Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

Do you believe that people actually leave Western developed countries to avoid paying high levels of tax. Or, do they  buy a house in a tax haven, and then pretend to the tax authorities that they live there? Thereby avoiding tax.

 

Do you believe that 10,000 people left their homes and lives in France, uprooted their families, and moved to Poland or Ireland or Jersey or the Cayman Islands and are actually living and working there now!?

Some do, but what the wealthiest generally do when these sort of tax policies are introduced are just make alternative arrangements with their finances, there are tons of ways to avoid paying a higher tax from reducing your own salary to just below whatever threshold is set by the government to taking dividends or even just simple things like working and spending less.

 

They richest are usually the ones who can do this with relative ease, normal workers on PAYE can't, just google the laffer curve and you'll see why higher tax rates end up reducing the total tax take, depressing this still has to be explained.

 

Bet who cares if we are all poorer providing we don't have to see those pesky rich people spending their money eh.

[Guest MattP]

 

Why is this even an issue? These MP's stood on a manifesto just a few months ago that effectively said we have to do these things.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

 

Why is this even an issue? These MP's stood on a manifesto just a few months ago that effectively said we have to do these things.

Despite not being happy about Brexit, I'd are that mps med to stop pissing about pretending or trying to stop it. 

[Fox Ulike]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

Some do, but what the wealthiest generally do when these sort of tax policies are introduced are just make alternative arrangements with their finances, there are tons of ways to avoid paying a higher tax from reducing your own salary to just below whatever threshold is set by the government to taking dividends or even just simple things like working and spending less.

 

They richest are usually the ones who can do this with relative ease, normal workers on PAYE can't, just google the laffer curve and you'll see why higher tax rates end up reducing the total tax take, depressing this still has to be explained.

 

Bet who cares if we are all poorer providing we don't have to see those pesky rich people spending their money eh.

 

Yes. I get that. Honestly I do. And I agree that it is depressing that the argument seemingly can’t move beyond this point. But to repeat:

 

Raising taxes won’t work unless you close the loopholes.

 

And yes I know: If you close the loopholes, the rich will find other ways to avoid tax. Yes. I know. I get it. I know.

 

So here’s where the debate is right now: The new actions needed to be taken to avoid paying tax will become make tax avoidance more difficult for them, and more expensive for them, and so they are more likely to pay their tax than try and avoid it. This is still in line with the Laffer Curve theory, but increases tax revenues.

 

So. Ignore raising taxes for a second. Let’s keep taxes as they are. In fact, let’s lower them. But let’s remove the 'relative ease' with which rich people can avoid tax, and make it more difficult to avoid tax?

 

And if your answer is that everyone will move to Poland then I don’t wanna hear it!

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Raising taxes won’t work unless you close the loopholes.

 

And yes I know: If you close the loopholes, the rich will find other ways to avoid tax. Yes. I know. I get it. I know.

 

So here’s where the debate is right now: The new actions needed to be taken to avoid paying tax will become make tax avoidance more difficult for them, and more expensive for them, and so they are more likely to pay their tax than try and avoid it. This is still in line with the Laffer Curve theory, but increases tax revenues.

 

So. Ignore raising taxes for a second. Let’s keep taxes as they are. In fact, let’s lower them. But let’s remove the 'relative ease' with which rich people can avoid tax, and make it more difficult to avoid tax?

Give me your ideas then, I've asked about ten people to tell me how they are going to stop those that can putting their money where they want and I've still not heard a single one, are you going to enforce capital controls? Are you seriously telling me our government is going to tell HSBC it can't operate here unless we have control over where money goes? I'm honestly all ears but you get not a single thing when you ask this question, it's just not going to happen, if I want to set up an account in the Cayman Islands I'll do it, you won't be able to stop me.

 

Should make it more difficult to avoid tax? I probably wouldn't bother now, as I said to leicsmac the other day the only way we can do this is if the whole World decides to do something about it and even in that event we'd come up against serious opposition from the countries whose conomies rely on it.

 

I'd personally lower taxes even more, making us more attractive to investors, more attractive to businesses and see if that increases the tax (like the cut to corporation tax did) and of course get out the EU as soon as possible so any business who wants to do it's trade here has to pay it here rather than in a place elsewhere in the EU where the taxation is cheaper.

