Richard Branson has called for the deficit to be slashed. But should we listen to a tax avoider and evader?
The Evening Standard is reporting that Richard Branson has given the Conservative’s a “huge boost” by calling for the deficit to be slashed. But in this debate should we be listening to a man reported to be a tax avoider?
Branson says today:
“I believe the UK’s record budget deficit does pose a serious risk to our recovery…
“We are going to have to cut our spending and I agree with the 20 leading economists who said we need to start this year. The next government, whatever party that is, must set out a plan to reduce the bulk of the deficit over a Parliament by cutting wasteful spending and must not put off those tough decisions to next year.”
Not just spending cuts, Mr Branson, greater tax revenues will also help close the deficit – including reducing tax avoidance. But Branson has form.
According to Tom Bower, Branson uses “tax-free offshore trusts” while This is Money have reported that:
“British members of the super-rich who live here can minimise their tax bill through trusts in tax havens such as the Channel Islands or British Virgin Islands. If the assets owned by the trust are not held in the name of the individual and any income or capital gains is not returned to Britain, these are usually beyond the reach of the taxman. Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson uses offshore trusts, as does Formula One billionaire Bernie Ecclestone.”
Indeed, during the debate over a possible takeover of Northern Rock, Vince Cable pointed out Branson’s previous record on tax evasion:
“I don’t want to run the man down. But it has now been pointed out that Mr Branson does have a criminal record for tax evasion. Therefore there is good reason to believe that the people who have to stump up the money for his consortium may well not regard him as a fit and proper person to run a public company – let alone a bank and let alone be responsible for £30bn of public money.”
In any case, Branson’s wisdom on economic policy is questionable. In 2005, he said:
“One way of increasing government spending without increasing the tax burden on the poor would be to abolish income tax altogether in the long term. I really think you would raise more money by a very heavy tax on luxury goods, leaving food, water and medicines tax-free, of course.”
In 2010-11, income tax will bring in £144.7 billion. By comparison, VAT at the restored rate of 17.5 per cent, will contribute 74.2 billion. So how should we make up the shortfall, Mr Branson? 50 per cent rates of VAT on that Virgin Cola?
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
40 Responses to “Should we listen to Richard Branson on the deficit?”
Branson on the deficit: Virgin’ on the idiotic | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC
[…] of course as Left Foot Forward point out, Mr Branson himself may have a more direct connection to the deficit. It’s been widely […]
Shamik Das
Anon, do you still believe this cartoon isn’t racist?
https://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/02/daily-mail-cartoon-portrays-immigrants-as-animals/
Henry
It’s interesting that George Soros – who is a bit more sophisticated the Branson – was warning at the weekend about the danger of a double dip recession if fiscal stimuli are removed. But I suppose he’s a dangerous lefty too.
Is Branson jumping on the Tory bandwagon – as he did with New Labour (rather belatedly) in 1997?
Anon E Mouse
Shamik – If I think it’s racist that’s my business. If I think it’s not racist that’s my business. You advocate a world where peoples thoughts are effectively controlled by the state. Providing I break no laws who cares what I think?
You say: “It’s not a question of whether or not the sheep is an immigrant, it’s the equating of immigrants with animals that is offensive. Look at the caption.”
No the caption (which I presume you wrote) reads “…portrays-immigrants-as-animals”.
That animal is a sheep Shamik so by definition not an immigrant.
Why do you think is is an immigrant? Is it because without your spin it wouldn’t be a story?
Perhaps, since we’ve changed threads now, you’d like to justify smearing another man’s wife for doing her job… You said: “We’ve got more on her, and the way the Express operates, to come. Watch this space…”. Charming Shamik.
https://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/02/revealed-hidden-agenda-behind-express-attack-on-housing-minister/#comments
Are you sure you haven’t applied for Damian McBrides job now it’s vacant?
Richard Blogger
I think that Branson’s support for the Tories is more sinister than you suggests.
Lansley’s plans for the NHS is “any willing partner”. The intention is to create a marketplace of new private health providers and people will be able to use NHS funds to get treatment at these new providers. To help this market get going, the Tories’ public health policy specifically states:
“To encourage a new market in innovative public health solutions is opened up in every part of the country, we will require local public health directors to ensure that an increasing proportion of contracts are awarded to providers from the private and voluntary sectors.”
Note the phrases “we will require” and “an increasing proportion of contracts”. This is privatisation.
It is no secret that Branson wants to start up a healthcare corporation of his own (his daughter is a junior doctor). Branson wants a Tory government because he knows that he could get a big chunk of NHS funds from it. Disgusting!