Why we should abolish tax relief on charitable giving

I have just received a letter from my old university. It asks me to send money (as usual). And it adds “every £10 donated is worth £12.50 and the difference is paid by the Inland Revenue at no cost to you”.

No cost to me? I don’t think so.

Let’s assume that I am a 40% taxpayer. I give £1,000 to a charity. The government is then obliged to hand over another £250 in Gift Aid, bringing it up to £1,250. I then make a claim for charitable giving tax relief on my tax return for another £250. 

The net result? The UK Treasury has £500 less in the coffers than it would have had had I not made my charitable donation. That’s a cost not just to me but to all taxpayers. You might say that doesn’t matter. The point, you might say, is that the charity now has £1,250. But I think it does matter.

I wrote an editorial on this last week (subscribers can read it here). The key point is that the government has core responsibilities that must be paid for out of tax revenues. Every penny that goes out in tax relief is a penny not being used to pay for the NHS, for education, for defence and so on.

You might think that your chosen charity is more important than anything the government spends money on. I don’t think that should be your choice to make. The rest of us don’t get to effectively hypothecate our tax payments (ie, decide what our tax money is spent on directly), so why should those who can afford to make large charity payments get to hypothecate theirs?

It makes no sense. If you want to give to charity, you can. Just pay your taxes first. Otherwise the rest of us end up having to pay them for you: every £500 the Treasury loses as a result of a £1,000 donation has to be made up by other taxpayers. That adds up.

According to the HMRC, “Gift Aid is worth nearly £1bn to charities and their donors.” If we all made our charitable donations out of our post-tax income, that would be £1bn returned to the Treasury every year and £1bn every year off our hideous budget deficit.

George Osborne is right to be trying to limit tax relief on charitable giving. But to my mind, he should go further. He should abolish it. And when he has done that, he should take a long look at charitable status and who should and shouldn’t have it, starting with pretty much every arts organisation in the country.

  • Dr Ray

    I would go further and tax those who choose to work for nothing for a charity.
    For example if an old lady chooses to spend her afternoons working in the Oxfam shop for nothing, the value of that work should be calculated and the old lady made to hand over the tax that the treasury has lost through her selfishly not demanding a wage.

  • Colin Tully

    I would go further and abolish charities and increase taxation accordingly. After all, we can always rely on governments to spend our money for us with ultra-efficiency.

  • Pusser

    @1. If we could introduce a Grannycide law at an appropriate age, say 70 although I accept reductions in age may have to be made in a recession, this would leave vacancies for unpaid jobs to be taken up by those being paid substantial benefits to do bugger all.

  • Shinsei67

    @Dr Ray/Colin Tully

    Please try and engage with the argument rather than making fatuous remarks.

    If you think governments spend money poorly then elect a better government. Or doesn’t democracy appeal to you? But you. can’t opt out of the tax system any more than you can say speed limits don’t apply to me.

    And if you don’t want government wasting money why do you appear to agree with the existing system whereby the rest of us tax payers subsidise your charitable donations.

    I have no problem with you wanting to donate to your local wild fowl sanctuary but why do you require my taxes (which I’d rather went to the NHS and deficit reduction) to subsidise that donation ?

  • Dr Ray

    @4
    Mine wasn’t a fatuous remark. It is the logical conclusion of what the article and yourself are suggesting.
    When I get paid for work a proportion of that wage is tax and a proportion is barter for my time.
    If I choose to give the wage away I shouldnt have to pay tax on what I havent earned – same as the old lady on the Oxfam shop.

  • Bill

    Dr Ray, I fear your logic is flawed. If the old lady decides not to work in a charity shop that does not necessarily mean she will undertake work that provides a taxable income. For all you know she could spend her afternoons knitting and doing some light gardening. Hence, it is wrong to assume the treasure loses out by her doing charity work.

  • james

    Dr. R,

    Thing is everyone is paying taxes to have the same access to the NHS etc. You’re right in saying you shouldnt have to pay tax on what you havent earned, but you have earned that money youre donating, and donating to your specific charity gives you utility, happiness or whatever. If someone with the same amount of your income chose not to donate, they would essentially be paying all those taxes for the same access to the NHS, UK defence etc, whereas you’re getting more for your pound, by donating to your specific charity.

  • Shinsei67

    Dr Ray

    Apologies for calling your earlier point fatuous, it was evidently more thought out that I had assumed.

    However, I don’t think anyone does have the right to work and earn and pay zero tax if they don’t need the money and give it all away.