[Rogstanley]

47 minutes ago, MattP said:

Some do, but what the wealthiest generally do when these sort of tax policies are introduced are just make alternative arrangements with their finances, there are tons of ways to avoid paying a higher tax from reducing your own salary to just below whatever threshold is set by the government to taking dividends or even just simple things like working and spending less.

 

They richest are usually the ones who can do this with relative ease, normal workers on PAYE can't, just google the laffer curve and you'll see why higher tax rates end up reducing the total tax take, depressing this still has to be explained.

 

Bet who cares if we are all poorer providing we don't have to see those pesky rich people spending their money eh.

The Laffer curve is theoretical and in any case does not show that higher tax rates always lead to lower tax returns. Quite the opposite in fact, it shows that to a point higher tax rates correlate perfectly with higher tax returns. After that point the returns diminish. Therefore the debate to be had is where the tipping point is, and on that point there is no real consensus.

 

What we can say for sure is that other countries such as the nordic countries manage to operate very successfully - much more successfully than we do in respect of wages, public debt, measured happiness etc - with a higher rate of tax. 

 

Are there any examples of countries with a significantly lower tax rate that are doing better than the UK?

Edited 21 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Guest Foxin_mad]

17 hours ago, toddybad said:

Britain was a manufacturing country until the Tories decimated the north in the 80s.

 

Can you tell me which parts of Labour's industrial strategy were unworkable? Forgive me but I doubt very much that you've ever read it.

Until Labour unions made Industry crap and unreliable and decimated it you mean? We made crap products and our industries were so inefficient and always on strike it was untrue, keeping archaic methods and industries to keep people in well paid work. The country had to modernise and Labour didn't have the guts to do it for fear of upsetting the union barons. You do also realise that more Coal Mines closed under labour and manufacturing was 18% of GVA in 1997 and 10% in 2010....Tories killed it did they? More left wing tripe and no facts!

 

http://peoplescharter.org/pit-closures-were-a-labour-policy-wilson-shut-twice-as-many-as-thatcher/

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/did-labour-decimate-manufacturing/

 

As for the Industrial Strategy is garbage, I have read it is typical left wing crap. Bangs on about the environment for a bit, talks about R&D  not being enough, waffles about low paid jobs which they created, automation, bringing in an investment bank, a credit card called the national investment fund building some probably over priced railways giving contracts to union friends, a national education service that will make us all more skilled blah blah. Its complete waffle with no substance at all very little in the north. I presume you were looking at a different document if you think its so fantastic, so please enlighten me.

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

17 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

You're giving us nothing but unproveable anecdotes and demonstrably untrue Tory soundbites. Come back with some actual data and credible analysis and I'll take you more seriously.

Sounds like a mirror image of you left wingers then. Post Guardian articles and all is well with the world.

[Fox Ulike]

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

Give me your ideas then, I've asked about ten people to tell me how they are going to stop those that can putting their money where they want and I've still not heard a single one, are you going to enforce capital controls? Are you seriously telling me our government is going to tell HSBC it can't operate here unless we have control over where money goes? I'm honestly all ears but you get not a single thing when you ask this question, it's just not going to happen, if I want to set up an account in the Cayman Islands I'll do it, you won't be able to stop me.

 

Should make it more difficult to avoid tax? I probably wouldn't bother now, as I said to leicsmac the other day the only way we can do this is if the whole World decides to do something about it and even in that event we'd come up against serious opposition from the countries whose conomies rely on it.

 

I'd personally lower taxes even more, making us more attractive to investors, more attractive to businesses and see if that increases the tax (like the cut to corporation tax did) and of course get out the EU as soon as possible so any business who wants to do it's trade here has to pay it here rather than in a place elsewhere in the EU where the taxation is cheaper.

OK well you’ve jumped ahead without really answering the question.

 

I’m happy to talk about how we could make tax avoidance more difficult – but the debate we’ve been having is around whether or not we should do it The inference I’ve taken from your posts is that it’s a good thing to allow rich people to dodge tax.  Have I misunderstood this? Or are you now back-tracking?

 

To repeat: Should we remove the 'relative ease' with which rich people can avoid tax, and make it more difficult to avoid tax?

 

Essentially, if we could increase tax revenues from the rich, would you still oppose it?

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

The Laffer curve is theoretical and in any case does not show that higher tax rates always lead to lower tax returns. Quite the opposite in fact, it shows that to a point higher tax rates correlate perfectly with higher tax returns. After that point the returns diminish. Therefore the debate to be had is where the tipping point is, and on that point there is no real consensus.

