Chancellor throws down Corporation Tax challenge to NI parties The Chancellor has thrown down the Corporation Tax gauntlet to parties in N.I. Agree a budget which demonstrates that the “financial implications of the devolution of Corporation Tax can be managed”, or the power will not be given. This puts it up to Sinn Fein, SDLP and UUP who have supported the ability to vary corporation tax being given to the N.I. Assembly but continue to dig in their heels on implementing Welfare Reform because as The Chancellor replied to me that if there is no agreement on that issue “there will be a huge hole in the budget” and no chance of finding the money to pay for the reduction in corporation tax. I have never made any secret of my concern about the immediate costs of reducing corporation tax and the uncertainty about the number of jobs which may flow from the reduction. Economic models predict that over 20 years 50,000-94,000 new jobs could be created but all models carry risks and uncertainties. That is an honest assessment of the policy and it is the job of politicians to balance the pros and cons of any policy, which takes a long time to come to fruition, and make a judgement. The important thing is to be open about the risks and benefits and the basis on which a final judgement is made. We have to find ways of growing the private sector of our economy and attracting higher paid jobs. In a competitive market where firms can locate in any number of countries, this requires incentives. One important incentive is low taxes which enables them to keep profits, some of which will hopefully be reinvested in the business to help it increase productivity and expand. The policy of low corporation tax has worked in other countries including the Republic of Ireland and already the UK government has decreased the tax rate from 28% to 21%. Furthermore Invest N.I. has identified it as one of the issues raised by firms which they have been trying to attract to N.I. Locally, businesses have said that in the absence of banks being prepared to lend them money, retained profits are an important source of investment finance. Those who are opposed, mostly the trade unions, argue that the profits will simply go to shareholders and will not be invested in the economy. Furthermore the public sector will be reduced to pay for the tax cut. However whatever impact there is on the public sector should be more than offset by private sector growth. Another consideration is whether it is healthy to leave the economy so unbalanced that we find ourselves at the mercy of national public spending decisions made at Westminster. Would a better mix of employment not be a safeguard for the economy? Jim Allister has argued that this loosens the ties of the Union because we will have a different tax regime than the rest of the UK. The funny thing is that he did not take this view when he supported N.I. setting its own rate for Air Passenger Duty. But then when you are a carnaptious individual who wants to find fault with everything, consistency doesn’t matter! I do not believe that we should seek the devolution of wide-ranging tax powers except where specific benefit can be seen. Over the next few weeks all those who have publicly promised to achieve the devolution of corporation tax will have the chance to show they meant what they said and that they are financially responsible enough to handle the implications of their promise. Let’s see if they can live up to the challenge. Why does the government pussy foot around terrorists? A common complaint about politicians is that they are out of touch with the views of the public. Anyone listening to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill in the House of Commons this week would have wondered what planet some MPs live on. The issue was powers to exclude those who had left the UK for Syria to fight with murderous ISIS terrorists. The government was seeking powers to stop them returning to the UK unless they agreed to accept conditions imposed by the Home Secretary. This would “leave them stateless, it would amount to exile, it would be a breach of the law, it would breed resentment, it will be challenged in the courts” complained the detractors. The challenges came from every party. At one stage I was so angry that I intervened to ask what message those who were so concerned about the human rights of terrorists had for the millions of people who wanted protection from those fanatics who had fled Britain to go and train as terrorists, had fought on the side of blood thirsty murderers and now wanted to return to use their newly acquired murderous skills on the UK public? What is it about the elite in our country, mostly lawyers, who cannot see that the majority of the public don’t care whether the fanatics, who were happy to go halfway round the world to wage jihad on Christians, Kurds and fellow Muslims, are left passport-less, state-less, exiled and cut off from their families? Maybe their plight will be a warning to others who are in danger of being seduced by the hate-filled speeches of fanatical Imams. My problem with the Home Secretary’s bill was that the exclusion orders are only temporary. These dangerous people should be permanently excluded from the UK. Let them stay with their jihadist friends and learn that they cannot return to Britain when they want a rest or wish to bring their murderous activities to our shores.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:44:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015