I’ll believe in a crackdown on tax havens when I see it. If this was an easy way to increase tax revenue, why has it not been done already?

Politics is not an exact science. Different jurisdictions should be free to try different ideas in the real world so we can learn from their successes or failures. If Switzerland wants to charge less tax, then good for them – let’s see how well that works.

The Irish Greens are cut from a very different cloth to the British Greens, and they’ve split over this very issue, having been seen to have sold out their principles by many at the grassroots level. It’s unlikely that UK Greens would even consider going down a similar path.

Stephen

Your comments about companies moving to tax havens are specifically mentioned in our manifesto commitments in our plan to crack down on tax havens and other methods of tax evasion.

I’m not convinced that moving to a zero carbon economy would necessarily be financially detrimental, nor would a 35 hour working week. The citizen’s pension and child benefit increase, however, are all paid for in the proposals.

Now, there may be some individual problems with our manifesto from an economic point of view, but the point is that it does outline an alternative method of dealing with the deficit that doesn’t involve cutting important local services.

However, more tax may simply mean more incentive to take earnings elsewhere, as football clubs and other businesses are already doing:

“Almost three-quarters of Premier League football clubs, including Blackburn Rovers, Birmingham City and Portsmouth, are based in offshore tax havens, an investigation has found….”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article7127776.ece

“Debt-laden chemicals group Ineos has confirmed it is going ahead with plans to move its headquarters from the UK to Switzerland in the hope of saving £100m a year in tax….”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/ineos-headquarters-switzerland-tax-bill

In addition to optimistic assumptions about tax income, there are things in the Green Party manifesto that would be financially detrimental – e.g. a move to a zero carbon economy, 35 hour working week, “a decent Citizen’s Pension scheme and a major increase in Child Benefit”.

We cannot have things we cannot afford, however nice they may be.

Our party position is that the overall taxation level should be raised to the level it was during the Thatcher era, making the burden of public debt fall on the rich who can afford it, rather than on the poor who can’t. Our investment plans to boost the economy would also boost the government’s income.

The plans in our party manifesto are fully costed, and expected to reduce the deficit exactly as much as Labour’s plans will. The figures can be found here: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/policies_2010/2010manifesto_economy.html at the bottom of the page.

What is the Green Party position on government debt? Do you seriously think that if the Greens were in power, they would be able to avoid making cuts?

Basic economics should teach us that debt is not a great thing to have. We are spending around £30 billion a year on interest payments, roughly £500 per person (on average).
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6840749.ece

£500 of the money the average person pays in tax pays interest on debt, and provides nothing towards schools or hospitals.

Our country has huge levels of debt – over 60% of GDP and rising fast.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206