Human rights and tax secrets

Think those two don't go together? Prince Charles begs to differ:

Prince Charles has used the Human Rights Act and the Official Secrets Act to block revelations about his tax affairs – even though Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has said the disclosure would be in the public interest. 

The move follows a bid to uncover the secret arrangements which allow the Prince of Wales to avoid paying tax on the Duchy of Cornwall, his vast estates which generated £18 million profit last year. 

The test case centres on a request by an academic who has asked to see correspondence between the Duchy of Cornwall and HMRC. 

But the Government and the Duchy of Cornwall have refused to agree to the release of the documents because the disclosure would breach Charles’s right to privacy. They also say the information is protected by the Official Secrets Act. 

John Kirkhope, an expert on trusts law from Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, is trying to use the Freedom of Information Act to uncover how HMRC came to grant the Duchy a tax exemption which is estimated to have been worth millions of pounds over the past century.

The issue here is the right of the public to know what the treasury already knows.  A spokesman for Prince Charles said "The Duchy is not a company and is not therefore liable to pay corporation tax." That is completely irrelevant. What is being asked here is not whether tax has been levied and if not why not, but whether the public has a right to know whether tax is being levied, and if not, why not.  That is a transparency question, the kind that animates EITI& CBCR. Of course, neither of these regimes would extend to the Duchy, since its not a public corporation.

Relatedly, notice that the Prince's right to privacy is the invoked protection against the government's disclosure of his tax information to a third party, i.e., a party other than the government itself. That right is, of course, what any UK taxpayer that also has US status will have to forego in order to fulfill the UK's FATCA obligations. No official secrets act protection in that case--just the data privacy act, which the UK has said only requires UK financial institutions to inform (not obtain consent from) their customers whose information they will disclose to the US.

UK on FATCA: Guidance, and more forthcoming

Here are 81 pages of "guidance notes" from HMRC on how the UK will implement its IGA, and here is a story that says more will be forthcoming in the first 6 months of 2013.  Remember, this is a moving target since everyone is waiting for final regs from the US. They were expected by the end of the year (i.e., in the next 11 days).

An interesting point for treaty interpretation enthusiasts is that the HMRC is issuing its guidance in the form of "regulations" for interpreting the US-UK treaty.  Interesting!  Interpretive regulations for tax treaties--not common, and not uncontroversial--see, e.g., here and here.  FATCA continues to deliver a treasure trove of international law questions.

Call for Papers: The Changing Face of Global Governance: International Institutions in the Internat

From the International Law Association - British Branch, another call for papers of interest to many of us studying international tax law through the lens of institutions like the OECD, the G20, and the UN.  The topic is The Changing Face of Global Governance: International Institutions in the International Legal Order.  The conference will be at the University of Oxford, April 12-13, 2013. Info:

...In the past, the content of the term 'international institutions' was by and large exhausted by reference to international organisations. However, the term comprises today not only traditional intergovernmental organisations but includes an expanded range of formal and informal institutions of global governance. The conference will explore the full range of international institutions, including international judicial and quasi-judicial organs, which—even when they are (subsidiary) organs of an international organisation—have acquired a life of their own; conferences of parties with wide-ranging powers over the interpretation and application of international treaties; compliance mechanisms; hybrid organisations which provide vital content to generic provisions of international treaties; a system of international criminal justice diffused in States and complemented at the international level; non-governmental organisations; informal networks of regulators, and so forth. 

Papers will examine the role of international institutions in making, developing, interpreting, applying and enforcing international law and thus shaping the legal landscape of international and transnational interaction in a globalised world. The conference theme explores the multifarious impact of ever-present international institutions on international law, both by querying their impact in the areas of law-making and law-enforcement and by tracing their presence and importance in 'sectoral regimes' of international law, ranging from the law of armed conflict to international economic and investment law, through to the global environment.

