Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rincewind]

Hindsight is wonderful isn't it. The above is an example of someone doing what others have advised and coming off worse. If she had turned the job down she may have regarded as unambitious  Then overlooked if a similar opportunity arose locally or a place not as expensive to live with an improved salary.

I wonder how many people on here pay for their car on a finance deal. I would think only a few could pay cash for a new one every couple of years. Or maybe the car belongs to the company they work for. If they left to improve themselves their ne job may not come with a car.

[katieakita]

In fairness to Ian Duncan Smith he has called for a Post Bank to work along side credit unions in helping those normally financially excluded in getting access to affordable borrowing sadly because successive governments have failed to bring the Post Office to account this looks unlikely until the current government decides what it is going to do in the future funding of the Post Office.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Oh dear. Maybot surely can't survive much longer with so many briefing against government strategy. 

 

Brexit plans could fall apart 'like a chocolate orange', says auditor general

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/13/brexit-plans-fall-apart-chocolate-orange-auditor-general

 

The BBC cover this, too, but place more emphasis on the massive practical problems associated with the new Customs Declaration Service: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40585744

 

"The UK's new system for handling customs checks may not be ready by the time it leaves the EU, the public spending watchdog has warned.

The National Audit Office said taxes might not be collected properly, international trade could be hampered and the UK's reputation damaged unless proper contingencies were in place.

Its head also raised fears about "vague" exit plans in Whitehall".

 

Plans for the new Customs Declaration Service were made before the referendum but the new system wasn't due to be introduced until after March 2019. When the Brexit vote happened, the change was brought forward to January 2019. Maybe a post-2019 transitional period will be agreed or a Brexit deal done early, but neither looks very likely yet. Otherwise, what chance that this system will be ready to go if Brexit happens in March 2019? The introduction of such new systems tends to generate delays and problems......which could have a devastating impact if this system is needed by March 2019 and isn't in place.

 

Some of the figures make this clear:

"Revenue & Customs (HMRC) estimates this will mean the number of annual customs declarations will rise from 55 million to 255 million after March 2019, with an estimated 180,000 traders making customs declarations for the first time. The ageing system being replaced could cope with only 100 million declarations, the NAO said. Its report said progress had been made in moving to the new system, but that there was still a "significant amount of work to complete".

 

Imagine the administrative burden of 180,000 traders making customs declarations, for starters. 

 

The increase from 55m declarations to 255m post-Brexit seemed very high at first, but probably makes sense. After all, 53% of our imports come from the EU and currently don't need to be declared, plus a few more from Turkey (in Customs Union). That alone would more than double the number of declarations. Then, I suppose shipments from further afield  tend to be much larger by average volume/value: e.g. massive oil shipments from Saudi, gas from Russia, bulk shipments of raw materials from other continents. Whereas a lot of small/medium-sized traders arrange frequent smaller shipments from Europe, but no further afield: e.g. my mate the florist who imports bulbs/flowers from Holland to order.

 

Quite apart from the administrative/commercial nightmare if this system isn't ready, apparently £700bn of UK-EU trade in goods (plus external trade) and £34bn of revenue receipts depend on this system working. 

Edited 13 July 2017 by Alf Bentley

[Innovindil]

38 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The BBC cover this, too, but place more emphasis on the massive practical problems associated with the new Customs Declaration Service: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40585744

 

"The UK's new system for handling customs checks may not be ready by the time it leaves the EU, the public spending watchdog has warned.

The National Audit Office said taxes might not be collected properly, international trade could be hampered and the UK's reputation damaged unless proper contingencies were in place.

Its head also raised fears about "vague" exit plans in Whitehall".

 

Plans for the new Customs Declaration Service were made before the referendum but the new system wasn't due to be introduced until after March 2019. When the Brexit vote happened, the change was brought forward to January 2019. Maybe a post-2019 transitional period will be agreed or a Brexit deal done early, but neither looks very likely yet. Otherwise, what chance that this system will be ready to go if Brexit happens in March 2019? The introduction of such new systems tends to generate delays and problems......which could have a devastating impact if this system is needed by March 2019 and isn't in place.

 

Some of the figures make this clear:

"Revenue & Customs (HMRC) estimates this will mean the number of annual customs declarations will rise from 55 million to 255 million after March 2019, with an estimated 180,000 traders making customs declarations for the first time. The ageing system being replaced could cope with only 100 million declarations, the NAO said. Its report said progress had been made in moving to the new system, but that there was still a "significant amount of work to complete".

