Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Better living in 1979 the era of modernisation than before that when the country was on it knees under the control of the unions and going begging to the IMF.

 

Yes as always things are not perfect they never will be but this really is the best of 2 massively incompetent government options.

 

I know you believe otherwise but spending more money we don't have for our children's, children's, children to pay is not the solution, we need to reign it in and pay it off we can then spend the £50billion per year we are paying in interest payments.

 

If Labour get in every single person is in for misery and hardship. They certainly have their slogan correct for the many not the few....what they mean is that their economic incompetence will mean everyone is equal, equally poor.

 

If it wouldn't impact me so badly I would love to see them get to power just to teach the people wishing for Corbyn the clown and his sidekick McDougal get taught a lesson, they would soon realise when the Prosecco dries up, Starbucks and Pret close and when the major tech companies refuse to operate here due to our regressive taxation system!!

 

Unfortunately I would probably see my business close, my livelihood lost and my house claimed for the state or land taxed by these vile spiteful *****. Still power to the people eh?

Omg.....he's serious

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

11 minutes ago, katieakita said:

And in the real world it would have been just so much simpler for the government owned DVLA not to withhold the link to the insurance data base from the government owned Post Office without asking for a multi million pound payment (£20 Million according to a senior POL manager off record) for access to the link. They if you got the multi billion pound costing computer systems of the DVLA and Post Office to communicate with one another it would be even easier. Then of course if the government owned Post Office complied with the governments own NMW laws they may be able to employ more staff. Of course HMG/DVLA when pushing through the removal of tax discs did state that as Police vehicles carry equipment that can identify if a vehicle is road legal within seconds any vehicles illegally using the roads would be dealt with accordingly. 

 

Believe the correct term is penny wise pound foolish. As for Mr Corbyn think you will find he was not that impressed yesterday with the £68 million 1/2 year dividend paid out to the shareholders of Royal Mail the state owned business given away by the coalition to Tory party donors

10 Years ago I would agree the insurance data should have been shared to make it easier to renew at the post office without all the associated shite.

 

Now, fact is the systems needed modernising. I don't want to go into a post office between 9-6 and queue if its much easier to do it online at any time I chose, Millions don't. The direct debit option is so much better, the online system is fantastic. We can not keep archaic paper disks and ridiculous methods of renewing in a modern era just to keep some people happy. Sadly times move on.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

10 Years ago I would agree the insurance data should have been shared to make it easier to renew at the post office without all the associated shite.

 

Now, fact is the systems needed modernising. I don't want to go into a post office between 9-6 and queue if its much easier to do it online at any time I chose, Millions don't. The direct debit option is so much better, the online system is fantastic. We can not keep archaic paper disks and ridiculous methods of renewing in a modern era just to keep some people happy. Sadly times move on.

The one thing I would agree about is that I don't see the point in renationalising the post office. It's anachronistic now. 

Energy and transport, yes, they are part of the national infrastructure. Post, not so much nowadays.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am a remain supporter  For me the EU is good for business more than bad even though they should accept they have their deficiencies and need to change. But we wont let that get in the way of calling me a tory right wing thicko racist scumbag eh?

 

Perhaps when the others stop making boring, gratuitous, tacked-on footnotes about The Tory scum, right wing bastards, thicko leavers etc. etc.

Er, I didn't.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Omg.....he's serious

 

 

 

So are you. Given time I am sure we will see who is correct.

 

You predict the world is ending now and everyone is poor and dying, all the public sector is closing down and falling apart, the country is going to close down when we leave Europe. I go outside I see people clutching a Starbucks, tapping away on an iPhones and Samsungs. You drive through a residential area, you see nice cars and large TVs. Children are in Schools, Hospitals are still open, the streets are cleanish, things are well maintained. We have roads, rail and jobs! Nice places to eat, this is in a poorish north midland town. Its not bad, it can and could be better but Corbyns borrow spend is not the answer.

 

If Labour ever get in we will see how long it takes for my prediction to come true......

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 17 November 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Fox Ulike]

16 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Again you are picking words that suit your agenda. I haven't said anything about Primary School teachers being over paid,  they are not but as a starting Salary 24k isn't bad.