More info at the link; h/t Int'l Law Reporter

Workshop on social economic rights in practice-Coventry

The Human Rights Centre in Practice and the Institute of Advanced Study at the University of Warwick are holding a workshop tomorrow on Strategies for realising social economic rights in practice: Multi-disciplinary experiences from early career researchers.  The program asks:

1. Should social economic rights be considered human rights at all?
2. How helpful is the international legal framework in enabling the achievement of these rights?
3. How do we measure social economic rights in practice?
4. What lessons can we learn from practitioners in our pursuit of achieving social economic rights?

Interesting.  Hope to see some of the papers as they emerge from abstract to publication.

Pledge to HMRC notwithstanding, Starbucks sit-in is on

Check out the logo. It juxtaposes the austerity-driven dismantling of the welfare state against an apparent cause: high-profile taxpayers with available wealth who are withholding it from society.

I don't know if it works for an uninformed passerby--could it not rather convey something about Starbucks' giving nature, Starbucks aligned in the cause? Hey, Starbucks is giving HMRC £20m, that more than covers the £5.6m that "is being directly cut from domestic violence services," per the activists! Sure, we're all in this together!

Not so fast, says UKUncut:

Offering to pay some tax if and when it suits you doesn’t stop you being a tax dodger. Starbucks have been avoiding tax for over a decade and continue to deny that it paid too little tax in the past. Today’s announcement is just a desperate attempt to deflect public pressure. There’s no money yet, and hollow promises on press releases don’t fund women’s refuges or child benefits.

 As a result, UK Uncut is planning 40 'actions' across the UK: "People will be transforming Starbucks stores into refuges, crèches and other services which the government are cutting with their unjust and unnecessary austerity plans.”

Also, isn't Starbucks' decision in conflict with it's duty to maximize shareholder profits? Maybe this an opportunity to bring a lawsuit charging breach, arguing that Starbucks' duty is to pay the lowest amount of taxes it possibly can under the law. If the suit fails (debatable--in the US anyway), it might help lay to rest the fiction that the shareholder is the only relevant stakeholder in the scope of managers' fiduciary duties.

Tax chats, with your friendly local tax authority

From the Daily Mash (satire): "YOUR tax bill can be negotiated over a cup of tea and a chocolate Hobnob, officials have confirmed."  That's because:

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs revealed that tax laws are all very well, but what really matters is having a nice chat about how much you think you should pay.

But don't get too excited:

The spokesman added: “Oh Christ, I’m really sorry, but I’ve just realised I should have said that ‘tax chats’ are only available to large corporations.

Another sign of the widespread effect on public perception of the Starbucks approach to taxation; more at the link.

 

UK PAC vs Starbucks and HMRC: Driving recursive cycles of change in tax law?

An interesting real time example of the recursive cycle of lawmaking, as described e.g. here by Halliday and Carruthers, is unfolding in the ongoing drama of the UK Public Accounts Committee's hearings on tax avoidance by Google, Starbucks, and Amazon. Richard Murphy has posted a press release issued by the PAC today in which they hit a lot of core tax policy notes: what "fairness" requires in taxation, the duty of taxpayers to the state, the state's duty toward taxpayers as a group, the problem of taxpayer morale when perceptions of unfairness abound, the role of morality in taxation.

But it also draws a picture of contestation in both the domestic and the global lawmaking spheres, drawing in ideas about and challenges to the rule of law, standards, and norms, and involving legal and nonlegal actors. Halliday & Carruthers point to four mechanisms that drive the recursive cycle forward and lead to phases of legal change: the indeterminacy of law, contradictions, diagnostic struggles, and actor mismatch. The press release suggests we have all four of these drivers in play. Excerpts:

"Global companies with huge operations in the UK generating significant amounts of income are getting away with paying little or no corporation tax here. This is outrageous and an insult to British businesses and individuals who pay their fair share. 

