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

Buses would have been a problem where I work in Bracknell as it was one of those towns that were gridlocked. Some of my colleagues spent over 3 hours just getting out of the works car park one evening.

And yes, our society is now built round the car. If I remember back over the decades we had the option to work close to home, shop close to home, have our family live close to home. Nowadays it’s changed – work is where you can get it with the reduction of large site employers, local shops have been squashed by the supermarkets and as to living close to family, forget it. House prices and the reduction in council houses have seen to that.

Chris

I have just added a link from this blog to my blog. I am not a Christian but I am enjoying your posts.

Capitalism collapses if we are not greedy, it is a system that encourages greed, the Nobel prize winning economist Elinor Ostrom has done some excellent work on the commons, forms of economics based on social sharing and community.

Of course there is room for theological discussion but we need economic systems that don’t depend on the worst aspects of human behaviour

any way thanks for the blog

I do agree though that our culture shapes and reinforces our thinking and that capitalism is no different. It certainly has a downside. One question would be: what alternative do you suggest?