 

What I am talking about is public sector senior management on over 100k a year, of which there are many examples, you can bet the executive head and her team of senior managers will be on a few hundred thousand between them, why is this? They probably have some PAs and or Office staff working for them too. I have no problem with front line staff getting the pay they deserve but public sector management irk me, I've been there I have seen them they are mostly terrible and could easily be cut back, but never are because they protect their own jobs. Id argue that many schools don't actually need so many senior managers, they never used to and standards were better why now?

 

Yes we have again, there are many many things this government has done wrong, but keeping a grip on the borrowing is one thing absolutely correct in my eyes. In a bankrupt nation there will be no public sector and no NHS, this is one thing Labour voters should remember when uncle Jezza and Johnny promise the next unfunded magic unicorn.

 

 

I think £19k is a starting salary for a Primary School teacher. £24 is the average. Yes it's not a bad salary -  but some teachers in affluent areas are never going to be able to afford to buy a house near to the School they teach in.

 

There's a massive contradiction in your opinion. You want to reduce the salary of those senior management ("over 100k a year") and want to see "front line staff getting the pay they deserve".

 

This is pretty much Labour policy word for word!!

 

But, you don't believe in the political party who seek to implement the exact policy that you do believe in... How does that work in your head??

 

Tax the super rich a bit more to pay front line staff in schools and hospitals. Why is this an "unfunded magic unicorn"?

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Er, I didn't.

No you didn't a was just being facetious but it does happen a lot on here. Its funny some are happy to call but not be called! I actually couldn't give a flying shit but its funny the self righteous cant meet their own standards.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

No you didn't a was just being facetious but it does happen a lot on here. Its funny some are happy to call but not be called! I actually couldn't give a flying shit but its funny the self righteous cant meet their own standards.

You get called for talking shit, not for being right wing imho ?

Edited 17 November 2017 by Guest

[katieakita]

9 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

10 Years ago I would agree the insurance data should have been shared to make it easier to renew at the post office without all the associated shite.

 

Now, fact is the systems needed modernising. I don't want to go into a post office between 9-6 and queue if its much easier to do it online at any time I chose, Millions don't. The direct debit option is so much better, the online system is fantastic. We can not keep archaic paper disks and ridiculous methods of renewing in a modern era just to keep some people happy. Sadly times move on.

Think you mean 2 years, and am sure my friends who do offer vehicle tax at 28p a time commission would rather not see the likes of you wandering in unable to follow the basic instructions of what documents to bring, think one of the issues you are missing is why the government owned DVLA thought it was acceptable to charge another government owned a huge fee that would enabled the likes of you and I to tax vehicles is a less time consuming way. Notwithstanding the fact the DVLA will sell your details to any fvcker happy to pay. Also you miss the point that your super modern computer system losses the exchequer around £100 million compared with the archaic system that did not. Archaic or not surely society is better off using a system that works rather than one which does not, then again it is only £100 million just think what could be done with that. 

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The one thing I would agree about is that I don't see the point in renationalising the post office. It's anachronistic now. 

Energy and transport, yes, they are part of the national infrastructure. Post, not so much nowadays.

Post Office & Royal Mail 2 different companies

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I think £19k is a starting salary for a Primary School teacher. £24 is the average. Yes it's not a bad salary -  but some teachers in affluent areas are never going to be able to afford to buy a house near to the School they teach in.

 

There's a massive contradiction in your opinion. You want to reduce the salary of those senior management ("over 100k a year") and want to see "front line staff getting the pay they deserve".

 

This is pretty much Labour policy word for word!!

 

But, you don't believe in the political party who seek to implement the exact policy that you do believe in... How does that work in your head??

 

Tax the super rich a bit more to pay front line staff in schools and hospitals. Why is this an "unfunded magic unicorn"?

 

 

Yes affordable housing is a problem, it has been a problem since the late 1990s when everything started to boom, the government of the time did not build enough houses/schools/hospitals to cope with the mass immigration they encouraged. No government since has been able to build enough housing to keep up with demand, it will take many many years to fix our infrastructure given the massive debt we now have.

