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?”
Anon E Mouse
Will – My point was that if people keep bringing up past events then as I posted here:
“And I repeat again, these types of postings could be used in the future where time that should be spent forwarding a message may be wasted trying to justify unjustifiable postings.”
Could come back to haunt you. That was all.
Shamik Das
It really is like banging your head against a brick wall! The caption is the caption in the cartoon, it’s obvious that is what I meant.
Clearly it’s up to you if you think racist cartoons are funny. Your choice.
On the Express journalist, you’re confusing writing relevant facts about people and hidden agendas with smears. Not one word in the article on the Express is untrue.
Anon E Mouse
Shamik – You’re still doing it. I do not think it’s racist, what race is being offended Shamik? Sheep?
Since you are clearly “outraged” Shamik have you reported this matter to the Press Complaints Commission? Has anybody?
The only person who makes the assumption that it is about immigrants is you.
The caption in the cartoon does not mention immigrants Shamik – you do.
And for thousands of years we have had a society with a multi cultural mix of peoples since the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, French, Dutch, Africans, and on and on.
So I ask again Shamik. On what basis do you say a sheep is an immigrant?
Tim Worstall
“but I don’t want to be lectured about the state of Britain’s finances by a man who doesn’t pay his fair share of taxes.”
Hmm. As Paul Krugman doesn’t pay taxes in the UK then we’ll have to leave him out of it then. And Joe Stiglitz. Jeff Sachs…..quite a lot of people really.
Will Straw
Anon – I don’t think Shamik is the only person to find offense from the Mail piece. Liberal Conspiracy also ran the story (a little before us) and it elicited a huge response: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/11/racist-daily-mail-cartoon-equates-immigrants-with-animals/
Tim – Stiglitz and Sachs, to the best of my knowledge, pay a fair share of taxes in America. They are also highly skilled economists who have a valid opinion. So are the 20 ecomomists in the Sunday Times letter. Branson is not and nor do I think he has a moral leg to stand on when he has avoided paying taxes in the UK.