...There is little credible information about what is going on. The evidence we took from large corporations was unconvincing and, in some cases, evasive. HMRC also lacked clarity when trying to explain its approach to enforcing the corporation tax regime. The inescapable conclusion is that multinationals are using structures and exploiting current tax legislation to move offshore profits that are clearly generated from economic activity in the UK. HMRC should be challenging this but its response so far to these big businesses and their aggressive tax planning has lacked determination and looks way too lenient. Policing the tax system must be at the heart of what HMRC does.

So we see the PAC taking on a role as a fiduciary for the people and claiming that the state revenue authority has failed in its own duty to act in that capacity: the result has been indeterminacy of law, contradictions and diagnostic struggles as per H&C.

The PAC calls for naming and shaming of "offenders" (difficult when all these companies claim full compliance with all applicable laws), and for transparency and fairness in the administration of the tax regime by HMRC, that "Government has a responsibility to assess and collect tax due from all taxpayers, without fear or favour," and that "[i]f companies do not pay their fair share of tax, other taxpayers have to pay more." As a result, the PAC says "[b]oth HMRC and corporate taxpayers are failing to meet the legitimate public expectations from the tax system."

This essentially frames multinationals as lawbreakers with HMRC in an accomplice role, whether intentionally or out of neglect. The PAC says "it will always be an unequal fight between HMRC and multinational companies," but calls on the revenue authority both to be more agressive in chasing MNCs and to do more to publicly explain why these companies pay so little. We can interpret this to mean that the PAC seeks to involve more public input into this cycle of legal change, i.e., introducing more actor mismatch.

 You can read the rest of the press release at the link above. Will be interesting to see what comes of it, whether the PAC succeeds in driving forward legal change and whether we will be able to identify a beginning and end of a particular recursive cycle of tax lawmaking (H&C say this is generally very difficult to do, since so many variables are involved in legal change). So far on the part of Starbucks, the result seems to be PR/damage control, in the form of public assertions of willingness to pay a bit more. That just underscores the effectively voluntary nature of international taxation when it comes to MNCs--Starbucks is negotiating with the state--and won't address any of the issues raised by the PAC, so the contestation should continue and may bring in more actors and more struggle.

No tax avoidance cases brought to court by UK tax authority since 2004

From TJN: A member of the UK Public Accounts Committee that recently grilled Amazon, Google and Starbucks execs on tax avoidance asked a top UK revenue official how many multinationals had been taken to court for tax avoidance.  Answer:

"of the thousands of major corporation tax ruses set up since 2004, not a single one has been taken to a tribunal or court! All have been settled through "light touch" compromise agreements, often in breach of the department's official policy and at immense cost to taxpayers."

TJN responds:

There are three main ways to turn your country into a tax haven, from the perspective of corporate taxation. One, cut your tax rates. Two, create (and encourage) tricky tax loopholes. Three, don't enforce your tax laws, (and let them write your laws in the first place.) This latest revelation by the Eye - among other things, revealing how a senior tax official misled a public inquiry - just confirms the third, leg, if ever such confirmation were needed.

Astonishing.

Cheaters, sponsored by dodgers, and sanctioned by government.

So wrong!  Cheating F1 team wins the right to deduct its fines from its taxes.  Notice the prominent vodafone logo?  Yes, that Vodafone.  Also, Mobil.  

If we don't cheat, how can we win?

Tax games? Glencore's self-insurance plan

From the Guardian: Glencore accused of slashing tax bill by using complex insurance deals; Commodity trader's UK profits are being depressed, but company says contracts are not designed to avoid tax.

A leading tax expert has accused Glencore of cutting its UK tax bill by tens of millions of pounds after profits at the commodity trader's London arm were depressed by complex insurance contracts taken out with its own parent. 

...The derivative instruments being employed by Glencore are widely used by companies to insure – or hedge – financial risks. They theoretically guarantee a certain return.
Last year, Glencore UK's derivative trading with other parts of the group totalled $383bn (£267bn), more than twice the yearly budget of the National Health Service. The practice resulted in a $122.8m loss for the London-based business, effectively docking that amount from UK profits and transferring it to the main group based in the low-tax Swiss canton of Zug. 