 

Imagine the administrative burden of 180,000 traders making customs declarations, for starters. 

 

The increase from 55m declarations to 255m post-Brexit seemed very high at first, but probably makes sense. After all, 53% of our imports come from the EU and currently don't need to be declared, plus a few more from Turkey (in Customs Union). That alone would more than double the number of declarations. Then, I suppose shipments from further afield  tend to be much larger by average volume/value: e.g. massive oil shipments from Saudi, gas from Russia, bulk shipments of raw materials from other continents. Whereas a lot of small/medium-sized traders arrange frequent smaller shipments from Europe, but no further afield: e.g. my mate the florist who imports bulbs/flowers from Holland to order.

 

Quite apart from the administrative/commercial nightmare if this system isn't ready, apparently £700bn of UK-EU trade in goods (plus external trade) and £34bn of revenue receipts depend on this system working. 

Responding to the report, HMRC said: "The Customs Declaration Service is on track for delivery by January 2019 and will support international trade once the UK leaves the European Union.

 

"We took the decision to bring in a new declaration system before the EU referendum, but the service remains fully capable of dealing with how the UK's exit from the EU will impact on customs declarations at the border."

 

So HMRC says it will be able to cope? Or am I misreading? 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

Responding to the report, HMRC said: "The Customs Declaration Service is on track for delivery by January 2019 and will support international trade once the UK leaves the European Union.

 

"We took the decision to bring in a new declaration system before the EU referendum, but the service remains fully capable of dealing with how the UK's exit from the EU will impact on customs declarations at the border."

 

So HMRC says it will be able to cope? Or am I misreading? 

 

I find the HMRC statement unclear. Are they saying that the new system will definitely be ready or that the old system will cope, if necessary? The words "the service remains fully capable of dealing with..." suggest the latter.

 

Yet the National Audit Office has specifically said that post-Brexit there would be about 255m customs declarations, but that the old system (currently handling 55m) could only cope with 100m. They don't seem to be querying the ability of the new system to handle 255m declarations, but are questioning whether it is likely to be ready by March 2019.

 

It's like the auditors telling a firm that there is a major problem with their accounts that risks causing a catastrophe in 20 months time - and the firm responding that there is no problem.

 

There are ways in which there might be no problem: e.g. if we don't leave the Customs Union (but we currently plan to do so - and our ability to make new trade deals depends on us doing so) or if the Brexit process is extended by a transitional period beyond March 2019 (but that will depend on deals being done over the "divorce bill" and other issues, where the 2 parties are currently miles apart).

 

There will be brinksmanship in the Brexit negotiations and the possibility that there will be no deal or that any deal may not be finalised until March 2019. So, HMRC will have to plan on the basis that we're leaving in March 2019 and that the new system needs to be in place by then (unless they're questioning the Auditor's view that the old system couldn't cope). New government I.T. systems don't have a great track record for problems & delays.

[katieakita]

19 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Responding to the report, HMRC said: "The Customs Declaration Service is on track for delivery by January 2019 and will support international trade once the UK leaves the European Union.

 

"We took the decision to bring in a new declaration system before the EU referendum, but the service remains fully capable of dealing with how the UK's exit from the EU will impact on customs declarations at the border."

 

So HMRC says it will be able to cope? Or am I misreading? 

History suggests otherwise, HMRC seem to have discarded many staff who could do the job and kept management who cannot

[katieakita]

Might add they probably have an incredibly expensive computer system which will not be fit for purpose

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, katieakita said:

History suggests otherwise, HMRC seem to have discarded many staff who could do the job and kept management who cannot

 

Indeed. We've been running down civil service numbers for years as we didn't like all that "red tape". Now we're leaving the EU, partly because we don't like all that "Brussels red tape".

In doing so, particularly if we leave the Customs Union, we'll be creating masses of extra "red tape" at a national level......and might need to employ a lot of extra "red tape" people to deal with it. 

 

[Strokes]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Indeed. We've been running down civil service numbers for years as we didn't like all that "red tape". Now we're leaving the EU, partly because we don't like all that "Brussels red tape".

In doing so, particularly if we leave the Customs Union, we'll be creating masses of extra "red tape" at a national level......and might need to employ a lot of extra "red tape" people to deal with it. 

 

Still that should please you guys, you love civil service jobs being created.

Brexit uniting the nation 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Still that should please you guys, you love civil service jobs being created.

