Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[katieakita]

Corbyn and the left are proposing a Post Bank an idea supported by many Tories yet many on the right seem so dead against something that works in every country it operates in and generates income for the government of the day. Tony Benn did pretty well running a Post Bank back in the day

[Guest Foxin_mad]

7 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

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.

I do question what I am told by politicians, I question what I am told by everyone which is why I get into so much trouble it seems

 

I question whether a far left socialist government spending money it doesn't have and taxing those who provide employment and who have spending power and disposable income to keep some service industry jobs running is the correct way forward.

 

Yes we need to help people at the bottom generate more wealth the best way to do that is to get them working and keep them working. To encourage business to help those who work hard develop and grow and make more money.

 

Forcing peoples hand and redistributing peoples money will remove goodwill IMO.

[Rogstanley]

22 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Why does it keep coming back to other countries? 

 

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

Because what happens in other countries is a good reference point as to the success of our policies.

[David Guiza]

14 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

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.

I'm sorry but they aren't a far left socialist government at all. The ridiculous exaggerations, on both sides, really do not help matters. Just because he isn't a Tory in a red tie like Blair does not mean he wants to bring back the gulags and the NKVD. 

[Rogstanley]

22 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

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.

The Nordics are ahead of us on pretty much every measure I believe.

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

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.

That was written in 2013 and a few of those things have already been implemented by the Tory government you say I shouldn't vote for to stop companies avoiding tax! (2,4,5,8)

 

It's an interesting read but again, not a single one of those measures there will stop someone wealthy wanting to put money into an offshore account, not a single one. Some of it it ludicrous as well, I mean look at the first thing, you would be shutting down Leicester City Football Club for a start given our accounts are based in the BVI. Number nine would mean any World bank couldn't operate here unless they complied with us, fantasy land,

Number 12 would kill off billions of pounds worth of legal tax given Switzerland would become a far better option

 

I don't think the Staggers have ever declared itself or been considered by others an expert on practical solutions to tax avoidance either.

 

If we want to solve tax avoidance the whole World is going to have to do it, no individual nation has a chance of doing a thing and the havens themselves will fight to the death to keep them. The idea voting Labour is going to help this cause is as laughable as anything I've read for years, these people would have McDonnell over a barrel with the investment he wants to implement.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

6 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I'm sorry but they aren't a far left socialist government at all. The ridiculous exaggerations, on both sides, really do not help matters. Just because he isn't a Tory in a red tie like Blair does not mean he wants to bring back the gulags and the NKVD. 

Who knows what he would do if he got into power. I wouldn't say its an exaggeration to be honest.

 

We have a man who was a militant in charge, a complete far left lunatic as the shadow chancellor, a complete bunch of far left misfits it the shadow cabinet. I would say they are about as far left as UKIP are far right and we all know the hate those jokers get.

 

If they want to present as a middle ground party then change the leadership, change the front bench. Stop letting the unions chose the most left wing candidate.

 

Stop allowing the hate fuelled Momentum to go around calling people scum and threatening them. Its a very nasty very dangerous political movement.

[Guest MattP]

33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

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.

I rate Maitlis and Wark but not keen on Davis, I want to think that the former would have noticed this last year but she clearly didn't looking at her reaction. I agree, I still don't know how that can get through numerous people without anyone managing to notice, Ian Katz is the editor now isn't he? Buck has to stop with him.

 

P.S Daily Politics well worth a watch today if you have missed it, Nigel Dodds is the guest and they did about 20 minutes on the Irish border/customs etc with him and Owen Smith. Very informative.

[Rogstanley]

19 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

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.

Middle East, very low tax, a lot of wealth, a large chunk at the bottom end of their society treated like third class citizens, living in makeshift work camps (effectively slums), high numbers of deaths and serious injuries whie they work for gangmasters on practically zero wages.

 

Similarly but less extreme Singapore and Hong Kong very very little in respect of a welfare state and have among the highest levels of inequality in the world. Great if you're one of the few with a lot of money, terrible if you're not.

 

Canada - i'd like to see evidence that states with lower taxes do better on any measure than states with higher taxes. The data and studies from the US that I've already provided show that not to be the case.

 

Luxembourg - just a smal tax haven, not really a model that's going to work for us.

[SMX11]

I don't understand how the Scandinavian countries are somehow examples of 'socialism' working. Most tried socialist policies in the 70's and 80's after about a century of free markets and it nearly ruined them! They are some of the most liberalised economies in the world and have large private participation in education and health. I'd say they are doing well in spite of the high taxes!

