistan’s tax-dodging rich at a press conference in Islamabad.

In a speech at a press conference in Islamabad, David Cameron told Pakistan's elite that:

Many of your richest people are getting away without paying much tax at all – and that's not fair.

When considering Cameron's words, let's remember that the UK facilitates the very same actions through its sovereignty over 13 of the 24 biggest tax havens in the world, including Jersey, Guernsey, the Cayman Islands and the City of London.

First, it is important to note that the vast majority of people considered "rich" in the UK do pay their taxes. According to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), there are roughly 327,000 people who earn more than £150,000 per year – the rate at which the 50p tax is introduced. HMRC predicts that by the end of this fiscal year, the richest 327,000 will be paying 26.7 per cent of the total tax collected in the country.

Nevertheless, a request filed by the London Evening Standard under the Freedom of Information Act in 2007 revealed that in 2004-2005 only 65 of the roughly 400 UK-based individuals who earn £10m per year or more actually paid income tax. The failure was estimated to have lost HMRC up to £2bn in revenues.

The related issue of companies in the UK not paying tax has been brought to mainstream attention by the recent UK Uncut protests – fingering Vodafone, Topshop and Boots, among others, as having allegedly "dodged" paying billions.

The chairman of Pakistan's Federal Bureau of Revenue (FBR), Salman Siddiqui, recently issued notices to the wealthiest 700,000 of Pakistan's 2.3 million rich to give up withheld taxes. Although the number of non-payers is far higher than estimates in the UK, Cameron would be better advised to clean up the UK's own mess first before preaching to other countries.

Surprisingly, Cameron did not make the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance in his speech. Whereas the latter is considered legal – when taxes are not paid, using the help of loopholes – the former is considered illegal: non-payment of taxes that breaks the law.

A committee was set up to investigate the costs and benefits of having a General Anti-Avoidance Rule for the UK earlier this year. It has until 31 October 2011 to come to a conclusion.

Liam McLaughlin is a freelance journalist who has also written for Prospect and the Huffington Post. He tweets irregularly @LiamMc108.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The three avoidable mistakes that Theresa May has made in the Brexit negotiations

She ignored the official Leave campaign, and many Remainers, in pursuing Brexit in the way she has.

We shouldn’t have triggered Article 50 at all before agreeing an exit deal

When John Kerr, the British diplomat who drafted Article 50 wrote it, he believed it would only be used by “a dictatorial regime” that, having had its right to vote on EU decisions suspended “would then, in high dudgeon, want to storm out”.

The process was designed to maximise the leverage of the remaining members of the bloc and disadvantage the departing state. At one stage, it was envisaged that any country not ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would be expelled under the process – Article 50 is not intended to get “the best Brexit deal” or anything like it.

Contrary to Theresa May’s expectation that she would be able to talk to individual member states, Article 50 is designed to ensure that agreement is reached “de vous, chez vous, mais sans vous” – “about you, in your own home, but without you”, as I wrote before the referendum result.

There is absolutely no reason for a departing nation to use Article 50 before agreement has largely been reached. A full member of the European Union obviously has more leverage than one that is two years away from falling out without a deal. There is no reason to trigger Article 50 until you’re good and ready, and the United Kingdom’s negotiating team is clearly very far from either being “good” or “ready”.

As Dominic Cummings, formerly of Vote Leave, said during the campaign: “No one in their right mind would begin a legally defined two-year maximum period to conduct negotiations before they actually knew, roughly speaking, what the process was going to yield…that would be like putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger.”

If we were going to trigger Article 50, we shouldn’t have triggered it when we did

As I wrote before Theresa May triggered Article 50 in March, 2017 is very probably the worst year you could pick to start leaving the European Union. Elections across member states meant the bloc was in a state of flux, and those elections were always going to eat into the time. 

May has got lucky in that the French elections didn’t result in a tricky “co-habitation” between a president of one party and a legislature dominated by another, as Emmanuel Macron won the presidency and a majority for his new party, République en Marche.

It also looks likely that Angela Merkel will clearly win the German elections, meaning that there won’t be a prolonged absence of the German government after the vote in September.

But if the British government was determined to put the gun in its own mouth and pull the trigger, it should have waited until after the German elections to do so.

The government should have made a unilateral offer on the rights of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom right away

The rights of the three million people from the European Union in the United Kingdom were a political sweet spot for Britain. We don’t have the ability to enforce a cut-off date until we leave the European Union, it wouldn’t be right to uproot three million people who have made their lives here, there is no political will to do so – more than 80 per cent of the public and a majority of MPs of all parties want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens – and as a result there is no plausible leverage to be had by suggesting we wouldn’t protect their rights.

If May had, the day she became PM, made a unilateral guarantee and brought forward legislation guaranteeing these rights, it would have bought Britain considerable goodwill – as opposed to the exercise of fictional leverage.

Although Britain’s refusal to accept the EU’s proposal on mutually shared rights has worried many EU citizens, the reality is that, because British public opinion – and the mood among MPs – is so sharply in favour of their right to remain, no one buys that the government won’t do it. So it doesn’t buy any leverage – while an early guarantee in July of last year would have bought Britain credit.

But at least the government hasn’t behaved foolishly about money

Despite the pressure on wages caused by the fall in the value of the pound and the slowdown in growth, the United Kingdom is still a large and growing economy that is perfectly well-placed to buy the access it needs to the single market, provided that it doesn’t throw its toys out of the pram over paying for its pre-agreed liabilities, and continuing to pay for the parts of EU membership Britain wants to retain, such as cross-border policing activity and research.

So there’s that at least.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496