There has been a lot of commentary by all sides of the mainstream political spectrum about the burden of taxes. One particularly irksome entry into popular parlance when discussing this is the phrase “fair” or “fair share”. Some commentators seem to think that fairness is making one group of people shoulder the burden more heavily than another group of people. I happen to believe that “fairness” is closer achieved by everybody paying the same. Higher earners already pay more because they earn more. Then they are hit again by a higher rate on the “more” that they earn. If they are fortunate to earn even more they are hit twice more, firstly by the withdrawal of personal allowances, then by yet another increase in the tax rate that they pay. Given the current hysterics over fairness, and the popular view that somehow the rich are not paying their fair share I thought it would be useful to throw a little light on the subject with some cold hard facts. Without further ado, here are those facts.

The source for these numbers I took from the Institute for Fiscal Studies report published in November 2011. This report in itself references the data as HMRC’s own data as http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf and various Inland Revenue Statistics.

I’m not arguing here that some taxpayers don’t arrange their affairs so as not to pay more tax than they would otherwise have to. Many do, and I defend their right to do so provided that it’s genuine tax avoidance and not illegal tax evasion, but lets stop beating up on those that are already shouldering a huge proportion of the overall burden. They are already paying well more than a “fair” share.

I watched the film Invictus last week. It’s been on my to-watch list for an age. I thought it was about Rugby but I didn’t realise it was as much about the politics of South Africa and the role it played in Nelson Mandela’s governance of the country and in the country’s at least partial reconciliation with the Apartheid era. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, not realising that Invictus was in fact a poem by William Ernest Henley. I’ve reproduced it below

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

The last two lines make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Apparently, the Oklahoma Bomber Timothy McVeigh quoted the poem in his final letter before being executed by the State of Indiana in 2001.

The word Invictus is Latin for “unconquered”

As is usual for me I went for a couple of meetings in London again this week. I often go to posh offices and deal with their usual administrative procedures to allow me access to the building.  Ordinarily this process is uneventful.  A smiley reception person of typically 60/40 female/male ratio asks me who I’m meeting and what my name is then creates a little badge and directs me to the lift.  This week my third and final meeting in town I was asked to look into a camera so security could take a photo of me.  I’m not really a Mr do as your told kind of person so I declined.

This took the security man back a little.  He pushed his chair back, stroked his chin and looked towards the other security munchkin stood maybe 10 yards away to my left.  Munchkin had clearly overheard me and started an authoritative step towards me.  However, before the first authoritative step was complete, having made eye contact his step ended up more as a single step mince as he curled his hands backwards and upwards (think Frank Spencer) as he realised he had no idea how to approach the matter.  Seeing his colleagues discomfort the smiley reception person, sans smileyness, swiveling his chair from side to side asked me why I didn’t want to have my photo taken.  I have a whole host of reasons I could have listed but said something about society going in the wrong direction, the whole idea of photographing someone being security theatre with zero prospect of actually providing one jot of additional security.  As I was doing this I had pulled out a swanky tie and having buttoned up my collar was tieing it.  Flumoxed, the smiley reception person, still sans smileyness but now with a look of perplextion quickly gave me a paper pass and asked me if I knew where I was going.  I slowly lifted my eyes to the huge list of building occupants on the wall behind him and said, yes, floor 5.  That was it, the encounter over.  They didn’t take my photo and I didn’t pull a rocket launcher out of my bag and blow building to kingdom come.

Lets analyse this…

Reasons why I don’t need to be photographed

• I’m not a criminal
• I’m not a terrorist
• I identified myself by name, which he cross referenced to a list of people with appointments and thus expected that day
• I have no idea what the photo is being used for, where it might be published, how it may be stored and or shared
• It’s non of their bloody business

Reasons they want to photograph me

• To give an illusion of security
• To sell my best profile shot to GQ magazine (ok, so this might be just a little ambitious?)

I’ve no doubt that they captured me on multiple CCTV shots as I made my way to the office, and I’m under no illusion that I’ve been captured hundreds of times during the day on other CCTV cameras, but nevertheless, I do think the whole CCTV culture has gone way beyond reasonable.  I feel slightly violated if I’m asked for a photo other than as part of a social thing.  I understand why my Gym might want to check the person using the pass to access facilities is the same person who paid for them, I understand passport control wanting to be able to verify by photo that I’ve a right to be in the country (although, only because we have a benefits system that’s routinely abused; I’d rather have a culture of total freedom of movement, but that’s a whole new subject I’m not going to go into here) but to be asked for photos when I go into a meeting is a step to far.  What next?  Would you be happy being asked for a photo when you check into a hotel? Would you be happy to submit to a photo at the begining of each tube journey? Would you feel happy if the maitre d’ at your restaurant of choice demanded a photo before granting entry?  

I’m going to concede a point here, and that is that a private business does have the right to demand this.  My point is not about the right, it’s about the appropriateness.  The building and its staff were no less safe for my refusal to submit, just as they are no more safe from compliance, but I’m a person, I expect dignity and to be treated with a presumption that I’m not a nutjob.  I don’t want to be treated with an automatic presumption that I’m a threat.  For this reason I shall continue to refuse, albeit politely, whenever I’m asked to make inappropriate submissions.

So, am I a little quirky?  How would you have responded?

Tories to Scrap IR35 – Geeks Rejoice

UPDATE

Mark Prisk, the Shadow Business Minister, has announced that a Conservative Government would undertake a full and fundamental review of small business taxation, including IR35.  The aim will be to provide a simpler, clearer and lasting tax regime, so businesses can plan with confidence. ”For the last 13 years, Labour have constantly meddled with the tax rules for freelancers and self-employed, Prisk said. “IR35 has especially proved to over-complex, uncertain and often unfair”.

LINK

The very kind @charonqc a twitter friend of mine has donated this painting to me.  The painting is titled “Let there be greed”.  A veritable thank you to M’learned, @Charonqc who has declined my offer of payment for his work.

Erm, well it’s probably more scientific than the “hide the decline” psudoscience the CRU were using.