It seems that my blog following the PBR was spot on. The Treasury is struggling to define who is a banker and, thus, who are the lucky punters that get to pay a bit more tax to HMRC.

Dylan Lobo on Citywire has a good article talking through the issues.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/money-property-and-tax/

In a nutshell if you do the following you are allegedly a banker:

“* Those accepting deposits (in other words providing current accounts and deposit accounts to retail customers).

* Those dealing in investment as a principal (in other words trading in derivatives, bonds, commodities etc. on their own account).

* Those dealing in investments as an agent (in other words trading in the above types of investments as behalf of clients), or arranging deals in investments.

* Those safeguarding and administering investments on behalf of clients.

* Regulated mortgage contracts (in other words carrying out retail mortgage lending).”

That should just about cover anyone working in Financial Services or doing anything that involves money, so in today’s London economy - just about everyone.

HMRC has noted this may not be workable? So will publish more guidelines in January, which is great given that many bonuses are paid in December. I am told many firms have or are suspending payments until they have this clarity. In the meantime a cloud will hangover the largest tax generating sector in our economy and the City as a financial centre. This may sound over dramatic but I am already told it is impacting investment and spending on high value goods, just what is needed in a recession.

I am still not against the idea of the tax but surely fiscal policy has to be well though through and not be so transparent as to only be effective in tabloid headlines. This is what happens when the politicians are allowed to make decisions rather than the mandarins - see any old repeat of Yes, Minister. Where is Humphrey?

Alistair Darling’s pre-budget report was never going to please people as he had a series of very tough decisions that has to be made - tax more and spend less. His contribution to the festive cheer was a bit more banker bashing, which always seems to please to populous, and a 2% reduction in the Bingo levy.

So, where a bank bonus pool is credited with more than £25k for any one employee it will be subject to a one off 50% windfall tax.

He justified this by saying that every UK bank had benefited weather directly or indirectly from government support and that taxing the bonus pool may encourage banks to re-build their core capital rather than paying away profits in remuneration. It is difficult to argue with either of these points.

However, this policy does raise a series of other issues that are far less clear cut and may result in Mr Darling’s policy being significantly undermined.

Firstly, who is a banker? Anyone who works for a UK registered bank would seem like a good definition. But I doubt it is so simple. There are banks of every size, colour and creed. Some banks simply operate a retail franchises, taking savings and making personal loans, others only provide advisory services or specialist products and then there are the large banks that do almost everything either directly or through a plethora of subsidiaries.

Many of these organisations could probably argue that they are not banks in the sense that they did not lend large amounts of money to poor credits or invest in toxic securities. For that matters many of them don’t even carry out the basic acts of taking deposits and lending money. If you are an M&A adviser or a tax specialist at a boutique bank that does not lend money are you a banker? Equally if these people are deemed to be bankers, then surely those that provide similar services from within accountancy firms or specialist consultancies must also be classified as bankers? What about the people who sell insurance at Direct Line, surely they are in the insurance business, well actually they are part of the RBS group, so are they bankers?

Given that the Treasury rarely thinks through these things before they are announced I doubt there is a definition as yet. Maybe they will just put a question on the tax return - are you a banker?

Secondly, will this tax work? I doubt it, there will be means around this surcharge. It only applies until the 5th April 2010 so banks may opt to pay people in the next tax year. Alternatively, banks may only pay a £25k bonus but might make available interest free loans to be repaid from next years inflated bonus (the tax is a one off so should not apply in 2011,) employees will get shares or options in lieu of bonuses or may have contracts moved to offshore service companies, with Goldman paying UK staff in the USA or Deutsche paying staff through Germany or the Channel Islands. There will already be an army of top brains looking for ways around this soon to be legislation and I am sure they will find a way, at least for the top banker who are the ones that a) carry most responsibility for the crisis but b) can afford the tax structuring advise to avoid tax.

This process will be helped by the fact that the effective tax rate for bonuses is now 70%+. People will generally accept a marginally higher tax rate but if a £100k bonus is now worth less than £30k by the time it reaches your pocket then that will prompt bankers (or most other people if they were in the same situation) to look at ways around this situation.  

Mr Darling estimates the new banker bonus tax will raise £500m. I bet it will be far less in reality but then again this is not about the money it is about moral values. I agree entirely that we should not reward those who almost created a systemic collapse of the financial system but the truth of the matter is that finance is so interwoven with every part of western society that it is impossible to accurately attribute blame on an individual basis.

I fully accept that in my banking career I contributed to the almighty debt fuelled asset bubble but I will now escape any tax penalty, whilst there are others who work at banks but contributed nothing to the credit crisis who will be taxed. Mr Darling had to take a stand and he is right to do so - it is a shame that he does not have sufficient sophisticated tools at his disposal to create a tax regime that will achieve the objectives that are so well supported by the British people.

At least we can all benefit equally from the reduction in tax on Bingo. Housey?

Anyone who has read the Ellandi blog will know that I am pretty left of centre for a property chap, heck I’ll even admit to the fact that I was actually a card carrying member of the Labour Party until well into my 30’s.

Which is why I really must explain why I am voting Tory next May.

Ah, the 50% tax rate I hear you say?

Nope.

To be fair earning £150k next year is something to aspire to.

It’s more the case of being terrified what a hung parliament would do to the UK in these difficult times and according to The Independent (see more proof of my pinko-lefty credentials), this is almost a dead cert.

Tuen Draaisma of Morgan Stanley has a fear for next year that “The UK becomes the first of the G10 to have a major fiscal crisis as elections lead to a hung parliament”.

Why would a hung parliament be such a bad thing?

I’ve often thought that Proportional Representation would lead to a nice ineffectual government stripped of dogma; after all decades of coalitions don’t seem to have held Germany back?

The difference, of course, being that the Germans are not fiscally incontinent, have credibility in respect of keeping on top of inflation and don’t rely on the rest of the world to fund its deficits.

Despite still being in recession, the rest of the world hasn’t punished the UK too badly.  They have even let us get away with a fairly blatant spot of competitive devaluation, which has certainly beggared the shopkeepers of the RoI that neighbour the border with North.  However “the markets” tolerance of this is built on the premise that after the election, one of the main parties will cut the crap and get on with a seriously painful bit of tax raising and service cutting to get somewhere near a sustainable level of borrowing.

In the event of a hung parliament, or worryingly even the anticipation of a hung parliament, where every painful decision will be fought over tooth and nail or even avoided, UK plc will lose any credibility that it has overseas.  What happens then?

-The pound tanks (even further)

-We loose our AAA rating, bond rates shoot up; we can no longer sustain our massive debt

-Inflation rockets due to the increased cost of raw material imports

-Interest rates are ratcheted up to curb inflation

-Plague, pestilence, famine……..

You get the picture?

Basically Iceland without the free hot showers and Bjork.

So I am going to vote Conservative for the first time this June.  Having said that though, I am not sure how effectual this will be given that I live in Lambeth.

Maybe PR is not such a bad thing?