“A CBDC system could not support anonymous transactions....
This lack of anonymity is to prevent CBDCs facilitating large-scale criminal activity, and to ensure a CBDC system complies with national disclosure laws that apply to payments"….
“This means payments data on CBDC users would exist and would be accessible to some authority or institution.
There is concern about the potential for state surveillance.”
Of course the tax authorities, with their strong investigatory powers, would get hold of CBDC data.
The Committee quoted a survey by Redfield & Wilton Strategies which found that 32% of people thought the Bank of England would issue a CBDC to monitor how UK citizens use their money.
SECURITY:
First, individual accounts could be compromised through weaknesses in cyber security.
Second, the centralised CBDC ledger... a critical piece of national infrastructure, would be a target for attack from hostile actors.”
The Committee quoted GCHQ Director Sir Jeremy Fleming, on how a digital currency could present a threat: “it gives a hostile state the ability to surveil transactions.
It gives them the ability… to be able to exercise control over what is conducted on those digital currencies”
The Royal United Services Institute said an online system would be a target for attack: “North Korea has made extensive use of the fact that cryptocurrency exchanges and so on can be hacked.
It ran a nearly very successful attack against the Bangladesh central bank".
DISINTERMEDIATION "If a CBDC is introduced, a proportion of people may wish to transfer money out of their bank accounts into non-bank CBDC wallets. This would reduce the size of commercial banks’ balance sheets while increasing the size of the Bank of England’s balance sheet.."
The Committee highlighted that this "may increase the cost of credit and tighten lending criteria, with implications for the efficiency of credit provision in the economy."
Barclays said this "would make banks more reliant on wholesale funding—an expensive and more volatile alternative to customer deposits It said this could mean banks being required to hold higher levels of liquidity against deposits, which could constrain lending further."
The Bank of England could "conduct forms of unconventional monetary policy more easily. "It could ‘programme’ a CBDC to have an expiry date by which it would need to be spent, or conditions could be placed on a CBDC so that it could be spent on certain goods only."
Of course, once introduced, CBDCs could be programmed to do all sorts of things - not just collect information on citizens but levy taxes at the point of transaction too.
The Government may say they don't plan to do this, but that could easily change.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Stamp duty is a deeply counterproductive tax, argues Catherine McBride in an excellent Substack analysis.
"Housing is essential for life in the UK & the govt can't afford to house everyone in council housing, nor do they have enough of it. So, what is the point of making private housing more expensive?", she asks
1/7
"Crucially, Stamp duty has a negative impact on the economy by discouraging people from moving to homes better suited to their life stage or relocating for better job opportunities elsewhere in the country. Stamp duty also hampers property renovation & has a substantial multiplier effect on the wider economy."
Analysis of the tax conducted by the OBR demonstrates that every 1% increase in the stamp duty rate cuts transactions by around 6%, depending on the price band
That's over 120k transactions each year that are not occuring because of stamp duty.
There's a sharp drop in the percentage of income tax paid by top earners, @the_tpa analysis of HMRC data has found
The top 1% are expected to pay 26.6% of all income tax receipts in 2025-26, down significantly from the 30.7% they paid in 21-22
A key trend has been reversed
1/5
In 1979 Chancellor Geoffrey Howe cut the top rate from 83% to 60%. Before the cut, the top 1% of UK taxpayers paid only 11% of the total income tax take. By 1988 they were paying 14% of income tax revenue.
The Laffer curve is real.
In 1988 Nigel Lawson cut top rates from 60% to 40% and receipts rose further. By 1997 the top 1% of earners paid a much larger 21% of the total tax bill. This chart shows the huge increases in the percentage paid by higher earners as a result of the Howe-Lawson reforms
Labour's plans to force taxpayers to submit digital information about their earnings to the government every 12 weeks will hit lower earners the hardest, even pushing the poorest people out of work & onto benefits, experts have warned.
We should resist this scheme
1/4
"It’s hard to imagine how so many single parents are going to find the time to continue running a business, juggling childcare but then also learn how to bookkeep & file quarterly updates without it putting a huge amount of pressure on top,” said Tom Bickle of JP Blackmoor Ltd.
Robyn Milstead of LKA Chartered Accountants said “These things are not just a source of anxiety, they're impossible for some. I really worry about tradespeople where English isn’t their first language. For single parents who are self-employed, the first deadline for submission is 7 August — straight in the school holidays.”
A Bloomberg analysis of 5 million company filings shows a big spike in departing business leaders over recent months, with more than 4,400 disclosing an overseas move over the last year.
1/5
April exits were up 75% from 12 months earlier and the highest in 4 years.
Many departing are non-doms and if 25% of those leave then the Treasury starts losing serious money. “I’d be stunned if we didn’t get to 25%” said Catrin Harrison of law firm Charles Russell Speechlys.
Bloomberg spoke to over a dozen lawyers and other advisers to the ultra-rich who said anywhere from 15% to 65% of their non-dom clients are already out or are making plans to depart the UK.
Do you trust the Government to decide where your pension funds should be invested?
The Treasury has just said “The government will take a reserve power in the Pension Schemes Bill to set binding asset allocation targets.”
It's a shocking expansion of state power
1/5
If the Government wants to get more pension money invested in British shares it should reverse Gordon Brown's tax grab & restore the pension dividend tax credit. And it should scrap stamp duty on shares.
But then it would have less cash to give to the public sector unions.
Robert Shrimsley says in the FT: "Like many of you, I suspect, I’ve come to the view that Rachel Reeves should oversee more of my financial decisions.
Who wants to see their retirement pot frittered away on cowboy outfits like Nasdaq indices or Nvidia when we could be supporting great British entrepreneurs like Michelle Mone?"
Angela Rayner's tax hike proposals would “seriously risk wrecking savers’ retirement plans” according to Andrew Tully of financial advisers Nucleus.
Punishing savers in order to reward public sector unions is not a morally justifiable policy
1/4
“Savers need confidence that the goalposts won’t constantly shift. Rather than constantly tweaking rules we need cross party consensus on issues like this to deliver the stability required,” Tully said.
“Removing the dividend allowance may drive behavioural changes, including moving into assets that don’t produce a dividend or ensuring investments are appropriately held in wrappers," said Claire Trott, head of advice at St James’s Place.