There was an interesting snippet in this morning's paper version of CityAM, for which there is a corresponding link:
http://www.cityam.com/article/mps-say-uk-tax-requires-radical-simplification
but which now just says "Access denied".
I'd put it down to a glitch but I've noticed this happen a couple of times with similar revelations in the City AM. Gotta keep the advertisers happy, I guess. Why they leave the empty URL dangling there for all to see instead of deleting it is unclear to me.
Anyways, the final paragraph of the article mentioned something which BobE pointed to me out a while ago...
The MPs [on the Public Accounts Select Committee] also attacked the practice of seconding staff from the Big Four accountancy firms to the Treasury to help draft tax law.
"We are concerned that the very people who provide this advice then go on to advise their clients how to use those laws to avoid tax," they said.
UPDATE: It would appear that CityAM had to withdraw the article because it was based on a pre-released press release embargoed until midnight tonight.
Christmas Day: readings for Year C
10 hours ago
9 comments:
UPDATE: G/D has emailed me a link to the cached article.
Tee Hee - just in case people are slow to register what this means - City AM published an article on a report whose publication is embargoed until tomorrow and then hastily withdrew the report (such as it is) when they realised they might have one Margaret Hodge, or persons acting on her behalf, sending the City AM Editor an "we are irked, and might not send you advance copies of reports if you don't respect the embargo on reporting on them before publication" message ...
Tax avoidance: the role of large accountancy firms: Forty-fourth Report of Session 2012-13, ,at 00.01 hrs on Friday 26 April as HC 870; ,
"We are concerned that the very people who provide this advice then go on to advise their clients how to use those laws to avoid tax," they said."
The expression "No shit, Sherlock", springs to mind.
Bayard - tsk tsk - next you'll be suggesting that Ms Hodge - who has frequently demonstrated that whatever went on during 1997 - 2010 she knew or remembers nothing about it - will herself be suggesting that there is no evidence whatsoever that New Labour operated this "bring in the private sector 'experts' to write policy" policy with a will across whole swathes of government. I mean, it isn't as if, to conjure a name at random, Fred Goodwin was appointed to a body established to advise Gordon Brown on er, banking, during Labour's time in office, by um Gordon Brown. It is of course now fact that he Gordon has never and did never meet the man.
Yes, "political amnesia" should be a recognised psychological condition.
OTOH, the fact that an MP is prepared to give the government hell on their shonky policies is a good thing and the fact that the same MP appeared to agree with the same policies when her lot was in power doesn't really alter the truth of what she is saying. The mouths of hypocrites can still utter truth and it is none the less the truth regardless of who says it, in the same way that theories are not responsible for the people that espouse them.
BE, ta for clarification.
B, at least somebody has said it at last.
B - I would of course echo MW's comment, and fully endorse yours, it is well, I find myself having to try very very hard to contain the rage when, to borrow your phraseology, "an MP is to be heard and seen giving the present government hell on the way said government is operating the policies devised by the previous government of which said MP was at least a member, and often, an active policy making member" .. I probably wouldn't get so angry if I really believed said MP had had an honest change of heart and was saying "we are wrong, and so are they for continuing with it" but often it is just base hypocritical point scoring. Margaret Hodge would be well advised to check out the CV's of some of her Labour colleagues who held Cabinet or Ministerial rank between 1997 - 2010 and see how many of them had "previous careers in the Accountancy field,with the big 4 and their offshoots, and might not have entirely shaken off the influence of their previous employers".
Ahem. Apologies to all for rant.
ps : that should of course have been "we were wrong, and so are they ..." etc.
Keep ranting. We should be pleased.
The whole tax avoidance agenda hypocrisy is being revealed for what it is:
Jealous people across the political spectrum, all of them rent seekers, wanting to keep it all but wanting to deny it from others. Its like homeys.
I'd fuel the fire as much as possible.
Post a Comment