    It’s no different from someone on 100k saying I only need 30k gross to live off so can’t I give the rest away tax free.

    Our system would grind to a halt if people only paid tax on that bit of their earnings they needed. We need CEOs on £1m paying 500k tax to fund all the things society as deemed essential (and which currently cost the nation £900bn pa).

  • Koenfucius

    @Bill: On the contrary – Dr Ray’s comment is entirely logical. Who is to say that, if Dr Ray didn’t generously give £1250 to the charity he would simply work less to the tune of £1250 (gross)?

  • Bill

    Koenfucius – but the basis of the argument is the little old lady working in a charity shop does not draw a salary of any amount; her time is completely volunteered. Therefore she doesn’t have the option of taking a lower salary in exchange for free untaxed work.

  • Critic Al Rick

    I would imagine that charitable institutions relying on unpaid volunteers having to pay tax for the privilege would be hard pressed to find such volunteers. Or, am I missing something here?

  • Working class hero

    I would rather give every pound I could to children cancer charities, hospices etc than another single penny to the benefit scroungers. The government has no idea how to allocate tax revenue wisely. Most of it is lost in the big black hole of the welfare state.
    The individual should have the right to donate to any good cause he or she wants to.

  • zxjt

    Its difficult for Govts everywhere to come up with a rational policy on tax breaks for charity – wht should benefit & what should not? As far as I know the (English) law relating to charities dates from soon after the dissolution of the monasteries. It is tempting to think that the idea was that if the monks used to do it, it was charity. Thus we have (in Ireland) fairly exclusive private schools counting as charity – and don’t even think about the complications of religions as charitiable institutions. I would prefer Govts not to offer tax releif to charity at all. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and do what you like with your own money” sounds like a good principle to me.

    zx

  • Roberto Birquet

    I get the point of the article. But this government seems confused. Wasn’t the Big Idea of the Big Society about moving from tax/govt provision, in favour of philanthropic provision from private citizens? Or have I missed the point about the Big Socierty?
    Don’t answer that one; thinking on it the answer is plainly yes.

    On the charity rules, I think the ability of the charity to claim tax-payer help is one thing, and probably links to a Big Society before Cameron’s so-called Big Idea. But the donor also profiting seems wrong. Either you give or you do not. Giving, and then getting back misses the point of charity. Anyway, it’s all getting somewhat Byzantine for my little mind.

  • Roberto Birquet

    WCH
    The individual should have the right to donate to any good cause he or she wants to.
    ————
    They do! Even after tax, you still have the right to give.

    And how about creating an economy that employs almost everyone? used to be popular.
    The famous 1979 election poster has to be the most incredulous irony in British elections. “Labour isn’t working” was a great play on words. But the political economy that followed has failed to employ as many people as the nadir (1.1 million unemployed in the 1970s) of the old system at any point. Even at its height, as the new model economy, post-Thatchern ever kept unemployment (on the same like-for-like calculation) so low as that? I think not. That’s where welfare depedency originates: Thatcherism.

  • Boris MacDonut

    #15 Roberto .For once a good point is made. Thatcher created welfare dependency. It is a foil to make the middle classes feel more secure/smug.
    #8 Shinsei. Someone on £1million per year will likley pay £80,000 into a pension and pay just 43.8% tax ,noy 50%,or do you advocate an increase to 56%?
    #1 drray.Only a doctor could harbour such contempt for others.The old ladies are not working ,they are volunteering,it is like a vocation,something you wouldn’t understand.

  • Boris MacDonut

    Poor maths Merryn. The £1,000 you give to charity would have been taxed at 40%. The Gov’t is just handing £250 of that to the charity and £250 to you,so the exchequer is only down by £100.

  • Koenfucius

    @Bill: Dr Ray *also* doesn’t draw a salary – he donates it all to the charity. The difference between Dr Ray and the old lady is entirely academic.
    Consider these scenarios:
    1. I volunteer for a charity for 1 day, doing work that would cost them £80
    2. I do a day’s work for a charity. They pay me £80, but I donate the money straight back
    3. I do a day’s work for an employer. I get paid £80 and donate this to a charity.

    In all three cases the net effect is that a day’s work is done, and the charity gains £80. Why should there be a different tax regime for the different cases?

  • Koenfucius

    @Roberto: the donor is not profiting. He or she has £750 less than if no donation had been made. The treasury has £500 less than if no donation had been made. The charity has £1250 more than if no donation had been made.

