I spoke to the Parent Teachers Association of Pembroke West School this week, on the subject of money and Christmas. I should start by saying that parents are the builders of society, for whom I have nothing but respect. They go without, so that their children may go with.

In many ways, I was the wrong person to talk on the subject, since I am not a parent, a teacher or an association. Worse, I don't "do" Christmas, although I believe in the spirit of the occasion. So what on earth could I think of to say to these most committed of Bermudians, just a few weeks before Christmas?

Not much. Many of them have three economic strikes against them before they get out of bed. They have kids, many are married and almost all are caught up in the spending festival that Christmas has become, often blocking out its real meaning.

Some of those present probably thought I would say "Don't buy your kids gifts" or "Tell your spouse he or she isn't going to receive a present this Christmas". I may look stupid, but I'd never say stuff like that. What I suggested, instead, was that they make a list of whatever they spend this Christmas, that they would not otherwise spend in, say, March or September. I said they shouldn't even add up the total until January, when the bills come in and we're all miserable anyway.

That will offer a baseline, making it easier to spend a little less next year. A little less is what it's all about. You don't lose weight by not eating; your metabolism will compensate and you'll be miserable as well as overweight. So it is with saving: it's incremental. A little less here, one fewer meal out there; three trips a year instead of four; one fewer pair of shoes; and pretty soon you're off to the races.

I mentioned that a regular savings programme is the magic wand, and in doing so made myself feel guilty. There I was telling people whose incomes must be squeezed half to death, to do with less. Maybe I am the Grinch.

It's good advice, though. If you set aside, say, five percent of your net pay cheque on the day you receive it, and put it in a savings account, you'll quite quickly adjust to having that little bit less. It builds up, and pretty soon you have some savings. Then the car breaks down or some other unexpected event occurs, and you can cope with it. Then you carry on rebuilding what you had, and move on to even more.

I mentioned my Dad - when don't I? - and his experience in giving up sugar in his coffee. For a week, every cup he drank was horrible. After that, he got used to it and that was that. It's the same with saving. The first time you set something aside, it hurts. The second time, a little less so. Pretty soon, you don't even notice.

I said a bunch of other stuff, and while I was saying it, noticed that everyone in the gym, more than 100 people, were showing me enormous respect by listening to what I had to say. Even the children present, who I'm sure must have been bored senseless, kept quiet and let everyone else listen. I can sound condescending when I state the obvious, and I don't mean to, but talking to these people, answering their questions and listening to their feedback made me realise how privileged I am to share in the Bermuda experience. Now I'm getting all choked up, so I'll change the subject and find someone to be horrible about.

* * *

A couple of weeks ago, the English newspapers reported a change in the national approach to taxation. This is what the Daily Telegraph reported:

"Tax inspectors have been told that they can pursue people who have not broken the law but could still be deemed 'tax avoiders'." (Tax evasion is illegal cheating; tax avoidance is legally arranging your affairs to pay the minimum tax due.)

The article continued: "New guidance from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) defines tax avoiders as those seeking to pay less tax than Parliament 'might have intended' if it had 'turned its mind to the specific issue in question'."

This week, those who arrange their affairs lawfully; next week, enemies of the state. The move by HMRC incorporates too many abuses of everything from the law to common sense for the mind to grasp.

The British Parliament did not deny the report. That means that, having abandoned its important powers to Brussels, it has freely given up the rest of its authority to HMRC, which now sets its own standards of what is law and what should be law. And woe betide you if you fall foul of any of it.

The news was carried deep in the body of the papers because the average reader wants news he or she can understand. But everyone should understand that this power grab dramatically changes the way in which business will be done in the UK. There can now be no certainty that any transaction is legal, until HMRC rules on it. "No certainty" is the exact opposite of what is desired in a jurisdiction by the businesses that employ its people.

HMRC may choose to apply its powers retroactively, so anyone who has done any kind of deal in the UK during their lifetime is potentially liable to investigation.

A spokesman for HMRC made this comment:

"There has been no change in what HMRC sees as avoidance. The updated guidance explicitly states that there is no definition of avoidance but offers a short and simple starting point for staff."

No definition, so anything goes. That "starting point" is the presumed guilt of the legal citizen. Democracy, Magna Carta, all that: old hat in New Britain.

If history is anything to go by, the HMRC will form a youth wing at some point. They'll wear black HMRC golf shirts and declare war on Monaco.

To those readers with British operations, good luck. They seem to want you to leave. Bermuda, by contrast a bastion of common sense and certainty, would love to have you.