Richard Murphy, of Tax Research UK, said: "Glencore is insuring itself with itself. If I insure my house for fire with myself and it burns down, I've got to pay myself for the house which has burnt down. That's what Glencore is doing, and the consequences are that the risk is never leaving Glencore; it's still inside the group. That's $383bn worth of trades that, on the face of it, make no sense whatsoever. We don't know, but it is highly likely that the motivation is not genuine insurance and it looks like a significant amount of tax planning takes place within this trading function." 

Murphy said ..."This is totally legal but what we are seeing is a significant change in the way in which multinational corporations are now looking to move their profits around the world.
"All the evidence is that throughout the extractive industries – the mining industry, the oil industry, the gas industry and so on – the way in which people are shifting profits now are derivative financial products." 

Glencore UK's accounts show that its massive turnover of $59.8bn in 2011 resulted in a pre-tax profit of $99.1m, a margin of less than 1%. A tax credit, the result of unrelated employee share awards, took total profits for the year to $115.7m. Had the $122.8m derivatives loss remained in the UK and been added to those profits, it would have attracted taxes of about $32m. 

Glencore insisted that lowering its tax bill was not the purpose of the derivative trades. 

Glencore's Baar-based spokesman said: "The derivative contracts Glencore Energy uses in London with its parent company in Switzerland are effectively tools to help it manage risk.
"They enable risk to be concentrated at the centre, where it can be absorbed due to the size of its capital base. These are standard contracts used by many companies across many industries. This is about managing risk and nothing to do with avoiding tax. Like all major global corporations, we work closely with local tax authorities to ensure that we pay the correct and appropriate amount of tax." 

In 2010, Glencore UK made a profit $186.5m on insuring itself with its parent, although those winnings were virtually all cancelled out by losses on external derivative contracts. ...

Richard Murphy carries the story and responds:

I note what Glencore say but cannot agree. There [sic] argument appears to be London cannot bear the risks of these trades so they have to be moved on but a simple guarantee (or more capital)  would overcome that issue and save the enormous cost of $383 billion of trading. However, those trades do take place which means there must be an economic justification for the cost of doing them, and tax is the only one I can see.  

U.S., U.K. sign FATCA pact

The WSJ blog reports that the U.K. is the first country to agree to implement the  tax-reporting requirements under FATCA:

Treasury said it expects to sign agreements with other countries in the near future, noting the U.K. deal is based on a model agreement developed in consultation not just with London but the governments of France, Germany, Italy and Spain. 

“We are pleased that the United Kingdom, one of our closest allies, is the first jurisdiction to sign a bilateral agreement with us and we look forward to quickly concluding agreements based on this model with other jurisdictions,” said Mark Mazur, assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy, in a statement. 

...While the U.K. agreement is reciprocal, allowing for the sharing of information on U.K. residents held in U.S. financial institutions, other deals may not allow for such exchanges.

It's not clear what's in it for the other country if an agreement does not provide for reciprocity; indeed, at least a superficial reciprocity is in general fundamental in the whole history of international tax agreements and I would like to know on what grounds a nonreciprocal agreement would even be contemplated.  Why would another country agree to share info with the U.S., to benefit the U.S. alone?  This is hardly a model for global tax cooperation, OECD praise notwithstanding.  Also each time I see another article about agreements on FATCA, regardless of the substantive content or likely efficacy thereof, the silence between the U.S. and Canada on this issue looms larger.

A GATAR when a GAAR just won't do

From TJN: The UK is considering a bill to introduce a general anti tax avoidance rule (GATAR) to defend against financial arrangements made with the primary purpose of avoiding tax.  The sponsor of the bill calls tax avoidance "the cancer of British society." The UK has a general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) already in place, but according to Richard Murphy, who wrote the text of the bill:

It (is) very obvious that they only want to stop the most abusive of tax schemes. There are probably at most a handful a year that will be stopped as a result and since they'll now probably never see the light of day because of the GAAR it is quite possibly true that the government's proposed law might be a massive white elephant in that it might never be used.