  • James

    If we start taxing volunteer workers in oxfam them we should also start taxing parents for the work of bringing up their children, mowing their lawns, and doing diy.

  • Shinsei67

    Working Class Hero:

    You want to give every pound you can to cancer charities.

    And what if these cancer charities become so well funded they start employing star architects to design them award winning research centres and HQs. As already happens.

    Roberto Birquet:

    Yes this government, or rather Cameron (the rest weren’t so keen), did bang on about the BIg Society. However they also banged on a lot louder about dealing with the deficit.

    Government is choosing and setting priorities.

    The NHS budget is evidently more important than a new modern art gallery paid for by philanthropists all knighted for services to charity and the arts.

  • Billmac

    Regardless of the merits of the government’s proposal – they really should put their own charitable giving (of my taxes!) in order first. Overseas aid has been ringfenced from any cuts and we give money to India who has said it does not want it and also has an overseas aid programme of its own. This is basically charitable giving which is irrational and out of control.

  • Billmac

    And another thing – I am ok with giving to charity and the charity getting a refund of the basic rate tax but what seems irrational and stupid is then giving higher rate taxpayers a refund into their own pockets. The logic appears to be that poor basic rate taxpayers will give to charity out of the goodness of their hearts but rich higher rate taxpayers need to be given an incentive.

  • sanje

    As far as I am concerned the rich should not have the right to potentially engage in social engineering by giving away their money and expecting the rest of the tax paying population to contribute via their taxes.
    For example public schools are charities and the present situation means that they are kept going by the people who benefit from them but are subsidised by the people who could never afford to attend them.
    No one would wish to prevent philanthropists from being philanthropic if they wish to be so, is it too much to ask them to do it out of post tax income?

  • Brian Brown

    18. Koenfucius is bang on.
    My real concerns with the proposal that people who give to charity are now being pilloried as money grabbing tax evading monsters. At the end of the day they are giving to charity money which they could just as easily spend on more useful pursuits that the government is encouraging, like online betting and bingo, fags and booze.

    What these proposals don’t recognise is that some people are giving money out of their capital, rather than their income. The assumption seems to be that you have a massive salary and are using the tax system to avoid paying tax – but what about retired millionaires who decide to give away their “excess” wealth to charities? It is those people (and their charities) who are being targeted here.

    It seems to me that the problem lies not in the process, but with the definition of what constitutes a ‘charity’. Perhaps the government would be better off if it looked again at the Charity Commission and how it registers charities.

  • Churchgoer

    We claim tax relief on the money we give to our church.

    It does not seem right. Our country is broke.

    Why should my Muslim neighbour or my atheist friends or my children pay for the tax relief on the money I give my church?

  • Bill

    Koenfucius: I assume by your first point you mean:

    You volunteer for a charity for 1 day, doing work that would otherwise cost them £80 to employ someone to do the same work?

    If so, although I can see the equivalence betweent he 3 points makes sense, but it misses the point. You assume the charity has £80 to pay someone to do that work you volunteered for. The fact is many charities depend on volunteer work to exist and they do not have the choice between employing someone and taking a volunteer. Hence, it is not tax avoidance.

    To say we should tax the “value” of charity work that a volunteer gives isn’t going to help anyone. You are not recoupping treasury losses as no-one would’ve been employed and paying income tax in place of that volunteer.

    I’ve no issues with drawing down tax relief for donations, but taxing volunteer work is crazy!

  • Luke

    The outrage over the govt’s plans has had the effect of making me feel quite strongly that charitable giving should not be tax deductible or at best with a cap. I had never thought about it before. I don’t think I’m alone on either point.

    Likewise I think (though can’t remember link or statistics so I’m happy to be corrected), that a majority of the population, including those with children, supported cutting child benefit to those paying 40%. I’m guessing that’s because at the time, the vast majority didn’t pay at that rate (median earnings is c £27,000).

    My point? That the govt may be more ‘in touch” with the voters than the (40-50% taxpaying) media think. Doesn’t mean they’re right of course.

  • Roberto Birquet

    Koenfucious, 19
    I don’t if you’re right or wrong. I am neither higher rate taxpayer nor a £1000/year charity donor. But I refer to Ms SW’s:
    Let’s assume that I am a 40% taxpayer. I give £1,000 to a charity. The government is then obliged to hand over another £250 in Gift Aid, bringing it up to £1,250. I then make a claim for charitable giving tax relief on my tax return for another £250.
    ————-
    Now if that’s true, and my maths is right.
    Option 1: donate nothing from the £1000, get taxed £400 (40% marginal rate); you’re left with £600.
    Option2: Donate £1,000, and claim back £250.
    So, if that’s right: Donor loses out by £350, the govt (and MrandMrs taxpayer loses £900 (£400 lost tax, £250 to charity, £250 to donor…ouch); and the charity is up trumps.