 

Labour from what I have heard want to pay all public sector staff more, remove the cap sound bites for the unions etc. etc.? I have heard no specific policy of targeting frontline staff? but I am happy to be enlightened. I do now disagree with the cap (at first it was needed to keep people in employment but now it is time to remove it). Some public sector staff i.e. those over a certain amount should not have pay increases. I worked in a college where the Principal was on £160000 each time they get a 1% rise which they don't need, they are taking an extra £1600 out of the schools budget. There were also Deputies and Assistant Principals all on ok 70k pa, It is simply wrong. The lower paid staff for example a hard working since technician or dt technician was on about 12.5k they could easily have had a 10% pay rise and still cost the college less and they were having much more impact on the students development.  

 

The taxation of the rich does not work, you and I might not like it but its fact. They will either move away or find ways of avoiding paying tax, the more regressive the tax rate the more likely that is. My solution is make a tax rate low so that it costs more to avoid paying it, then tighten any loop holes and introduce laws to ensure everyone pay what they should. Its a 'magic unfunded unicorn' because its been proven time and time again higher tax rates generally result in lower tax receipts, those who can afford to will pay accountants to avoid paying. My solution and I think something the embattled Lib Dems suggested is a 1p or 2p tax rise for everyone, if you want to spend more. What Labour suggest will never bring in the money they predict, the IFS said as much themselves.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

22 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You get called for talking shit, not for being right wing imho ?

Its called having a differing opinion. You prove that I am talking shit, that's your opinion. No evidence.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

31 minutes ago, katieakita said:

Think you mean 2 years, and am sure my friends who do offer vehicle tax at 28p a time commission would rather not see the likes of you wandering in unable to follow the basic instructions of what documents to bring, think one of the issues you are missing is why the government owned DVLA thought it was acceptable to charge another government owned a huge fee that would enabled the likes of you and I to tax vehicles is a less time consuming way. Notwithstanding the fact the DVLA will sell your details to any fvcker happy to pay. Also you miss the point that your super modern computer system losses the exchequer around £100 million compared with the archaic system that did not. Archaic or not surely society is better off using a system that works rather than one which does not, then again it is only £100 million just think what could be done with that. 

Post Office & Royal Mail 2 different companies

 

No I meant the Post Office System worked well 10 years ago not now in 2017, its time was then. Again of the caring left, very presumptuous you think that I am a thicko who cant cope with bringing the correct documents, I am very aware of what documents I need to bring but having to keep and find a piece of paper in 2017 is ridiculous and archaic when you can do it online. Perhaps if the Post Office had a better attitude to its thicko customers it wouldn't be in the position it is. A revolutionary organisation might have thought about installed some kind of terminals to allow this to be done much easier maybe charge a bit to use them. For what its worth I agree government organisations should feely share data with other government organisations, you are correct there should not be high charges, although I notice Labour didn't change this in 13 years and I see no proposals of Comrade Corbyn to stop this practice, I suppose it generates imaginary revenue  and turnover which is probably right up his street.

 

Currently it maybe losing 100 million again this is a sensationalist news article. I am sure once the Cameras across the country are bringing in revenue these cars will be ANPRed and the money generated will be much much more, I expect we wont see any sensationalist new articles when it brings in 100 million. Sadly £100 million when you are already running a deficit of £50 billion is small change, probably doesn't even pay a weeks interest.

Edited 17 November 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Fox Ulike]

32 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Yes affordable housing is a problem, it has been a problem since the late 1990s when everything started to boom, the government of the time did not build enough houses/schools/hospitals to cope with the mass immigration they encouraged. No government since has been able to build enough housing to keep up with demand, it will take many many years to fix our infrastructure given the massive debt we now have.

 

Labour from what I have heard want to pay all public sector staff more, remove the cap sound bites for the unions etc. etc.? I have heard no specific policy of targeting frontline staff? but I am happy to be enlightened. I do now disagree with the cap (at first it was needed to keep people in employment but now it is time to remove it). Some public sector staff i.e. those over a certain amount should not have pay increases. I worked in a college where the Principal was on £160000 each time they get a 1% rise which they don't need, they are taking an extra £1600 out of the schools budget. There were also Deputies and Assistant Principals all on ok 70k pa, It is simply wrong. The lower paid staff for example a hard working since technician or dt technician was on about 12.5k they could easily have had a 10% pay rise and still cost the college less and they were having much more impact on the students development.  