The difference between Murphy's proposal and the government's is, as Murphy explains:

Meacher's Bill is broader by design than the government's. It covers VAT and national insurance for a start, almost doubling the value of the taxes that it would cover compared to the government's Bill, which omits both these taxes. 

Secondly, instead of being extremely narrowly focussed, as the government's Bill is, Meacher's is designed to target abuse on a wide range of tax issues. So, for example, it attacks shifting income from one tax to another to reduce the tax paid and it challenges any scheme resulting in tax paid late. It also tackles any scheme that might artificially shift a profit subject to tax out of the UK. In addition if it seems that the wrong person is paying tax on a source of income or that the source of income in question is wrongly described e.g. as investment income when it actually seems to come from a profit or employment, then Meacher's Bill gives HM Revenue & Customs the power to challenge the arrangement.

...It gives the Revenue the right to look at what has really gone on in a transaction, and who really seems to be involved in it, and to then compare that economic reality with the way in which the transaction has been reported for tax (or has not been reported if someone has tried to shift it right out of the UK tax net).

TJN says the bill will most likely get shot down in parliament.  You can track its progress here.

Africa's US/UK offshore problem

Complicity with global tax evasion by the US and UK continues to be a big problem for Africa:

When we say offshore centers, when we say secrecy jurisdictions, when we talk about banking secrecy, people may think that these are alien lands, in no-man lands, but actually you will be surprised to know, if you didn’t know—I’m sure you know, but for those who didn’t know, they will be surprised to hear that the biggest offshore centers are in countries like the U.K., in London, the U.S., in New York, Paris in France. These are the biggest offshore centers where you find banks colluding with corrupt leaders, corrupt private investors, in hiding and not disclosing their investments and their bank accounts, because some of it was acquired illegally, was transferred illegally, is held illegally in the sense that it’s not reported to the government.

From RNN via NC.

Olympics tax breaks

McDonald's and Coke won't take corporate tax breaks offered by the UK in connection with the Olympics, after an NGO campaign entitled "Stop the Olympic Tax Dodging."  It's not strictly speaking "tax dodging" to take advantage of an exemption expressly granted by law, but this particular exemption has generated a lot of protest as a wholly unnecessary giveaway on the part of the UK.  Indeed, it is an unnecessary and wasteful giveaway, as sponsorship in the Olympics (aka the World's Longest Commercial Break) is such a hot commodity.

Jersey to take ball, go home

If the UK won't play nice.  It seems that the island of Jersey is growing weary of political attacks coming from the UK that label Jersey as an unrepentant tax haven. Tax analysts reports [pdf]:

"Jersey Chief Minister Philip Bailhache, in a June 26 interview with the U.K. newspaper The Guardian, said relations between Jersey and the U.K. have been "strained" over the past several years as their interests have diverged, and that Jersey should be ready to escape the "thrall of Whitehall" if necessary."

I am not sure how independence will stop the UK from using Jersey and its fellow channel islands as a shield to deflect attention away from the notorious city of London, prime tax haven territory.  But in the meantime, the plan is to spend money on marketing to work on Jersey's image:

 "Jersey plans to open an office in London with the specific goal of improving the island's tax image among the British public. (Jersey has already opened a similar office, together with Guernsey, in Brussels.) Noting Jersey's many tax information exchange agreements with EU member states and other countries, Bailhache stressed that Jersey does not market itself as a tax haven or a tax avoidance facilitator."

Jersey's $5.1 billion GDP is built on financial services.  From the US CIA World Factbook, 

Jersey's economy is based on international financial services, agriculture, and tourism. In 2005 the finance sector accounted for about 50% of the island's output. ... Tourism accounts for one-quarter of GDP. ... Light taxes and death duties make the island a popular tax haven. Living standards come close to those of the UK.