  • Roberto Birquet

    But, yes still fundamentally you’re right, the donor is out of pocket, albeit just by £350.
    Oh and a word or two ofr other charities other than cancer. Look elsewhere, cancer charities are rolling in it. And yes, I have known fatalities from family, mercifully not that were young. But other charities need, as does mr and mrs taxpayer except we all have our bugbears with spendthrift govt. Me, I support the nhs, but not bailing out construction companies and builders by using my money to dangle in front of FTBs to push them into the same crazy debts that others have taken on, or the banks and then continue paying those unjustified “compensation”. They can’t even call it what it is – salary.

  • Dr T

    I like Dr Ray’s thought experiment. Why stop there though. Think of all those who retire early, the unemployed, stay at home parents, those who work part time, the self employed who take time off, etc. All essentially depriving the state of tax – which needs to be picked up by the fully working population.

    On reflection I am not now against some form of capping to ensure that everyone pays some tax. There are a lot of anomalies in the tax system, and charities often perform a good social function so politicians need to tread carefully and try and avoid short term fixes.

  • john

    For years we have been increasing the number of charities – there are thousands of them. It is plain to see the reason why such an uproar comes from the so called philanthropists. Had they have stayed quiet it might of blown over but their screaming draws greater attention to the tax concessions enjoyed by the charities. Some charities are worthy of support but a hell of a lot do not justify the bountiful tax exemptions which have been enjoyed for far too long.

  • Adrianjs

    I would stop all government subsidy of arts and sports organisations. They all operate commercially.
    Governments in general have yet to understand that tax reduction is not a cost to them, it is a reduction of cost to the taxpayer. More understanding of that might help this country get back to a balanced and sustainable budget. Government debt like personal debt is a bad thing……….

  • Daisy

    I agree with 25 Brian Brown. (para 3).

    I think that it is time to look again at what constitutes a charity. As a society we cannot afford for commercial organisations to dress their activities up as chrity work. With, the profits being taken as large salary’s by the senior directors of those charities. The governance and managment of those organisations need to be carefully monitored, and be open and transparent to those making donations.

  • Daisy

    34 condintued

    If a charity runs a shop on any high street, they are competing with other commercial retailers, but with a commercial advantage of volunteer staff, reduced rates (and in some cases rents), no tax to pay on profits from commercial activities etc. Is it really fair to people trying to run small businesses, i.e. antiques and secondhandshops, second hand bookshops etc who are being driven out of the market by charity shops? As a nation we need to create jobs that pay a living wage, not opportunities to volunteer at the expense of paid employment.

    I know that there are many genuine charity’s that do immense good. If the government and charity commission take away charitible status from those who are not genuinely charities, or who do not use the money donated to them effectively, it will increase the potential pool of donations to those genuine charities who are left.

  • Daisy

    If a charity runs a shop on any high street, they are competing with other commercial retailers, but with a commercial advantage of volunteer staff, reduced rates (and in some cases rents), no tax to pay on profits from commercial activities etc. Is it really fair to people trying to run small businesses, i.e. antiques and secondhandshops, second hand bookshops etc who are being driven out of the market by charity shops? As a nation we need to create jobs that pay a living wage, not opportunities to volunteer at the expense of paid employment.

    I know that there are many genuine charity’s that do immense good. If the government and charity commission take away charitible status from those who are not genuinely charities, or who do not use the money donated to them effectively, it will increase the potential pool of donations to those genuine charities who are left.

  • Sasquatch

    I think a major point has been missed. Think of tax relief not as the government subsidising charities and donors, but instead as the donor subsidising the government for failing to meet its own responsibilities. Many, if not most, charities are filling a hole in the government’s provision of services, especially those involved with healthcare (cancer charities etc).

    OK, there’s an argument about how far government’s responsibilites extend in, say, cancer care. But regardless of that, it seems plain that the government gets a good deal out of charitable donation, as charities provide good work that the government then does not have to do.

    So I personally feel it is only fair that the government does contribute 20% of the charities’ income.

