Budgets always throw light on corners of the economy that ordinary
reporting does not reach. And I can now reveal that this Budget will
allow battalions of abdroids to march in and take over Lloyds of London,
bestowing limited legal liability upon its huddled masses.
Let me explain. Many wealthy gamblers in the Lloyds casino (sorry,
"Names - investors who selflessly pledge their wealth in the
provision of insurance cover for wholly desirable social purposes...")
have lost very heavily over recent years, and face personal and family ruin.
So the Establishment is rallying round to save them. Lloyds of London,
the market maker, has agreed to accept "abdroids" into membership of the
market, thus enabling future gamblers to limit their liability for future
losses, and conferring on them all the right to walk away from disaster by
collapsing their companies and transferring the risks and losses to others,
those whom they insured - the ultimate capitalist desideratum.
So far so good...
- (But what is an
abdroid? I hear you cry.. Regular readers will know by now, but for
those who do not...)
The stage, everybody thought, was set for the
Relief of Middle-class Mafeking. But they reckoned
without an uncomfortable Inland Revenue rule. It is that, when an
"unincorporated business" (in this case, the present
personal gamblers, the present "Names") become incorporated (i.e. hand their business over
to an abdroid), they must first settle up the tax liabilities of the
unincorporated business, and they are not allowed to carry forward losses
from the first business to the second! The
abdroid cannot "inherit" the
losses of the prior partnership or sole-trader business. There must be
a clean break between Business One, run by the "natural person" and
Business Two - owned and run by the abdroid.
After all they are, in law, totally different people. And the natural person,
to boot, pays
Income Tax, while the
abdroid pays
a special abdroid tax called
Corporation Tax - introduced in
1965, designed especially for abdroids
- and ne're the
twain shall meet...
- Yet these unlucky gamblers already carry massive "tax losses" which - if
they remained unincorporated, they would be able to offset against future
profits, giving them years and years of tax-free future profits! If they incorporate,
and thus limit their personal liability, they will lose all those tax credits! This same
problem has bedevilled millions of small businesses, over the last 35 years,
faced with precisely the same problem...
Gordon Brown now says he will offer relief, and allow Income Tax credits
to be offset against Corporation Tax liabilities.
Joy unrelieved, for the upper middle classes!
For my part, I do not disagree with the principle - we need the wealthy to
invest in insurance, for the benefit of the
rest of us. And the tax oddity is merely the effect of awkward legal
reasoning - it is not "just" in its own right. And the institution of insurance is, after all, one of the key societal
mechanisms countering man's endemic sense of insecurity (
see my essay on the
subject ).
But
if Lloyds Names are to be let off the Inland Revenue hook,
the same tax leeway should be granted
to all small businesses. Governments did not respond to the
travails of plumbers and electricians and millions of minor entrepreneurs
struggling to make their way as sole-traders or
partnerships, when they reached the growth-point at which "forming
a company" became sensible. Under Labour, the "small
man" should benefit from the concession now won by the wealthy Lloyds Names.
All unincorporated businesses should be allowed to carry-forward the
accumulated tax-losses of the early struggling years, and use them to off-set
against later Corporation Tax liabilities.
- Gordon - even with the relief of Mafeking,
there is a democratic option...