Bel is thinking

A muslim woman in a headscarf applies for a job as a hairdresser. She tells the potential employer that she has to wear her headscarf at all times. Predictably, she is turned down for the job. She is now suing the hairdresser for discrimination.

Why do I say ‘predictably’? It’s because no hairdresser with any business sense would employ a stylist whose hair the customer cannot see. If I, as a customer, cannot see what the stylist has done to her own hair, why should I trust her with mine?

The case continues. I only hope common sense prevails. By all means, wear a headscarf if your religion mandates you to do so (doubtful, but let that pass); but don’t expect to work in a field where we need to see your hair.

Just wondering: if her religion really demands that she go everywhere with her hair covered, and given that no-one would trust a stylist with concealed hair, perhaps the logical (even if absurd) conclusion to draw is that perhaps Allah never intended for his women to work as hairdressers in the first place? I wonder if she’ll think on that.

I don’t know about you, but I feel totally underwhelmed by the Queen’s Speech. Not because most of the measures had already been announced by Gordon Brown months ago. I think it’s simply that I’m totally fed up with the cynicism and dishonesty of politics.

I am not blaming only the Labour Party here, but of course, being the party in Government, their acts are more to the fore. In particular, I am thinking of promises that are made with no intention of being kept - you know the type, those that are forgotten as soon as they leave the lips of the speaker.

I am thinking also about the way this Government has encroached on our civil rights, even as, with stony face, they maintain the impression that theirs is a Government committed to defence of the same.

I am thinking also about the dire state of our public services despite insane levels of public spending in the past ten years - it is widely accepted that the money has made relatively little difference.

I am thinking about many other things besides, none of which fill me with hope for the current or future leadership of this country. We are being ill-served by a Government that has run out of ideas, and is committed to nothing more than hanging on to office for as long as possible.

So I didn’t pay particular attention to the Queen’s Speech. As to the promised legislation, let’s just wait and see, shall we? We can safely assume that none of the ‘goodies’ (if any) shall materialise as promised. And as for the more worrying ‘promises’ (such as raising the school leaving age), let us hope that decent and principled MPs will gather together to defeat such plans. If they do so, and the Bill fails, well and good. And if they don’t, and the Bill passes into law, we should examine ourselves and consider whether we did after all get the Government we deserved.

I like the Chicken Yoghurt blog. It is one of my favourite blogs. Its writer, Justin, is what I would call a principled blogger. He identifies his principles, and sticks to them. Some bloggers (naming no names) attack or defend particular acts or policies depending on whether or not the perpetrator of the act or policy is on the same side of the political divide as they are. Not Justin. Reading his blog, you get the impression that these are his views, and no-one else’s. You can’t say that about many blogs these days.

I’ve just been reading an impressive piece on the Chicken Yoghurt blog about Gordon Brown and so-called ‘British liberty’. The post actually went up yesterday, but I’ve been out of town, and am now catching up on all my reading. It’s worth reading in full, but here is an arresting extract:

As he begins this new chapter in ‘British’ liberty (as opposed that filthy foreign liberty) in the broad, non-specific strokes of a truly great leader, let us see what a newly liberated Britain holds in store for us. Fifty-six days detention without trial. ID cards. Four and a half million people on the DNA database. What could be more British than that?

It’s a very good piece, and it raises valid concerns about our hitherto taken-for-granted liberties, and the state of politics today.

Paul McCartney has been seen around town, hanging out with a wealthy married woman several years his junior. The three newspapers I have seen with this story have reported the facts solemnly, soberly, sympathetically (to Paul, that is), and almost (for a tabloid at least), responsibly. I couldn’t help wondering what the reaction of the same papers would be if, instead of Paul, it had been his estranged wife, Heather, who was seen out and about with a wealthy married man.

Just wondering.

According to Sky News, Home Office Minister Liam Byrne has pleaded guilty to using a mobile phone while driving.

Shame on him. So he cannot even obey the laws passed by his own Government? I wonder if his punishment will be the same as would be meted out to any other member of the public.

In my last post, I wrote about the hardships that the proposed abolition of taper relief would cause to small businesses. I am therefore somewhat happy to read today that Gordon Brown is considering a U-turn.

Under the revised plans, when a business owner comes to dispose of his business, capital gains of up to £100,000 would be exempt, with the rest taxed at 18 per cent. Also, the taxpayer can only claim this relief once in his lifetime. This looks suspiciously like the old retirement relief rules, which were abolished by Gordon Brown sometime ago. This won’t be the first time Gordon Brown has abolished something, only to revive it in another form. It gives the impression that this Government lacks a coherent policy on tax. And as is the case where such uncertainty exists, it is the taxpayer who suffers the most.