[Guest MattP]

47 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

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!

I don't how you can type this out and post it after the last couple of weeks.

 

From the Paradise Papers we found out that the Shadow Chancellors' pension is in a tax haven in Guernsey, a Labour council up North has avoided millions in tax after it used an offshore company to buy a park and the actual Labour HQ is rented from a tax-exempted company in Jersey!

 

What next? Vote King Herod to babysit?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Middle East, very low tax, a lot of wealth, a large chunk at the bottom end of their society treated like third class citizens, living in makeshift work camps (effectively slums), high numbers of deaths and serious injuries whie they work for gangmasters on practically zero wages.

 

Similarly but less extreme Singapore and Hong Kong very very little in respect of a welfare state and have among the highest levels of inequality in the world. Great if you're one of the few with a lot of money, terrible if you're not.

 

Canada - i'd like to see evidence that states with lower taxes do better on any measure than states with higher taxes. The data and studies from the US that I've already provided show that not to be the case.

 

Luxembourg - just a smal tax haven, not really a model that's going to work for us.

So we can pretty much say that the Nordic country model isn't going to work for us as they have very low populations in comparison, with very little immigration and integration issues experienced in the UK.

 

8 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

I don't understand how the Scandinavian countries are somehow examples of 'socialism' working. Most tried socialist policies in the 70's and 80's after about a century of free markets and it nearly ruined them! They are some of the most liberalised economies in the world and have large private participation in education and health. I'd say they are doing well in spite of the high taxes!

As you have mentioned the Nordic model is a fine blend of private and public sector with high taxes. But very difficult to implement  in the UK

 

I think the UK has a pretty good balance already, we have a decent education system, decent hospitals, clean streets, good universities. Yes things could be improved and the best way to do that is a solvent government.

[Guest MattP]

27 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

I don't understand how the Scandinavian countries are somehow examples of 'socialism' working. Most tried socialist policies in the 70's and 80's after about a century of free markets and it nearly ruined them! They are some of the most liberalised economies in the world and have large private participation in education and health. I'd say they are doing well in spite of the high taxes!

Can't remember who it was but someone in the US elections said the greatest con Bernie Sanders pulled was fooling the kids that the Scandic countries were socialist ones.

[Kopfkino]

4 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

So we can pretty much say that the Nordic country model isn't going to work for us as they have very low populations in comparison, with very little immigration and integration issues experienced in the UK.

 

As you have mentioned the Nordic model is a fine blend of private and public sector with high taxes. But very difficult to implement  in the UK

 

I think the UK has a pretty good balance already, we have a decent education system, decent hospitals, clean streets, good universities. Yes things could be improved and the best way to do that is a solvent government.

Except there are now massive problems with this in Sweden and the tide is beginning to turn against such a strong welfare state. Parts of Malmo are really struggling. Particularly as a lot of immigrants are getting trapped in poverty and the effect this is having on the city; the Nordic countries really aren't places you want to be if you're in a minority or a woman in fact. The functioning of their system relies on a homogenous population and a strong shared culture. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

I don't understand how the Scandinavian countries are somehow examples of 'socialism' working. Most tried socialist policies in the 70's and 80's after about a century of free markets and it nearly ruined them! They are some of the most liberalised economies in the world and have large private participation in education and health. I'd say they are doing well in spite of the high taxes!

 

Yep a lot the success of the Nordic countries came because they liberalised early on, moved out of poverty and had a strong market economy. The socialist governments did some good things but the reforms of the 90s to liberalise the economy again were much needed and can be cited as a reason for current 'success'.

Stockholm's startup success is interesting to analyse, certainly one of the reasons for it is the strong safety net provided by the welfare state but also the strong business environment provided. I don't see anything from Corbyn that would replicate anything like Scandinavia, Spotify would probably have been nationalised by now. One thing I find amazing is lefties cream themselves over Scandinavia, but analyse Sweden's health system and it uses a lot more of the private sector than we do. For example, its acceptable for private companies to run hospitals for the state but in this country 95% of people would be crying at the privatisation of our great institution. 

 

Anyone half interested in the Nordic system should read Debunking Utopia. I don't expect everyone to agree and it's fair to pull the points apart but at least it makes you think. A Scandinavian economist once said to Friedman, 'We have no poverty in Scandinavia', to which Friedman replied, 'that's interesting because amongst Scandinavians in America, we have no poverty either'. The author builds on this to show Scandinavians in America have higher living standards than their cousins back home. And it's not because the wealthy migrated as Scandinavian migrants to America tended to be the poorer. 