 

What we can say for sure is that other countries such as the nordic countries manage to operate very successfully - much more successfully than we do in respect of wages, public debt, measured happiness etc - with a higher rate of tax. 

 

Are there any examples of countries with a significantly lower tax rate that are doing better than the UK?

The laffer curve shows as soon as your tax rate gets towards that tipping point you lose money and therefore it's crucial to stay below it, it's been a magnificent achievement of the Conservative government to have a higher tax rate than the last Labour one and still continue to take so much into the treasury. I do wish they would shout a bit louder about it.

 

Your question needs to be a bit more specific, you just said "tax" - do you mean income tax? corporation tax? property tax? You pay huge taxes on beer and food in Norway so it cost me £10 a pint when I go there, it's imcomparable to compare these countries to ours anyway, our population is bigger than all the Scandic nations put together, higher in measured happiness? The suicide rates aren't great are they?

 

Maybe that's why they are so happy? All the sad people killed themselves.

[Rogstanley]

8 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Sounds like a mirror image of you left wingers then. Post Guardian articles and all is well with the world.

I've given you reputable peer reviewed studies, nothing to do with the guardian, and you've dismissed them on the basis of some unproveable anecdotal experience you've had and an article which itself warned against drawing any conclusions. I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong on anything but for that to happen I do need something approaching proof and not just anecdotes and speculation.

Edited 21 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

OK well you’ve jumped ahead without really answering the question.

 

I’m happy to talk about how we could make tax avoidance more difficult – but the debate we’ve been having is around whether or not we should do it The inference I’ve taken from your posts is that it’s a good thing to allow rich people to dodge tax.  Have I misunderstood this? Or are you now back-tracking?

 

To repeat: Should we remove the 'relative ease' with which rich people can avoid tax, and make it more difficult to avoid tax?

 

Essentially, if we could increase tax revenues from the rich, would you still oppose it?

Yes you have totally misunderstood and I have no idea where you have got the idea I think it's a good thing rich people can dodge tax, If we can increase revenues? No, wouldn't oppose it, If we can do that great.

 

Now give me the ideas of how you'll remove this "relative ease" (I'd debate that, try avoiding tx on PAYE) which is what I've asked you to do so , so many times now I've lost count and I'm kind of getting bored of it, if you just skirt around it and come back with another question I'm not going to bother replying.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

16 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

You are very poor at getting any basic facts right, and presume too much of countries you seem to know really little about...including it seems

your own.

Southern Germany, Bayern and Bad Württemburg have integrated refugees and immigrants some what   better( even before Merkels refugee promises), than the white middle class  enclaves of southern England....All countries have their problem areas, France may have more historical difficulties in some inner cities on immigration, than some.This goes well beyond anything that crops up in England.They also like England have living areas where the people on the street make it work, spite some despicable govt  indifference

 

I might be wrong but presumption seems too be your best friend, then you let your wild opinions loose into the debate.

I suggest you not only  travel, but live and work in Europe and do some of your own integration, before quoting statistics or incompetent unknowledgable political Journals Columnists...

 

and ffs where in Germany have you been approached by young children and threaten at cash machines.I have experienced young beggars some aggressive ,all over europe including UK and Ireland. I wouldnt use those experiences to settle my political grieviances.

 

I have lived and worked around the World, integrated into local traditions away

from anglo-saxon traits, others with simular but also slightly various cultural  offshoots, but

even with that experience behind be, and all that gathering of knowledge, I cant see for the life of me, where I could take a bombastic view of other peoples political stance or nuances.

Comparisons are futile, because for every found negative stat, there is a positive one to contradict any given values....and visa versa.

Has a character, I just try to stand above racial, social, in fact any discrimination......

but even there I find myelf wanting..

That is purely opinion based I would not say they is any problems with immigrants integrating into southern England. Places like Brighton and most of the south coast are about as diverse as you are ever going to get! Really no problems here, I suggest you go and look. I have been to areas around the border with Austria where refugees really are not welcome in Germany, very traditional religious towns.

 

I do live and work in Europe on a regular basis...thank you this is all from my personal experience.

 

I have never been approached by young children in Germany, generally Germany is safe still, this was in Paris, this is a very common thing. I have never ever had that anywhere in the UK.