 

The taxation of the rich does not work, you and I might not like it but its fact. They will either move away or find ways of avoiding paying tax, the more regressive the tax rate the more likely that is. My solution is make a tax rate low so that it costs more to avoid paying it, then tighten any loop holes and introduce laws to ensure everyone pay what they should. Its a 'magic unfunded unicorn' because its been proven time and time again higher tax rates generally result in lower tax receipts, those who can afford to will pay accountants to avoid paying. My solution and I think something the embattled Lib Dems suggested is a 1p or 2p tax rise for everyone, if you want to spend more. What Labour suggest will never bring in the money they predict, the IFS said as much themselves.

Again, tightening any loop holes is Labour Policy. You have to see both policies together: Higher tax rates for the super rich, and closing the loop holes.

 

And you really need to follow your own logic to it's conclusion. It's a vicious circle. Tax avoidance is just like any other service industry. It will just keep on expanding and will keep on becoming more accessible to more and more people. 

 

If you lower taxes, then won't the Tax havens just lower their fees? What's your plan for when everybody is legally avoiding tax?

 

 

 

 

Edited 17 November 2017 by Fox Ulike

[Rogstanley]

28 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Yes affordable housing is a problem, it has been a problem since the late 1990s when everything started to boom, the government of the time did not build enough houses/schools/hospitals to cope with the mass immigration they encouraged. No government since has been able to build enough housing to keep up with demand, it will take many many years to fix our infrastructure given the massive debt we now have.

 

Labour from what I have heard want to pay all public sector staff more, remove the cap sound bites for the unions etc. etc.? I have heard no specific policy of targeting frontline staff? but I am happy to be enlightened. I do now disagree with the cap (at first it was needed to keep people in employment but now it is time to remove it). Some public sector staff i.e. those over a certain amount should not have pay increases. I worked in a college where the Principal was on £160000 each time they get a 1% rise which they don't need, they are taking an extra £1600 out of the schools budget. There were also Deputies and Assistant Principals all on ok 70k pa, It is simply wrong. The lower paid staff for example a hard working since technician or dt technician was on about 12.5k they could easily have had a 10% pay rise and still cost the college less and they were having much more impact on the students development.  

 

The taxation of the rich does not work, you and I might not like it but its fact. They will either move away or find ways of avoiding paying tax, the more regressive the tax rate the more likely that is. My solution is make a tax rate low so that it costs more to avoid paying it, then tighten any loop holes and introduce laws to ensure everyone pay what they should. Its a 'magic unfunded unicorn' because its been proven time and time again higher tax rates generally result in lower tax receipts, those who can afford to will pay accountants to avoid paying. My solution and I think something the embattled Lib Dems suggested is a 1p or 2p tax rise for everyone, if you want to spend more. What Labour suggest will never bring in the money they predict, the IFS said as much themselves.

If you increased the tax on the rich then they probably would try and find ways to evade it, which is why you need to make sure HMRC are on the ball to stop them from doing so. It is not a justifiable reason not to do it.

 

The idea of rich people ‘moving away’ in response to a slight tax increase is a common fallacy. Financially successful people don’t abandon their lives on the basis of a slight increase in taxes. Just doesn’t happen.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

Again, tightening any loop holes is Labour Policy. You have to see both policies together: Higher tax rates for the super rich, and closing the loop holes.

 

And you really need to follow your own logic to it's conclusion. It's a vicious circle. Tax avoidance is just like any other service industry. It will just keep on expanding and will keep on becoming more accessible to more and more people. 

 

If you lower taxes, then won't the Tax havens just lower their fees? What's your plan for when everybody is legally avoiding tax?

 

 

 

 

Labours policy is to increase tax and say they will close loopholes.