That Jersey is a tax haven can't seriously be doubted, I don't think.   Of course the same is true for the UK.  Jersey's chief minister says if UK taxpayers do use Jersey to shelter their income, that it is a governance failure on the part of the UK:

"despite the island's efforts to downplay its use for tax avoidance, ... the real issue is why the U.K.'s and other jurisdictions' tax laws are written in such a way that they allow legal avoidance, which is then condemned."

That's true, but unfortunately for Jersey, it's convenient for them to serve as a focal point for anti-austerity and anti-tax dodger anger in the UK. It would be inconvenient to the UK to target the city of London similarly. 


Update: Tax Analysts sent me a link to an ungated pdf, link replaced above.

Update: UK Uncut v HMRC

TJN has a video from the UK Uncut movement on their lawsuit against HMRC regarding the Goldman Sachs tax giveaway, which is making progress as the Guardian reports:

In a ruling on Wednesday Justice Peregrine Simon said the matter was "plainly in the public interest" and that any judicial review of the deal which saw Goldman Sachs let off a £10m interest bill, would be separate to an anticipated National Audit Office investigation on maladministration and bad practice.

Lobbying pays, UK edition

Last week Richard Murphy posted a story about Lord Blencathra, a former conservative PM, who is drawing fire for shilling for the Cayman Islands while drawing a public salary.  The story comes from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism:

A former Conservative minister with close links to the Government is simultaneously sitting as a peer in the House of Lords and lobbying on behalf of a Caribbean tax haven.

Lord Blencathra, a former MP and Tory Chief Whip, is being paid by the Cayman Islands’ government to represent the interests of its financial services industry – despite also being able to vote on legislation affecting the territory.

‘I have been meticulous in ensuring that I have no conflict of interest between that role and my duties in the Lords. You cannot point to one single incident, speech, vote or question where I have sought to advance the Cayman Islands in the Lords’.

...At present there are no clear rules stopping members of the House of Lords acting as paid lobbyists for companies or other governments despite widespread criticisms from transparency campaigners.

...Asked if his activities were compatible with the House of Lords code of conduct, which prohibits peers from accepting payment in return for parliamentary advice or services, Lord Blencathra said in a statement: ‘You have confused lobbying Parliament, which I do not do, with lobbying the Government, which I do.’

Quite correct my Lord, I for one am confused.  He doesn't clarify much:

"On the register of Lords interests Lord Blencathra, formerly David Maclean, declares that he is director of the Cayman Islands Government Office in the United Kingdom. But as he admitted during a recent visit to the island, the role is effectively one of a lobbyist and he was hired not for his knowledge of the British Overseas Territory but for his political understanding and connections.

He told the islands’ media: ‘I’ve been appointed because I have 27 years experience as a Member of Parliament, 10-12 years experience in a British Government, I’m still a Parliamentarian in a different colour of the corridor in Westminster.’

He added: ‘I don’t pretend to be an expert on Cayman but I’ve not been employed to do that job – there are hundreds of experts here who can advise me. My role is to make sure I can feed that advice in to Government ministers, to the Civil Service…on behalf of the Cayman Islands Government.’

The Premier of the Cayman islands Mckeeva Bush said at the time of the peer’s appointment: ‘It is vitally important that Cayman has a strong voice in Westminster and Brussels and I am delighted that a politician with David’s experience will ensure that our interests are protected at a time when tax neutral jurisdictions such as our own are the subject of such malicious and ill informed attacks.’ "

So the Lord feels like a Parliamentarian and his job is to "feed that advice" and the client paying him to do that does so because they want a "strong voice in Westminster and Brussels."

Sorry, where's the British Parliament again?

The Lord also takes it upon himself to serve as PR police.

Before his first visit to the Caymans Lord Blencathra attacked Cayman residents for writing negative comments on-line about life on the Islands, which he said could be read by ‘global financial players’.

In an interview with CNS Business he said his job could not be done if it was ‘undermined by things said and written by Caymanians.’

Let's see, controlling the message, feeding the advice, and seeing himself as still a Parliamentarian.  If you haven't yet read Nicholas Shaxon's book Treasure Islands, it's high time.