 

You last paragraph I applaud. Everyone has their own views and are entitled to them, it is true that everyone can find a graph or fact of some kind to back up their arguments. At the end of the day I am the one being attacked by the gang of lefties as always, they ignore the things they don't want to see and post the version and shout very loud about it. I respect everyone's view I might not agree with it but I respect them.

 

I am concerned that people are being brainwashed by a very dangerous brand of far left politics that has no place in the modern world, it  is equally as dangerous and divisive as the far right yet it is in someway seen to be acceptable presented by Jezza.

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

I've given you reputable peer reviewed studies, nothing to do with the guardian, and you've dismissed them on the basis of some unproveable anecdotal experience you've had and an article which itself warned against drawing any conclusions. I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong on anything but for that to happen I do need something approaching proof and not just anecdotes and speculation.

I said those studies are inconclusive, which they are all academic studies are general research, is it conclusive on a global scale in certain circumstances I doubt it.

 

I gave you an article where the French prime minister was quoted in saying that 10000 left France. There isn't much more conclusive evidence that rich people were leaving a high tax socialist economy than that.  France has now reverted to a more central politics and is reaping the reward which is further evidence. Hollande was a nutter much like Corbyn and his horrific front bench.

 

its perhaps inconclusive from either side but there are arguments to support both opinions.

 

My theory is based on the lead figures in the Labour party being very dangerous far left militant individuals. Its not just a high tax rate its everything that comes with that shadow cabinet that is dangerous for the nation.

 

Obviously we are going to have to agree to disagree on many things. I would never ever vote for a party with a far left leader like Corbyn.

Edited 21 November 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I gave you an article where the French prime minister was quoted in saying that 10000 left France. There isn't much more conclusive evidence that rich people were leaving a high tax socialist economy than that.  France ahs now reverted to a more central politics and is reaping the reward. Hollande was a nutter much like Corbyn and his horrific front bench.

The French example is an extremely good one, probably the most recent example we have of a socialist government that was a disaster and it's right on our shores, the party was decimated and Hollande didn't even bother standing for re-election. This lot even proposed wealth taxes, that's something that will drive people out of a country rather than income tax.

 

No point quoting it to Roger though as he's not interested in that foreign nonsense (at least he was honest though).

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Maybe I’m not being clear. Let me break in down for ya!

 

Do you believe that people actually leave Western developed countries to avoid paying high levels of tax. Or, do they  buy a house in a tax haven, and then pretend to the tax authorities that they live there? Thereby avoiding tax.

 

Do you believe that 10,000 people left their homes and lives in France, uprooted their families, and moved to Poland or Ireland or Jersey or the Cayman Islands and are actually living and working there now!?

I guess it depends on the individual. If the life is better away from France then I suspect they would live away from France. If I had the money to get away from the UK under a Corbyn government I certainly would. It would only be a matter of time before this country becomes a 3rd rate socialist hell hole under that government, basically when we run out of money.

[Guest MattP]

12 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Anyone see the massive cock-up by Newsnight just now?!

 

They ended with a 30-second piece about Liz and Phil's 70th wedding anniversary - and Emily Maitlis referred to their wedding being in 1937.

 

I assumed she'd just had a slip of the tongue, but no. She went on with a prepared script about it being a time for new relationships with Europe, turbulence in Spain and a Tory Govt making deals....

i.e. run-up to WW2, Spanish Civil War, Chamberlaiin & Hitler. She then repeated the year as 1937....

 

In 1937, the future Queen was 11.

Maths: 1947 + 70 = 2017.....not 1937!

Awaiting reports of grovelling apologies. Unbelievable incompetence!

Your Royal Correspondent 

Just watched this Alf

 

What an absolute cock up, how on earth that can happen in a major news organisation is beyond me.

[Rogstanley]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

The laffer curve shows as soon as your tax rate gets towards that tipping point you lose money and therefore it's crucial to stay below it, it's been a magnificent achievement of the Conservative government to have a higher tax rate than the last Labour one and still continue to take so much into the treasury. I do wish they would shout a bit louder about it.

 

Your question needs to be a bit more specific, you just said "tax" - do you mean income tax? corporation tax? property tax? You pay huge taxes on beer and food in Norway so it cost me £10 a pint when I go there, it's imcomparable to compare these countries to ours anyway, our population is bigger than all the Scandic nations put together, higher in measured happiness? The suicide rates aren't great are they?

 

Maybe that's why they are so happy? All the sad people killed themselves.