[Carl the Llama]

Not a political point but what's up with the recent trend for invoking King Herod?  Not seen him mentioned in conversation since way back in Sunday school yet he's been brought up at least half a dozen times in the last few pages. What's brought him to the front of everyone's mind?

[Fox Ulike]

34 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't how you can type this out and post it after the last couple of weeks.

 

From the Paradise Papers we found out that the Shadow Chancellors' pension is in a tax haven in Guernsey, a Labour council up North has avoided millions in tax after it used an offshore company to buy a park and the actual Labour HQ is rented from a tax-exempted company in Jersey!

 

What next? Vote King Herod to babysit?

Whatabout-ism alert! I really don't know why you do this!!

 

The fact that some Labour politicians are also using tax avoidance schemes really doesn't change anything though does it. It's not even fake news. It's irrelevant news!

 

Check out this algorthym:

 

1. Rich donors make sizable contributions to the Conservative Party 
2. Conservative Party turns a blind eye to tax avoidance
3. Rich donors avoid paying tax.
4. Goto Step 1

Ironically, asking King Herod to babysit is exactly appropriate!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Not a political point but what's up with the recent trend for invoking King Herod?  Not seen him mentioned in conversation since way back in Sunday school yet he's been brought up at least half a dozen times in the last few pages. What's brought him to the front of everyone's mind?

We can’t compare anything with hitler or the nazis anymore because of Godwin’s law. Herods all we have left

 

[Fox Ulike]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

I do question what I am told by politicians, I question what I am told by everyone which is why I get into so much trouble it seems

 

I question whether a far left socialist government spending money it doesn't have and taxing those who provide employment and who have spending power and disposable income to keep some service industry jobs running is the correct way forward.

 

Yes we need to help people at the bottom generate more wealth the best way to do that is to get them working and keep them working. To encourage business to help those who work hard develop and grow and make more money.

 

Forcing peoples hand and redistributing peoples money will remove goodwill IMO.

OK now you've just gone off on one!

 

For future reference I don't hold any socialist beliefs. I don't think I do anyway.

 

Just because I think that the Government should make it harder for people to avoid tax, doesn't mean I want "a far left socialist government".

 

Insisting that people pay their tax isn't really a right- or left-wing belief. It's one thing that we should really all agree upon.

 

 

Edited 21 November 2017 by Fox Ulike

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Whatabout-ism alert! I really don't know why you do this!!

 

The fact that some Labour politicians are also using tax avoidance schemes really doesn't change anything though does it. It's not even fake news. It's irrelevant news!

 

Check out this algorthym:

 

1. Rich donors make sizable contributions to the Conservative Party 
2. Conservative Party turns a blind eye to tax avoidance
3. Rich donors avoid paying tax.
4. Goto Step 1

Ironically, asking King Herod to babysit is exactly appropriate!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is it irrelevant, when your solution is to vote Labour? 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Insisting that people pay their tax isn't really a right- or left-wing belief. It's one thing that we should really all agree upon.

Utopia this way??

[Kopfkino]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Utopia this way??

 

? Surely it's this way?

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Whatabout-ism alert! I really don't know why you do this!!

 

The fact that some Labour politicians are also using tax avoidance schemes really doesn't change anything though does it. It's not even fake news. It's irrelevant news!

 

Check out this algorthym:

 

1. Rich donors make sizable contributions to the Conservative Party 
2. Conservative Party turns a blind eye to tax avoidance
3. Rich donors avoid paying tax.
4. Goto Step 1

Ironically, asking King Herod to babysit is exactly appropriate!!

Is every single counter point you don't want to talk about now just going to be shouted down with Whatabout-ism alert, exclamation points and funny faces? I think it's more than fair to mention that a party you think I should vote for to end tax avoidance is one that is actively engaging in tax avoidance right up to the person who would be walking into Downing Street in charge of ending it.

 

Rich donors give money to the Tories for many reasons, some see them as pro-business, some do it for status, some do it because they think their investments are safer, some rich donors also give money to Labour, I'm sure you know who Richard Branson and Alan Sugar are, do they do that because they want to tax dodge? I can assure you no one gives money to a party because they can tax dodge, as I've said before, if a rich donor wants to move his money to a bank account somewhere else in the World they will do whoever runs the country, conspiracy theories add nothing to the debate and you have brought this down to such a simplistic level it belongs in the comments section of a piece on The Canary.