Brexit uniting the nation 

 

I might apply for a job myself. Language skills (about the only thing I have to offer) might come in handy dealing with foreign importers - and I was briefly employed by the civil service, including Customs, 28-31 years ago. 

Or I could offer to provide my services as an overpaid private consultant, as the private sector is always more efficient. 

Someone always has to "have a good war". 

[nnfox]

11 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Thanks for letting me in on the little secret mate 

Now I'm going to sound REALLY insensitive...

 

I'm sorry that your debt was brought on through splitting with your partner. But that's not the fault of the Tories or the economy, that's because you couldn't make your relationship work.

 

I know there's lots of reasons why people get into debt - shit happens and that's life.

 

If peoples outgoings exceed their income then maybe they need to focus on increasing their income. Educate yourself, better yourself, train, read, graft, research, apply for better paying jobs, take a risk, set up your own business, reach your potential in life. 

 

"If it's to be, it's up to me" as some wise man once said...

You are totally right.  It is nice to hear someone promote the possibility of expanding ones income, instead of cutting expenses.  it is why I get up at 5.30 every morning and study for an hour or two before I go to work, then do another couple of hours in the evening after the children have gone to bed.  Right now, the price I have to pay is that I miss out on the daily conversations in the office about Love Island.  #priceworthpaying

 

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

You're assuming that a.) bad luck and b.) other peoples decisions have no bearing on the life and economic status of an individual here, I think.

 

That's a rather dangerous assumption and more dangerous still to assume that the person involved should carry the can for it 100%.

There are always circumstances beyond people's control, I get that.  But by and large, people should take responsibility for their own life, there is too much tolerence of people getting away with blaming others for their own problems.  You have to take responsibility for getting out of the whole, regardless of how you ended up in it.  I get blaming others for where you are, but if you are able, then you should 100% take ownership of your future.

 

10 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

I agree with your point you have tried to make...but money lenders/payday lenders, though an unfortunate uncontrolled business,

has been a scourge for 1000s Of years. They have hit all levels of society, but like a 1000 years c ago, so long as people do live

Over their means, and their wants are immediate, then overground underground, from banks to loan sharks, those lenders will

Carry on strutting their stuff....

2 simple examples...The best TVs, seem to be a must, plus the idea(Not fact)   that every houshold has a PC, or "mobilephones"

are easy assets to acquire but not to pay for..!!!  

Not forgetting some parents, dont know how to say NO, to their little angels, and to themselves.

All these reasons to get on social media and have the best 'mode' clothes, because of peer pressure, is what put many people

i n debt. 

 

Todays must haves, are really not affordable, we just pretend they are...then struggle at months and years end.

Plus the drive to have the best, pretending its not really too expensive.

Plus anything from 30-70 quid a month out of the wages ,maintaining to keep in touch, or on social media, not daring

to say ..we cant really afford that..!!!..

I was considered while working, an IT specialist...BUT My kids still had to buy and Maintain their own  PCs or phones..and the

new digi cameras...Donations at xmas and Birthdays.lost techi equipment, they started all over again...

No loans, no Supported bank credit for their Teki pasttimes.Only Educational , tips and suggestions...

Austerity, but we still go out and demand the rights to lend money for the unnecessary items in life..

 

Yes.  I agree.  I once heard someone talk about in the past, if you reached zero, then you were finished and you had to start again.  Nowadays you can whistle straight past zero and keep going, no problem.  I fell into this trap a long time ago and am still paying for it now.  It is my fault, nobody elses.  My life back then was focussed on purchasing the perception of wealth, instead of being wealthy, it boils down to very poor decision making.  Now, I make much better decisions, but the last few years have been tough and I am still saddled with the poor decisions of the past.

 

I honestly believe that Personal Finance and Wealth Creation should be taught on the National Curriculum - kids would love it and it would be much more useful than History or Drama.

 

10 hours ago, toddybad said:

I think we're missing the point on debt. It isn't about individual decisions, debts, problems or inadequacies. 

The issue is a system that has been set up to cause increased personal debt. 

 

The only other point I'd make is a response to the point Izzy made about people seeking to increase their income and reach their potential. Firstly, I could take many jobs that would pay me more but which would be doing exactly the opposite of letting me reach my potential. Secondly, if the entire public service did this you'd have problems. The public service has a far higher number of highly qualified staff tan the private sector and many, like me, could earn far more in the private sector. We stay because public sector work is about more than just the numbers in the pay packet. That doesn't, however, mean that we can't complain when we are treated unfairly over pay. This is the problem with the whole theory of markets and Tory thinking - society is worth more than just money. 