  • Tom O’Neill

    I’m with Merryn on this one. Remove all personal income tax rebates for donors (nothing more than a cross-subsidy from other taxpayers).
    Rather than scrapping the Gift Aid scheme entirely, I’d restrict the additional bonus (for the charity funded by all taxpayers) from 25% to 10% of the sum donated.
    If major donors are only donating because of the tax refund they get, there’s something wrong with their motivation. The word ‘Charity’ doesn’t equate with ‘selflessness’. I can think of many which do invaluable work (e.g. my local hospice, where I volunteer). But many charities are politically tendentious, or manipulative. Many are big business. Without their wealthy, self-interested donors, some will go to the wall. Maybe their CEOs will be paid less than the eye-watering salaries they currently get for doing not-a-lot. Tough.
    I’ve noticed that in the entire debate about charities, nobody on any news forum I’ve read has said they actually benefited from a named charity.

  • Not charity but clarity

    I am concerned that many charities spend too much money on administration; salaries and unnecessary first class travel and expenses and therefore there is a great dilution of actual cash going to the actual cause. I would like one of our better newspaper to look into the world of charities, who really benefits from them (social gatherings for the rich and famous)and nice little earners for others. That’s not to say that everybody who is involved one way or another with charities has their nose in the trough but often where there is human kindness there is some clever so and so trying to gain advantages from it, even if it is just one of these totally oh so dated titles so favoured by the R & F.

  • Not charity but clarity

    I am concerned that many charities spend too much money on administration; salaries and unnecessary first class travel and expenses and therefore there is a great dilution of actual cash going to the actual cause. I would like one of our better newspaper to look into the world of charities, who really benefits from them (social gatherings for the rich and famous)and nice little earners for others. That’s not to say that everybody who is involved one way or another with charities has their nose in the trough but often where there is human kindness there is some clever so and so trying to gain advantages from it, even if it is just one of these totally oh so dated titles so favoured by the R & F.

  • 4caster

    #37 Sasquatch most nearly expresses my views. Charities tend to fill the holes between various parts of the government’s health and welfare services (neglecting for now those scroungers who abuse the welfare system). They do this flexibly, at lower administrative cost than any govt. bureaucracy could. They also maintain most of our Grades 1 and 2 listed buildings, which would otherwise fall down because they receive no other support from the government.
    But most supporters of the performing arts could well pay their own costs without being charities. There is something obscene about the National Lottery (voluntary taxation mainly paid by the poor, whose one hope in life is to win the jackpot) subsidising opera and ballet.

  • 4caster

    A lot of contributors above misunderstand the arithmetic that underlies Gift Aid. I am a church treasurer, and periodically claim Gift Aid from the Inland Revenue.
    What happens is that a donor might decide to give £1,000 of income that has already been taxed. The charity then reclaims the basic rate of tax that has already been paid on that, i.e. £250. A 40% taxpayer can then reclaim the difference between the 40% paid and the basic rate of 20%, i.e. another £250. Thus the gift has cost the donor £750. The charity gets £1,250. The Treasury loses £500. But I would suggest the gain to society is probably greater than £500.

  • 4caster

    Some of the early contributors suggest that voluntary workers should pay tax for the privilege of giving their time to help others. I have nothing but contempt for this ridiculous attitude.
    We would be better off staying at home and doing nothing.
    In Yorkshire they have a saying: if ever tha’ does owt for nowt, mak sure that does it for thy sen. But they say it with a twinkle in their eyes.

  • 4caster

    And another thing: for a public school to gain charity status it must offer a proportion of its places to deserving non-fee-paying students.
    Children who attend fee-paying schools release the cost of the state education to which they are entitled. Parents who wish top save public money in this way are correctly entitled to tax relief on their fees.
    I answer to “Not charity but clarity”, whilst some charities may fritter excessive funds on administration costs, the same applies in spades to public sector activities: also to most businesses, plus advertising, and junketing for clients thrown in. Luxury air travel is not called “business class” for nothing. And don’t harbour any delusions that the rest of us don’t pay for such high-living. We pay every time we buy their products and services.

  • Mary

    I have no problem with the gift aid up to the basic rate of tax.
    Full stop. I don’t see why higher rate taxpayers should be able to
    offset for their own personal advantage. This is wrong – whether we like it or not, state provisions have to be paid for. I don’t think paying tax should be a matter of choice.
    I also wonder what happens to the charitable donations. Who benefits? exactly who? I ask this as the Mother of an autistic son
    and the most help we have ever received has been from local charities and self help groups.