 

if they close all the loopholes the super rich will just move overseas to a country that taxes less, of which there are plenty.

 

If you make the tax rate low enough it become pointless for people to avoid it, it wouldn't be profitable enough to over a service to avoid it. Now you can say I will charge you £200k to avoid £2 million in tax, if the tax was less it wouldn't be worth them doing that just pay it. Obviously there will always be some that want to avoid you will never stop that. Most people will pay its a lot of hassle not too.  

 

The biggest thing is to encourage business and wealthy individuals to be here. Obviously the rich consume more in terms of hotels, holidays, food, drink, petrol, cars, shopping all of that finds its way into the system via the POS Tax VAT which I actually think is one of the better ways of paying tax, you pay for what you consume. Ironically the left hate VAT even though it is lower or zero rated for essential items.

 

 

[katieakita]

6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its called having a differing opinion. You prove that I am talking shit, that's your opinion. No evidence.

Like you say only an opinion, would have thought though the average person what ever political views they hold would favour a system that works rather than an expensive computer system that does not. It is not an improvement if it does not improve things and sadly HMG for a number of years have serious IT issues spending billions on computer systems not fit for purpose. Ensuring people drive road legal vehicles should not be to hard, the vast majority should be able to tax a vehicle via a computer or using a barcode at one of 10,000 Post Offices should not be so hard a task.

 

Also IMVHO questions need to be asked of the senior management of Government departments like the DVLA whom really should be losing their incredibly well paid jobs for their failures in implementing what should with the resources spent be a straight forward task

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

If you increased the tax on the rich then they probably would try and find ways to evade it, which is why you need to make sure HMRC are on the ball to stop them from doing so. It is not a justifiable reason not to do it.

 

The idea of rich people ‘moving away’ in response to a slight tax increase is a common fallacy. Financially successful people don’t abandon their lives on the basis of a slight increase in taxes. Just doesn’t happen.

How many public sector tax inspectors do we need to employ then? Tax inspector managers? Tex inspector supervisors, Tax inspector executive managers etc. etc. etc.

 

Sorry but that again is absolute unsubstantiated garbage. It does happen, it happened in France (under Hollande rich French moved to London) its happened here before. Business and Rich started to leave the country under the last Labour government which is why tax receipts dropped towards the end of the tenure.

 

http://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/01/news/millionaires-fleeing-france/index.html

 

The tax system needs simplifying and modernising, at first merge PAYE and NI, that reduces the administrative burden for employers and HRMC. The savings would probably be quite large,

[Guest Foxin_mad]

4 minutes ago, katieakita said:

Like you say only an opinion, would have thought though the average person what ever political views they hold would favour a system that works rather than an expensive computer system that does not. It is not an improvement if it does not improve things and sadly HMG for a number of years have serious IT issues spending billions on computer systems not fit for purpose. Ensuring people drive road legal vehicles should not be to hard, the vast majority should be able to tax a vehicle via a computer or using a barcode at one of 10,000 Post Offices should not be so hard a task.

 

Also IMVHO questions need to be asked of the senior management of Government departments like the DVLA whom really should be losing their incredibly well paid jobs for their failures in implementing what should with the resources spent be a straight forward task

There are obviously issues, the fundamentals of the system are good the Online part is simple and quick, the direct debit option is fantastic, just leave it in place until you sell the car. It should really be capable of sending out letters and fines for those that do not pay their tax, as they did before. Nothing has really changed except that you don't now get a paper disk to stick in your window. Perhaps the traffic wardens spotted a large number of out of date tax disks and I cant see how else they would be spotted.

 

Governments over the years have made numerous cock ups of computer systems I agree, they will continue to do so. These senior managers in government and DVLA should be held to account where there are failings, sadly they never are they normally get a promotion.

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

In other news, I noticed this quite reasonable article from the Guardian:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/17/david-davis-blames-germany-france-brexit-talks-deadlock

 

Interesting that the EU 'claims' that it is protecting the interest of the 27 states, yet it seems to only be Germany and France with the power to make the decisions. Does that not defy its objective?

Edited 17 November 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Fox Ulike]

16 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Labours policy is to increase tax and say they will close loopholes.