I agree with this to a degree too.  I do think that successive governments have enjoyed increased living standards over the last 20 years, but this has been more about easier access to credit on a personal level than better paid jobs.  Effectively, the lending companies have bailed the government out and papered over the cracks.

 

Your point about public sector is valid too.  I know lots of people in the public sector that are at the end of their tether, and now they are starting to jump ship.  A good friend of mine was a police officer with about 13 years experience.  She was a detective in the fraud department.  The hours she worked was not conducive to a happy home life, at any one time she would have 20-25 active, complex investigations to manage, from time to time she had to work nights which was not part of her normal duties and getting time off was very difficult.   Now she has taken her experience and works for a bank, investigating fraud.  She works from home 3 days a week, largely sets her own hours, has a greatly reduced workload, less pressure and gets paid more.  She hung on as long as she could but in the end, the sums just didn't add up so she left.  With the cuts to training budgets and recruitment over the years, there is no ready made replacement for her, so her workload just gets added to the colleagues she left behind.  Not good.

[Captain...]

13 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

If peoples outgoings exceed their income then maybe they need to focus on increasing their income. Educate yourself, better yourself, train, read, graft, research, apply for better paying jobs, take a risk, set up your own business, reach your potential in life. 

Just re-reading this, what you suggest makes sense, but if you are currently in debt and spending more than you earn how many of those things are free and how many are time consuming and going to put you further into debt?

 

Graft, ok that is a given, but getting a better education, better qualifications, even just self improvement, learning a language/new skills, none of these things are free. Even with a ton of "free resources" on the internet you still need access to the internet and access to these resources and if you are serious about any of these things you are better off paying for a proper class/course.

 

You also advise taking a risk or setting up your own business, these are exactly how so many people end up in debt, all small businesses need capital to start out, the rewards are potentially huge, but the consequences could be crippling debt and bankruptcy.

[Guest]

Where nhs staff are at this point

 

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

11 hours ago, toddybad said:

I think we're missing the point on debt. It isn't about individual decisions, debts, problems or inadequacies. 

The issue is a system that has been set up to cause increased personal debt. 

 

The only other point I'd make is a response to the point Izzy made about people seeking to increase their income and reach their potential. Firstly, I could take many jobs that would pay me more but which would be doing exactly the opposite of letting me reach my potential. Secondly, if the entire public service did this you'd have problems. The public service has a far higher number of highly qualified staff tan the private sector and many, like me, could earn far more in the private sector. We stay because public sector work is about more than just the numbers in the pay packet. That doesn't, however, mean that we can't complain when we are treated unfairly over pay. This is the problem with the whole theory of markets and Tory thinking - society is worth more than just money. 

I do not necessarily think it has been setup to cause increased personal debt. Obviously there are very unfortunate people in this country that genuinely do need help and they should get it. We do often let them down and this does need addressing, its happened for many years and throwing more money at it wont help.

 

Some people chose to increase their own debt to buy a new car or the latest iPhone, a big TV or holiday abroad when actually they don't need that to live. People struggle to differentiate between necessities and luxuries. Education at school would be a good idea.

 

The public sector does have some very highly skilled members of staff, there are also some absolutely incompetent ones, generally in middle management protecting their own and like minded jobs by getting rid of frontline staff to save 15k a year. I've seen it happen, 1st hand at a college I worked at where the management got rid of 3 very useful technicians on low wages to save money instead of getting rid of themselves.

 

I agree the creation of money may have been a bad thing but  we are kind of stuck with it now, I would much rather live in a log cabin, grow vegetables and trade them with another local. Society may well be worth more than money but the trouble is you have to fund it from somewhere. We have a choice as a nation - we have to start paying more if we want more, all of us!! this is where the Lib dems are honest! but often honesty doesn't win votes. Fact is things have changed since the welfare state was introduced, population has increased, life expectancy has increased, technology has increased, it all costs a lot more. We either need to accept a reduced service or pay up, and not just the rich.

 

My big problem is that Labour want to punish those who employ, in the long term this will be bad for all. Corbyn and McDonnell have described it as 'a class war' that's exactly what these lunatics want. Everything in their Manifesto is a complete unfunded lie that they can never fund. Why not just admit we all need to pay more, I may actually start to give them some fiscal credibility then........of course though no free unicorns would not turn the heads of the young!