  • James Haydn

    The political issue: who should decide how we should spend our money – the state or the individual? Surprisingly, MSM and Osborne think the state. Perhaps that’s the effect of power on Osborne – now he’s chancellor he thinks HE knows better than you how to spend your money. There is of course an irreducible core of services the state should provide for which core taxation is needed, but beyond that the state has shown that politicians are not to be trusted to spend YOUR money wisely – think Iraq war.

  • Trapperjem

    What an amazing collection of selfish people seem to write in here. Cameron wants the Big Society but the government quite rightly can’t pay for it so individuals need to. The relatively small amount lost is to the Inland Revenue is belittled by the amount of waste the government is causing in the NHS by it’s unsubtle privatization re-organization. Who’s going to pay for the cancer research that the charities fund for just one example.

    As for the attack on arts organizations; they employ huge numbers on people that pay taxes. The VAT returns from London’s West End theatres, concerts and opera houses alone is more than the total Arts Council budget. That’s not counting the money spent in restaurants and other places. Tourists don’t come here for the weather.

    Please think beyond your own narrow lives. Some people are genuinely in need because of disease, disaster or bad government. I’m all in favour of hypothecation, I just wish I could do it with my all my taxes!

  • Nick

    First, thanks to Dr Ray for helping many of us to think more clearly.
    Second, Merryn’s and most others’ assumption is that there is a 100% net transfer from HMRC. This completely ignores the fact that larger donors donate as part of a structured tax efficient package, ie if they can’t donate in the UK tax efficiently, they will allocate more income or capital to other tax avoiding strategies, whether offshore, film schemes, donations in countries where they do get tax relief etc. So, similar to the 50% tax rate, the net benefit to HMRC of hitting larger donations will be a fraction of the theoretical calculation, in addition to some loss of benefits from the giving.
    Even if tax relief is a ‘bad thing’ it is crucial to introduce changes carefully. A sudden stop would cause dislocations which, in some cases, hit the needy, and which could be extremely wasteful and force the state to step in. Many years of hard work and experience could be lost.

  • Nick

    It is worth dwelling on ‘joined up policymaking’. I know for a fact that No10 has been considering ways to increase donations (eg many higher rate taxpayers are unaware of their additional tax relief). This is based on a tacit acceptance that charities can be more efficient than the state, are often full of motivated people, sometimes help build community values etc. In short, charities and volunteering are at the core of ‘The Big Society’. Some of these points are less valid for larger donors which might explain the apparent recent U-turn.
    I agree that the charities’ commission should be better funded (a levy out of higher rate relief on donations?). It seems that the commission is indeed being ever tougher on new charities (based on anecdotal evidence); its problem may be tracking existing ones, especially those created when standards were softer.
    Finally, I am amazed by how little the HMRC “loses” – a rounding error in the national accounts – for such large benefits.

  • John G

    I see people complaining that many public schools are charities but what is the relevance? HMRC rules are very clear that school fees cannot be considered for tax relief so whats the harm? Those comments do read a little like swipes at people who opt their children out of state school rather than anything concrete.

  • ryan redmond

    is better suited for someone as arrogant and stuck up as anyone who can take money off a charity instead of donating to charities. if the government didnt overspend paying all of the idiots in parliment,buying them all second houses and over the top wages or infact giving them wages in the first place,then the uk would have so much money it wouldnt know what to do with.we do NOT need a government at all.more of this country rely on charities than they rely on the government. the royal family is another money sucking pointless part of this country.other than taking money from everypne in the uk

Merryn

Claim 12 issues of MoneyWeek (plus much more) for just £12!

Let MoneyWeek show you how to profit, whatever the outcome of the upcoming general election.

Start your no-obligation trial today and get up to speed on:

  • The latest shifts in the economy…
  • The ongoing Brexit negotiations…
  • The new tax rules…
  • Trump’s protectionist policies…

Plus lots more.

We’ll show you what it all means for your money.

Plus, the moment you begin your trial, we’ll rush you over THREE free investment reports:

‘How to escape the most hated tax in Britain’: Inheritance tax hits many unsuspecting families. Our report tells how to pass on up to £2m of your money to your family without the taxman getting a look in.

‘How to profit from a Trump presidency’: The election of Donald Trump was a watershed moment for the US economy. This report details the sectors our analysts think will boom from Trump’s premiership, and gives specific investments you can buy to profit.

‘Best shares to watch in 2017’: Includes the transcript from our roundtable panel of investment professionals – and 12 tips they’re currently tipping. The report also analyses key assets, including property, oil and the countries whose stock markets currently offer the most value.