 

if they close all the loopholes the super rich will just move overseas to a country that taxes less, of which there are plenty.

 

If you make the tax rate low enough it become pointless for people to avoid it, it wouldn't be profitable enough to over a service to avoid it. Now you can say I will charge you £200k to avoid £2 million in tax, if the tax was less it wouldn't be worth them doing that just pay it. Obviously there will always be some that want to avoid you will never stop that. Most people will pay its a lot of hassle not too.  

 

The biggest thing is to encourage business and wealthy individuals to be here. Obviously the rich consume more in terms of hotels, holidays, food, drink, petrol, cars, shopping all of that finds its way into the system via the POS Tax VAT which I actually think is one of the better ways of paying tax, you pay for what you consume. Ironically the left hate VAT even though it is lower or zero rated for essential items.

 

 

Yes but you've ignored my point about Tax consultants, banks, and tax havens lowering their fees too. It's a race to the bottom.

 

In your example, if the tax is £180k, then I'm just going to lower my fees from £200k to £150k aren't I?? It's a knowledge-based industry. There are no material costs. That's business supply and demand. It's fairly indisputable!!

 

The rich don't consume more of those things. That's absolute nonsense.

 

If you give wealthy people a million pounds in hefty tax break every week then they are not going to spend all of it in the UK economy.  A good % of that money will immediately disappear abroad and hoarded in banks to earn interest.

 

However, if you used that million pounds to give every Primary School teacher a small pay rise, then almost 100% of that money will be recycled into the local economy. Local shops and businesses will benefit. Everyone will benefit.

 

Yes, the economy needs feeding from the 'top down' in the way you describe - but it also needs feeding from the bottom up too. It's about getting the balance right - and the fact that we have nurses using food banks and schools that can't afford pencils are strong economic indicators that they balance is completely skewed right now.

 

[katieakita]

46 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

No I meant the Post Office System worked well 10 years ago not now in 2017, its time was then. Again of the caring left, very presumptuous you think that I am a thicko who cant cope with bringing the correct documents, I am very aware of what documents I need to bring but having to keep and find a piece of paper in 2017 is ridiculous and archaic when you can do it online. Perhaps if the Post Office had a better attitude to its thicko customers it wouldn't be in the position it is. A revolutionary organisation might have thought about installed some kind of terminals to allow this to be done much easier maybe charge a bit to use them. For what its worth I agree government organisations should feely share data with other government organisations, you are correct there should not be high charges, although I notice Labour didn't change this in 13 years and I see no proposals of Comrade Corbyn to stop this practice, I suppose it generates imaginary revenue  and turnover which is probably right up his street.

 

Currently it maybe losing 100 million again this is a sensationalist news article. I am sure once the Cameras across the country are bringing in revenue these cars will be ANPRed and the money generated will be much much more, I expect we wont see any sensationalist new articles when it brings in 100 million. Sadly £100 million when you are already running a deficit of £50 billion is small change, probably doesn't even pay a weeks interest.

Could have used either the RAC or AA disclosure of this report, neither seem to have a political agenda and what should happen and what does happen can be very different. A bit like Universal Credit looks good on paper but it will not work and as for the Post Office not sure you quite grasp what it is, do you mean the government owned business facing bankruptcy, civil court cases, criminal court cases, Criminal case reviews and various tribunals as it tries to avoid complying with government policy. Not sure you  understand why the Post Office network is in such a mess.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Labours policy is to increase tax and say they will close loopholes.

 

if they close all the loopholes the super rich will just move overseas to a country that taxes less, of which there are plenty.

 

If you make the tax rate low enough it become pointless for people to avoid it, it wouldn't be profitable enough to over a service to avoid it. Now you can say I will charge you £200k to avoid £2 million in tax, if the tax was less it wouldn't be worth them doing that just pay it. Obviously there will always be some that want to avoid you will never stop that. Most people will pay its a lot of hassle not too.  

 

The biggest thing is to encourage business and wealthy individuals to be here. Obviously the rich consume more in terms of hotels, holidays, food, drink, petrol, cars, shopping all of that finds its way into the system via the POS Tax VAT which I actually think is one of the better ways of paying tax, you pay for what you consume. Ironically the left hate VAT even though it is lower or zero rated for essential items.