Uk Uncut vs HMRC in Goldman Sachs giveaway

I'm not sure how they can do this...the Guardian reports that UK Uncut is suing UK Revenue over backroom dealings in which it gave Goldman Sachs a pass on unpaid taxes of up to £20m.  From the story:

The agreement between HMRC and Goldman Sachs reached in 2010 could be quashed after the high court allowed a preliminary permission hearing to take place on 13 June following court filings made by the activist group UK Uncut Legal Action.

I'm not sure how they are doing that--no sovereign immunity? Is there taxpayer standing?  This is not an area I know anything about.  But I don't think the US Uncut group could similarly sue the IRS if it found out they did something similar.    The Guardian links to the UKUncut Legal Action Group's website, where they are asking for donations to support the cause.  What I would like to see is the court filings and briefs/factum if any, but I don't see much useful on the site.  It says:

"It’s alleged that David Hartnett, the government’s top tax man, who loves to be wined and dined, met Goldman Sachs’ top brass in late 2010 and with a handshake agreed that the bank would be let off paying £10 million owed to the public purse in interest on an unpaid tax bill.

To challenge this back room deal, UK Uncut Legal Action, with the help of law firm Leigh Day & Co, is threatening legal action against the HMRC unless this dodgy and unfair decision is quashed."

Then at a tab called "quids in" it says further that "We are taking HMRC to court because we believe that their secret deal was unlawful. HMRC and Goldman Sachs can afford the best lawyers in town, so we need your help to take them on. It’s the people’s court case."

If anyone understands the legal structure under which they can sue, can you fill me in?

Trickle down not working in UK or anywhere else

Renegade Economist tweets and answers: "Do income tax cuts for the rich make us all richer?  See dismal evidence showing this is not true," with a link to this:

and this, showing UK's top 1% through the ages & with projections backward and forward:

and here is the UK's top 1% compared to a few other places:

The author concludes: "The argument that giving the moneyed elite more money will make everyone wealthier manages to ignore the roaring evidence of the past."

Want to move to IKEAland?

Maybe not quite as exciting as Sealand, but with infinitely better street names, one can only imagine.  Marginal Revolution links to this globe & mail article about IKEA's designs on designing urban living:

The people who run the Swedish home-furnishings behemoth are launching a bold push into the business of designing, building and operating entire urban neighbourhoods. Where once they placed a couch in a living room, the Swedes now want to place you and 6,000 neighbours into a neglected corner of your city, design an entire urban world around you, and Ikea-ize your lives. Their bold, high-concept notion of an urban 'hood could be an important solution to the housing-supply shortages that plague many large cities – but it could take some getting used to.

...It is a far more appealing design than most of the centrally-planned urban neighbourhoods that have blighted British cities for the last 60 years, and it promises the sort of pleasant population density – on a piece of wasteland that had once been considered uninhabitable – that could help Britain’s dire housing shortages.

The Ikea people promise that this will not be an Ikea...so, maybe no creative street names after all.  If not, the appeal seems considerably diminished.  It could be a premium to have an address on Fågleboda Drive,  or to take Förhöja Böülevård to the Förträfflig Öffice.

The homes will all be rentals, since this is an income-producing project for Ikea: “We don’t like to sell income-generating assets.”  But Ikea would like to stress that this will prevent speculation-driven boom and bust cycles, thus preserving affordability.  Check out the controls Ikea will exert:

“We’d have a very good understanding of rubbish collection, of cleanliness, of landscape management,” Mr. Cobden says. “We would have a fairly firm line on undesirable activity, whatever that may be. But we also feel we can say, okay, because we’ve kept control of the management of the commercial facilities, we have a fairly strong hand in what is said in terms of the activities that are held on site.”

Now it starts to sound like a gated community in Florida...not anything near as exciting as Sealand.  Instead of expanding into consumer credit, Ikea's just expanding into rental properties.

That's a Fryken shame.