Still, I am glad that some measure of relief is being given to small businesses. But what about employees who have shares in their company share schemes? With effect from 6 April 2008, the effective 10 per cent rate will be withdrawn for them, and they will pay capital gains tax at a rate of 18 per cent. I would like to see another U-turn by Gordon Brown to afford some relief to this group of taxpayers.

An extract from a comment, which I thought merited wider publicity, on my post about taper relief:

I have owned my business for over 25 years and if I wished to sell now my capital gains tax, allowing for indexation and taper relief, would work out at £59,000 - if I do not sell until after the 6th of April next year my capital gains tax payable will increase to £144,000.

So after all these years of working at my business and just before wanting to retire this government robs me of over £80,000 from my retirement fund. This is robbery - our tax planning strategy has just been ripped to shreds.

Also many people here in the west country who own hotels and similar small businesses are likely to see a stampede of people trying to sell their businesses before the 5th of April 2008 - this is not a healthy situation.

So much for certainty in the tax system. The way things are going, even simple tax planning will soon be out of the question.

As taxpayers we seem to be in this situation where we do not even have a basic idea of what we may or may not do to order our tax affairs.

I do a lot of tax consultancy, and I cannot even begin to tell you how often I have had to unravel simple tax planning arrangements made for clients because of ham-fisted attempts by the Government to crack down on complicated tax avoidance. Many times, in attempting to clobber a targeted group, the Government has enacted legislation that has had unintended effects on taxpayers who were not even within its sights in the first place. Many times, tax legislation has been rushed through, only to be repealed soon after, as the consequences (always predicted by tax experts, and ignored by the Government) later became apparent.

I hope, for the sake of the commenter above, and many others in his position, that the Treasury revisits the issue of the abolition of taper relief. The point of the proposed legislation was to increase the tax paid by private equity barons, who, it was accepted, were paying comparatively little tax. The sad thing is that, in its clumsy, bumbling way, the Government has come up with a ’solution’ that increases significantly the tax burden on other people.

Labour MP Shahid Malik is not very happy at the moment. He was detained at a US airport, and had his luggage analysed for traces of explosives.

Understandable that he should be cross. However, when I started reading the story, I was expecting the reason for his anger to be along the lines of ‘just because you have a muslim name and are travelling with other muslims, it doesn’t mean you are a terrorist.’

But no. This is his complaint:

… I really do believe that British Ministers and Parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity at USA airports that we would bestow upon our colleagues in the Senate and Congress.

So is it that he has no problem with muslims being searched indiscriminately, so long as they are not ‘British Ministers or Parliamentarians’?

I wonder what his beloved constituents at Dewsbury think of that.

By the way, I am not commenting on the desirability or otherwise of muslims being searched by the American authorities. It is their country to act within as they see fit, subject to the limits of their laws. I am merely surprised at the stated reason for Shahid Malik’s annoyance.

So the Government now recognises that there is a ‘moral case’ for promoting the traditional family through the tax system?

Never mind that the Conservative Party has been saying this for a long time, and being accused by Labour of being ‘nasty’ and judgmental.

I am yet to be convinced that Labour actually recognise that marriage is actually the best state in which to bring up children. Of course not. This latest about-face is down to nothing more than political expediency.

And they have the cheek to accuse other people of ‘flip-flopping’.

And speaking of Labour’s U-turn, please remind me: who was it abolished the Married Couples’ Allowance for under 65s, in the first place?

Step forward, Mr G. Brown.

The Chancellor has just announced that spouses and civil partners may now transfer their tax-free allowances between themselves. The idea, I suppose, is that this would enable their heirs to receive more than the basic inheritance tax allowance.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but can the same effect not be achieved by couples structuring their wills to ensure this? And even after one of the couple have died, I would have thought it was still possible effectively to amend the will to achieve this result, by using a post-death variation.

If it is already possible to do all this, what exactly is the value of this new tax relief?

I would appreciate any enlightenment.

UPDATE. 8.23pm. Seems like my initial suspicion about this ‘tax relief’ has been proved right. Fraser Nelson of the Spectator is reporting that City accountants have raised the point that this so-called ‘tax relief’ can already be achieved by a couple structuring their wills properly. See also this article here.

These New Labour people just can’t stop spinning.