No it shows that receipts increase all the way up to the tipping point and then decrease beyond it, so being just below is exactly the same as being just above. There is no consensus on either the location of the tipping point nor the shape of the curve, so it's pretty meaningless really since those things are crucial to understanding where the optimal point is.

 

I was looking for figures on tax take per capita but haven't been able to find them. What I have seen is that the tax take as a proportion of GDP has been quite steady for many years and hasn't really changed at all under the Tories. The tories have reduced some taxes and increased others, a general shifting around which seems neither here nor there overall.

 

Norway charges 15% VAT on everything I believe. Of course things are expensive, that's a natural consequence of being a wealthy country. Things are cheap in Bangladesh. Where would you rather be?

 

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

Yes you have totally misunderstood and I have no idea where you have got the idea I think it's a good thing rich people can dodge tax, If we can increase revenues? No, wouldn't oppose it, If we can do that great.

 

Now give me the ideas of how you'll remove this "relative ease" (I'd debate that, try avoiding tx on PAYE) which is what I've asked you to do so , so many times now I've lost count and I'm kind of getting bored of it, if you just skirt around it and come back with another question I'm not going to bother replying.

Errr, you’ve asked me once! But I’ll rise above it and ignore your gruff rudeness.

 

Anyway, it is important because the first way to stop tax avoidance is to stop pretending that it’s morally acceptable to do so.  If people like you stop protecting the culture of tax avoidance then more people will feel that they should pay their fair share.

 

Secondly: Stop voting Tory. The Tory party is funded by rich donors who do so precisely because the Government essentially turn a blind eye to Tax Avoidance. This is the whole point of the Tory Party! The PM’s husband does it for goodness sake!

 

So on to more practical solutions. I'm no expert but these people are

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/09/twelve-steps-stop-tax-avoidance

1. Limit or remove the legal standing of – blacklist – companies or ownership from jurisdictions with cannibalistic tax and secrecy regimes (with "restricted" and "banned" categories).
2. Restrict qualifying criteria for offshore and residency statuses.  Overseas ("offshore") ownership should be substantive not nominal; "non-domicile" status limited and finite in time; and "non-resident" status exclude those with lives, businesses or wealth in essence in or derived from the UK.  
3. Curtail the benefits and permissiveness of offshore, ownership and residency statuses.  Non-domicile, non-resident, trusts and partnership advantages all need cutting back. Similarly, reverse the preferential treatment of "overseas" profits and firewall between remitted and non-remitted earnings.   
4. Increase the costs and disadvantages of ownership or residency statuses. Tax charges can be increased, in particular made more progressive. Possibly (re)introduce an exit tax for British companies or citizens taking overseas residency, relocating or emigrating. 
5. Require companies (and appropriate individuals) to provide transparent country-by-country accounts. Furthermore, the accounting and tax presumption for the assessment and validity of inter-group or cross-border charges would be strict apportionment of national sales and actual costs.
6. If it exists, happens or is owned here, it's taxed here and taxed the same. For instance, tax UK on-line/remote sales where the sale is made; rather than as at present often "supplied" from "overseas" to avoid VAT and/or "booked" in another country to avoid company taxes.   
7. Inhibit cross-jurisdiction costs, charges and tax exemptions that can be deducted for tax purposes, particularly between associated companies. These must be necessary, substantive and proportionate; with specific limitations on inter-group costs, debt, intellectual property and goodwill charges.
8. Automatic information exchanges with other countries; not just existing by-request arrangements (where the number of UK requests is miniscule). Joining the existing European network is a good start.  
9. Confront avoidance facilitators and promoters. Bar banks licensed or operating in Britain from operating in or providing facilities to British citizens or companies from "restricted jurisdictions". Require UK financial companies to automatically disclose all offshore accounts and holdings. And make advisory firms directly liable for tax penalties from avoidance they have promoted or facilitated. 
10. Vigorous, properly empowered enforcement. Enact robust general anti-avoidance provisions. Significantly enhance HMRC's assessment powers, resources and personnel. And increase tax avoidance penalties, with both principals and intermediaries liable.  
11. Major tax reform. Avoidance inducing disparities of tax treatment join improving economic performance, major fiscal problems and greater fairness in making reform long overdue. Today's complexity of taxes and rates needs replacing with consistent, equal treatment of all types of earnings – employment, unearned incomes, company profits and capital gains – while rebalancing between over-taxing of work and under-taxing big companies, wealth and "finance".
12. Change the permissive and fatalistic culture. Given the corrosive damage being done, leaders and government can and should be taking vigorous action. Not paying proper taxes and mediating avoidance should cause explicit censure and sanctions. This includes recognising the City's complicity in wholesale tax avoidance from other countries as well as Britain.