[Guest BlueBrett]

I was thinking the other day..imagine if a team made up of management consultants,quantity surveyors, bid writers and whatever other experts were required were tasked with creating a bid to take over the functions of every single person currently employed in the UK. I genuinely think that there are so many inefficiencies, do nothing jobs, competency issues, clock-watchers and jobs for the boys/kids/connections out there that even with a healthy profit margin built in they would probably end up quoting a price of less than 10% of the national wage bill. In theory, we could probably outsource the ACTUAL output of our entire workforce to a firm with just a couple million employees. Not really a political comment just an observation about the hypocrisy of always talking about improving education/training and helping people to develop skills with a view to promoting a dynamic, efficient, competitive economy when in reality we all feast on the very fat we pretend to want to trim. I've just been paid to write this, the government will be taxing the time I spent and most of you are probably getting paid to read it.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I do not necessarily think it has been setup to cause increased personal debt. Obviously there are very unfortunate people in this country that genuinely do need help and they should get it. We do often let them down and this does need addressing, its happened for many years and throwing more money at it wont help.

 

Some people chose to increase their own debt to buy a new car or the latest iPhone, a big TV or holiday abroad when actually they don't need that to live. People struggle to differentiate between necessities and luxuries. Education at school would be a good idea.

 

The public sector does have some very highly skilled members of staff, there are also some absolutely incompetent ones, generally in middle management protecting their own and like minded jobs by getting rid of frontline staff to save 15k a year. I've seen it happen, 1st hand at a college I worked at where the management got rid of 3 very useful technicians on low wages to save money instead of getting rid of themselves.

 

I agree the creation of money may have been a bad thing but  we are kind of stuck with it now, I would much rather live in a log cabin, grow vegetables and trade them with another local. Society may well be worth more than money but the trouble is you have to fund it from somewhere. We have a choice as a nation - we have to start paying more if we want more, all of us!! this is where the Lib dems are honest! but often honesty doesn't win votes. Fact is things have changed since the welfare state was introduced, population has increased, life expectancy has increased, technology has increased, it all costs a lot more. We either need to accept a reduced service or pay up, and not just the rich.

 

My big problem is that Labour want to punish those who employ, in the long term this will be bad for all. Corbyn and McDonnell have described it as 'a class war' that's exactly what these lunatics want. Everything in their Manifesto is a complete unfunded lie that they can never fund. Why not just admit we all need to pay more, I may actually start to give them some fiscal credibility then........of course though no free unicorns would not turn the heads of the young!

I don't particularly disagree with much of what you say. The last paragraph though...... you've given a thoughtful opinion through the rest of your post but you've missed an opportunity to do the same in that last paragraph.

It is not punishment to expect an employer to pay a full time member of staff enough money for them to reasonably live on without the state having to subsidise the employer paying poverty wages. In work benefits are a direct affront to the idea of a free market economy so loved by the right.

 

I think tax could be a bit higher and i also think if we determined priorities properly that we could absolutely fund everything we wanted to. I'm unconvinced it's offering unicorns to say this. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

39 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I don't particularly disagree with much of what you say. The last paragraph though...... you've given a thoughtful opinion through the rest of your post but you've missed an opportunity to do the same in that last paragraph.

It is not punishment to expect an employer to pay a full time member of staff enough money for them to reasonably live on without the state having to subsidise the employer paying poverty wages. In work benefits are a direct affront to the idea of a free market economy so loved by the right.

 

I think tax could be a bit higher and i also think if we determined priorities properly that we could absolutely fund everything we wanted to. I'm unconvinced it's offering unicorns to say this. 

What is a reasonable amount though and what is classified as a reasonable living as it seems some have different opinions on reasonable? I cant help thinking that some people (not all) spending choices are not that good. For a single person it should be possible to live, eat and provide energy for a home on a minimum wage. It may not be possible to go on holidays, go out drinking, have meals out and take aways, a sky subscription, smoke, a large tv, the latest iPhone, a daily Starbucks, a Guardian subscription. I am completely against in work benefits but I cant help thinking their introduction in the first place was the mistake which has encourage employers to pay the bare minimum.