 

 

Yes, let's organise all our tax rules to suit the people trying to evade taxes. Perhaps we could increase the benefit cap to £200k to stop giving recipients a reason to commit fraud?

[Guest]

Irish PM: I will block Brexit talks unless hard border is off the table

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/17/irish-pm-brexit-backing-politicians-did-not-think-things-through?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

At one point he recognises the horrible truth:

 

We’ve been given assurances that there will be no hard border in Ireland, that there won’t be any physical infrastructure, that we won’t go back to the borders of the past,” Varadkar told reporters. “We want that written down in practical terms in the conclusions of phase one.”

The prime minister was scathing about UK politicians who he said had backed Brexit without real thought to the consequences of leaving. “It’s 18 months since the referendum. It’s 10 years since people who wanted a referendum started agitating for one,” he said. “Sometimes it doesn’t seem like they have thought all this through.

“Britain having unilaterally taken the customs union and single market off the table, before we move to phase two talks on trade we want taken off the table any suggestion that there will be a physical border, a hard border, new barriers to trade on the island of Ireland.”

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Yes but you've ignored my point about Tax consultants, banks, and tax havens lowering their fees too. It's a race to the bottom.

 

In your example, if the tax is £180k, then I'm just going to lower my fees from £200k to £150k aren't I?? It's a knowledge-based industry. There are no material costs. That's business supply and demand. It's fairly indisputable!!

 

The rich don't consume more of those things. That's absolute nonsense.

 

If you give wealthy people a million pounds in hefty tax break every week then they are not going to spend all of it in the UK economy.  A good % of that money will immediately disappear abroad and hoarded in banks to earn interest.

 

However, if you used that million pounds to give every Primary School teacher a small pay rise, then almost 100% of that money will be recycled into the local economy. Local shops and businesses will benefit. Everyone will benefit.

 

Yes, the economy needs feeding from the 'top down' in the way you describe - but it also needs feeding from the bottom up too. It's about getting the balance right - and the fact that we have nurses using food banks and schools that can't afford pencils are strong economic indicators that they balance is completely skewed right now.

 

But when doe the point come that tax consultants, banks etc. make no money from offering that service. If the Tax bill is reasonable enough most people will just pay it to avoid the hassle. Obviously some people will engage in it I guess the only way to stop that is legislation but I expect experts will always find other loopholes, it will always exist the key is to minimise it and maximise tax collection.

 

I think the rich have more impact on the economy than you think. The rich bankers pending in London for example generate bar and restaurant jobs, hotel jobs, the money they spend nightly is taxed, they run a Porsche brought from a dealership,  sold by a salesman on commission, serviced by a mechanic, booked by a receptionist. I would think that only a small percentage of that goes away from the country, London is actually a massive pull for rich globally, I don't think they would come and spend if we were a socialist state!

 

My point is we would take more tax by encouraging more business and wealthy individuals to come here and be a success, the more tax we take in the more we can spend on nurses and teachers. By increasing tax there is absolutely no evidence that we would generate more money, infact I suspect the net effect in the long term would be a huge drop in revenue and even less to spend on Nurses.

 

Just to make a point not all nurses and teachers are using food banks (yes its a travesty that some are but we don't know their budgets and backgrounds to make a full analysis of why 20k isn't enough to do a basic food shop at Lidl), I know a couple who are coping just fine. Think maybe you swallowed a Guardian whole

[Kopfkino]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yes, let's organise all our tax rules to suit the people trying to evade taxes. Perhaps we could increase the benefit cap to £200k to stop giving recipients a reason to commit fraud?

 

Idk why as soon as certain members say anything, you feel the need to be condescending. Foxin gets it for the fact you took exception to him once, Webbo for being a decorator.

 

Foxin makes a valid point that you do everything to incentivise paying tax, which includes lowering it to make avoiding it relatively more expensive. Or companies put profits through your system a la Ireland. An equivalent might be raising minimum wage to prevent benefit fraud.