[Rogstanley]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

The French example is an extremely good one, probably the most recent example we have of a socialist government that was a disaster and it's right on our shores, the party was decimated and Hollande didn't even bother standing for re-election. This lot even proposed wealth taxes, that's something that will drive people out of a country rather than income tax.

 

No point quoting it to Roger though as he's not interested in that foreign nonsense (at least he was honest though).

It's fine if you want to argue that the French top tax rate which I believe was 75%, was too high. I'm under no illusions that there is a point at which tax becomes too high. The question is, where is the optimal point? There are examples of countries with higher tax that are more successul than we are. Are there any examples of countries with lower tax who are more successul than we are?

[Innovindil]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

It's fine if you want to argue that the French top tax rate which I believe was 75%, was too high. I'm under no illusions that there is a point at which tax becomes too high. The question is, where is the optimal point? There are examples of countries with higher tax that are more successul than we are. Are there any examples of countries with lower tax who are more successul than we are?

Why does it keep coming back to other countries? 

 

Why can't it be about what works for us? 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Just watched this Alf

 

What an absolute cock up, how on earth that can happen in a major news organisation is beyond me.

 

Extraordinary. It's always possible for a presenter to mis-speak or an autocue to malfunction, that's just everyday human/mechanical fallibility.

But Maitlis should have had the general knowledge and awareness to spot the glaring cock-up and to ad-lib.

Beyond that, though, something is very wrong with their editing/approval processes if a pre-prepared script like that can go to air.

I presume several people must have read it - unless it was added at the last minute. If so, that in itself is a flaw in the process.

 

It's a shame that it gives ammunition to the old reactionaries who reckon that Newsnight was better with Paxo pouting and blustering at every guest.

I actually think Newsnight is a lot better since Paxo left - some good analysis and penetrative interviews from Evan Davis, Emily Maitlis & their specialist correspondents.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

 

 

Norway charges 15% VAT on everything I believe. Of course things are expensive, that's a natural consequence of being a wealthy country. Things are cheap in Bangladesh. Where would you rather be?

 

 

 

Scandinavian countries are always brought up. They have very low populations and very high taxes.

 

What I don't know is how they compare with the UK on healthcare, education, roads, rail, infrastructure spending and the services received. Immigration there is always extremely low.......coincidence?

 

I would rather be in the UK where we have already a good mix of everything already. Yes its not perfect but we have a mix of many good aspects.

 

My big issues is yes thing can be improved, yes this government is pretty damn awful. But things are not terrible, they could be worse. The way to make things better is not for my a far left socialist government. A labour party led my a competent centre left front bench maybe but not this bunch of incoherent clowns. The fact they are only 2 points ahead after the calamity that is the May Government shows what a disaster they are.

[Fox Ulike]

9 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I guess it depends on the individual. If the life is better away from France then I suspect they would live away from France. If I had the money to get away from the UK under a Corbyn government I certainly would. It would only be a matter of time before this country becomes a 3rd rate socialist hell hole under that government, basically when we run out of money.

OK. So you don't know. I don't know either. Which is fine. It's not our job to know. You should though question what you're told by politicians. All of them (not just Corbyn) Don't let them lead you by the nose.

 

The French PM though, really ought to know. It is his job. How many of those 10,000 people have actually left and how many are pretending to have left.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

7 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

It's fine if you want to argue that the French top tax rate which I believe was 75%, was too high. I'm under no illusions that there is a point at which tax becomes too high. The question is, where is the optimal point? There are examples of countries with higher tax that are more successul than we are. Are there any examples of countries with lower tax who are more successul than we are?

Most of the Middle East has low tax, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE,

 

Are they successful, don't know certainly questionable in some  regimes. But generally a lot of wealthy people.

 

Singapore is possible a good example again I don't know the full ins and outs of their state funding. Luxembourg is a very nice place to with low tax. Canada has pretty lows rates of tax, some areas have 0% corporation tax. Hong Kong is still low tax very attractive to the financial sector and a competitor for the city jobs our economy rightly or wrongly relies on.