 

What Corbyn is offering is not tax being a bit higher, its a lot higher for business and a lot higher for those on over 80k, he will never ever get that money so he is offering a mythical beast. The Lib Dems propose which I would agree with and extra 1p per pound for every income tax band, this would generate a lot of revenue, cost about £33 extra in tax for someone on 15k. Of course this policy often is not popular and the Lib Dems have touted it for some time and won very few votes. Labour on the other hand just lie about free stuff but with no real plan about funding, they use their ideology to rich bash and start class wars, which obviously the momentum members, unions and rebellious students love, I personally would have a lot more respect for Corbyn and Labour if they were honest about tax. Of course the other problem with Labours policy is that they welcome mass unskilled immigration, the overwhelming of public services now is a result of that, they let millions into the country but never built the infrastructure to cope. Corbyn now wants more immigration and is promising more money he doesn't have to an integration fund.  

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

What is a reasonable amount though and what is classified as a reasonable living as it seems some have different opinions on reasonable? I cant help thinking that some people (not all) spending choices are not that good. For a single person it should be possible to live, eat and provide energy for a home on a minimum wage. It may not be possible to go on holidays, go out drinking, have meals out and take aways, a sky subscription, smoke, a large tv, the latest iPhone, a daily Starbucks, a Guardian subscription. I am completely against in work benefits but I cant help thinking their introduction in the first place was the mistake which has encourage employers to pay the bare minimum.

 

What Corbyn is offering is not tax being a bit higher, its a lot higher for business and a lot higher for those on over 80k, he will never ever get that money so he is offering a mythical beast. The Lib Dems propose which I would agree with and extra 1p per pound for every income tax band, this would generate a lot of revenue, cost about £33 extra in tax for someone on 15k. Of course this policy often is not popular and the Lib Dems have touted it for some time and won very few votes. Labour on the other hand just lie about free stuff but with no real plan about funding, they use their ideology to rich bash and start class wars, which obviously the momentum members, unions and rebellious students love, I personally would have a lot more respect for Corbyn and Labour if they were honest about tax. Of course the other problem with Labours policy is that they welcome mass unskilled immigration, the overwhelming of public services now is a result of that, they let millions into the country but never built the infrastructure to cope. Corbyn now wants more immigration and is promising more money he doesn't have to an integration fund.  

What troubles me is the tax argument essentially says that rich people and business owners are dishonest so we have to charge then less tax to appease them. 

 

Whether though taxation, borrowing or a combination we do need to start spending more. It really is worth spending more money now to bring about greater growth. Ive just seen (for some reason i cant copy them over to here) office of budgetry responsibility figures showing that if gdp and receipt growth rises only 0.1% slower than predicted then the national debt in 50 years would be 50% higher than it would otherwise be. Now many of you hate the high national debt so I'd have thought this sort of statistic would lead you to conclude that growth is more important to debt reduction than cutting immediate payments. The OBR stats were provided to explain why the government should accept a high eu divorce bill if it allows growth to stay on track. The argument is equally valid elsewhere though, spending that encourages growth is a good thing and the growth more than covers the costs. 

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

My big problem is that Labour want to punish those who employ, in the long term this will be bad for all. Corbyn and McDonnell have described it as 'a class war' that's exactly what these lunatics want. Everything in their Manifesto is a complete unfunded lie that they can never fund. Why not just admit we all need to pay more, I may actually start to give them some fiscal credibility then........of course though no free unicorns would not turn the heads of the young!

Oh you silly sausage, tax isn't punishment. All companies benefit from trading in this country, from our infrastructure, from our skilled and healthy workforce, a virtually corruption free market place and our reputation as one of the financial and commercial centres of the world. Taxation helps maintain that, it is in the company's interest to pay tax to help maintain that. It should be a priority to UK companies that the country's infrastructure is maintained, the transport and communication networks. That the marketplace remains open and competitive and government bodies continue to monitor and regulate it. The government that is currently cutting and cutting these services to save money. Without these services they can't function successfully and companies will not walk away from that for the sake of a few extra % of profit (profit they are maximising in part thanks to the tax we all pay) to ensure they continue to benefit from one of the worlds biggest markets.

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

What troubles me is the tax argument essentially says that rich people and business owners are dishonest so we have to charge then less tax to appease them. 

