-
I suppose the point is that the financial industry should be contributing far more to the economy than it does because of tax avoidance, so that a disproportionate amount of these benefits are concentrated in a very small demographic who subsequently do their utmost to minimise any tax exposure they face even on what they do declare. The fact that over 50% of Scotland is owned by fewer than 500 people (if by people you mean large corporate trusts based in the Cayman Islands) is a very apt reflection of what's happening to London at the moment. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/10/scotland-land-rights
Again, Cameron will campaign to give grouse moors tax breaks but won't protect an industry such as steel that would actually give some kind of more widespread benefit to the community that doesn't depend on the benevolence of the laird. Venal is the only way I'd described it.
-
Arguably you'd expect our government to campaign against restrictions on financial vehicles given how much the finance sector contributes to the economy.
Using the FT stats, and probably bad maths, the amount the "wealth management" sector contributes to UK GDP is around 0.0015% (steel is 0.1% - 66x more). It's obviously impossible to know how much taxes are lost due to these things, but HMRC said a couple of years ago that it was over £35 billion - more than 10x what is being added to the UK economy, by the industries own estimation.
Again, venal.
(Also worth noting that a domestic steel industry has importance beyond economic returns).
You are reading a single comment by @aggi and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
deleted
@aggi
Arguably you'd expect our government to campaign against restrictions on financial vehicles given how much the finance sector contributes to the economy.
If they were campaigning to protect the steel industry it would have been viewed with far more acceptance.