 

The bolded bit is just complete nonsense, the Tories have done more to combat this than any government in our lifetimes, we now collect 93 pence in the pound, one of the smallest tax gaps in the World. The top rate of tax is higher than it was for the vast majority of time it was under Labour.

 

More to go sure and that's why 26,000 people are working in this, but they have been far better at it than the last Labour government and I'm certain they'll be better than it than a front bench whom struggle to book a train seat.

[Rogstanley]

50 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

So we can pretty much say that the Nordic country model isn't going to work for us as they have very low populations in comparison, with very little immigration and integration issues experienced in the UK.

 

As you have mentioned the Nordic model is a fine blend of private and public sector with high taxes. But very difficult to implement  in the UK

 

I think the UK has a pretty good balance already, we have a decent education system, decent hospitals, clean streets, good universities. Yes things could be improved and the best way to do that is a solvent government.

Let's take this back to the start. You lot reckon the UK government being in debt is a massive problem that needs fixing urgently.

 

Your way of doing that is to cut cut cut with little regard for the effects on society.

 

Other people are suggesting we might be able to achieve the desired outcome with fewer negative effects on society by a combination of slightly increased taxes on the wealthy and increased spending in various targeted areas such as infrastructure which we think will not only boost the economy in the short term but also provide long term advantages thus returning the initial investment many times over.

 

Your response to that is to say that we can't increase tax because wealthy people will just abandon their lives, businesses and careers and move abroad. I've provided you reputable sources that show that not to be the case but you've refused to believe them.

 

We've then started talking about the Laffer curve and established that we don't actually know where the optimal point of taxation is. Too low taxes and you don't maximise the take, too high and you push it away. The question is now - where are we on the curve? Too high or too low? To make the case for us being too low, I've provided examples of countries where taxation is higher and the take is also higher. You've provided examples of countries with low tax, but also lower tax take, and questionable societies, which for me doesn't really make a good case for lower taxes at all.

 

Now, after all that, you're saying you think "we have a pretty good balance", and there's no problem after all! Then what was the point of all this?! 

 

:pearsonblowingcheeksoutgif*100:

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

? Surely it's this way?

I’m always getting my left and rights mixed up, that’s why I voted leave, stupid Russians.

[Innovindil]

8 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Let's take this back to the start. You lot reckon the UK government being in debt is a massive problem that needs fixing urgently.

 

Your way of doing that is to cut cut cut with little regard for the effects on society.

 

Other people are suggesting we might be able to achieve the desired outcome with fewer negative effects on society by a combination of slightly increased taxes on the wealthy and increased spending in various targeted areas such as infrastructure which we think will not only boost the economy in the short term but also provide long term advantages thus returning the initial investment many times over.

 

Your response to that is to say that we can't increase tax because wealthy people will just abandon their lives, businesses and careers and move abroad. I've provided you reputable sources that show that not to be the case but you've refused to believe them.

 

We've then started talking about the Laffer curve and established that we don't actually know where the optimal point of taxation is. Too low taxes and you don't maximise the take, too high and you push it away. The question is now - where are we on the curve? Too high or too low? To make the case for us being too low, I've provided examples of countries where taxation is higher and the take is also higher. You've provided examples of countries with low tax, but also lower tax take, and questionable societies, which for me doesn't really make a good case for lower taxes at all.

 

Now, after all that, you're saying you think "we have a pretty good balance", and there's no problem after all! Then what was the point of all this?! 

 

:pearsonblowingcheeksoutgif*100:

1) No, we reckon the debt could become a massive problem and want the government to take steps (like it has been doing) to get towards a more balanced budget. 

 

2) False, for all the bleating and "the sky is falling" reporting, the vast majority of cuts have been absorbed excellently. Excessively spending on public services is daft, the NHS is a blackhole for cash, you can throw as much as you want at it, it will always take more. What I don't want to see is the government spaffing money away on vanity projects just so we can say "look! That train is ours!". Anyone that wants a return to the days of British rail is a melon, for all the ranting about it being in foreign hands, it's provided much better services than it ever did when nationalised, and the vast majority of money it makes goes back into the system. 

 

3) Which is what we all want, but done wisely. Labour isn't just proposing infrastructure investments are they?

 

About the tax takes, I have no idea. It seems odd to want to raise them when the recepts are still rising mind.