 

Whether though taxation, borrowing or a combination we do need to start spending more. It really is worth spending more money now to bring about greater growth. Ive just seen (for some reason i cant copy them over to here) office of budgetry responsibility figures showing that if gdp and receipt growth rises only 0.1% slower than predicted then the national debt in 50 years would be 50% higher than it would otherwise be. Now many of you hate the high national debt so I'd have thought this sort of statistic would lead you to conclude that growth is more important to debt reduction than cutting immediate payments. The OBR stats were provided to explain why the government should accept a high eu divorce bill if it allows growth to stay on track. The argument is equally valid elsewhere though, spending that encourages growth is a good thing and the growth more than covers the costs. 

Not dishonest but they already pay a lot more than the average person, whichever way you look at it 30% of £1 million is a lot higher than 30% of 25k. If we want a 'fair system' why is it fair for them to pay even more when they already pay more anyway. I think there is pretty good evidence that higher tax rates drive down revenues due to people avoiding it by whatever means, paying accountants or leaving the country. France was a prime example.

 

I would argue that spending doesn't necessarily encourage growth, especially in the UK where we have a massive trade deficit. People buying TVs made in Japan and Cars made in Germany doesn't do a lot for our economy. If we spend Government money than every effort needs to be made to find British suppliers, this is where I do agree with renationalising (or at least ensuring franchises are British run) the railways as essentially we have German and French state rail companies making profits here and investing them back home, its absolutely insane.

 

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

Oh you silly sausage, tax isn't punishment. All companies benefit from trading in this country, from our infrastructure, from our skilled and healthy workforce, a virtually corruption free market place and our reputation as one of the financial and commercial centres of the world. Taxation helps maintain that, it is in the company's interest to pay tax to help maintain that. It should be a priority to UK companies that the country's infrastructure is maintained, the transport and communication networks. That the marketplace remains open and competitive and government bodies continue to monitor and regulate it. The government that is currently cutting and cutting these services to save money. Without these services they can't function successfully and companies will not walk away from that for the sake of a few extra % of profit (profit they are maximising in part thanks to the tax we all pay) to ensure they continue to benefit from one of the worlds biggest markets.

 

 

I know tax is not a punishment, what is a punishment is high tax. People are advocating a fair system then say lets take more of a rich persons wage or more of a companies profits. Companies already pay a lot of corporation tax, its heading for record receipt levels. A low corporation tax is good as it means other companies may move their head offices here to pay our lower rates of tax. Business also make indirect investment in the economy for instance my business recently paid for a new piece of fibre to be installed at quite a cost, others can now benefit, we are looking at doing the same in our German office too. We also have apprentices and trainees on site and in offices.

 

Again if companies wont be scared of tax 'because we are one of the biggest economies' then why would Brexit bother them? We are still the same market place, and will remain one of the biggest economies.

Edited 13 July 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Strokes]

5 hours ago, toddybad said:

What troubles me is the tax argument essentially says that rich people and business owners are dishonest so we have to charge then less tax to appease them. 

 

Whether though taxation, borrowing or a combination we do need to start spending more. It really is worth spending more money now to bring about greater growth. Ive just seen (for some reason i cant copy them over to here) office of budgetry responsibility figures showing that if gdp and receipt growth rises only 0.1% slower than predicted then the national debt in 50 years would be 50% higher than it would otherwise be. Now many of you hate the high national debt so I'd have thought this sort of statistic would lead you to conclude that growth is more important to debt reduction than cutting immediate payments. The OBR stats were provided to explain why the government should accept a high eu divorce bill if it allows growth to stay on track. The argument is equally valid elsewhere though, spending that encourages growth is a good thing and the growth more than covers the costs. 

It's not just rich people that are dishonest, most people are. There is less scope to avoid tax the less you pay and also less incentive. If you hiked lower earners tax, the construction trade would be even more open to cash in hand deals. It's how most people are, whether we admit it or not.

[Kopfkino]

Quite frankly, if you want people to pay tax, you should hide the fact they are paying tax. That and make it difficult to avoid paying. Maybe the Nordic's do have less of a problem paying tax than us but it's not necessarily the case. In 2015, people in Sweden were asked to estimate the levels of tax, both direct and indirect, they pay. The average respondent believed it to be 34% when in reality it was 52%. This because Sweden hides a lot of its taxes so that the public can't see it. The joys of indirect taxation.

Edited 13 July 2017 by KingGTF

[DJ Barry Hammond]

4 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Not dishonest but they already pay a lot more than the average person, whichever way you look at it 30% of £1 million is a lot higher than 30% of 25k. 

The amount of 30% may be a lot higher in your example, but a reduction of £7,500 is likely to mean a lot more to the person earning £25k than a person losing £300,000 from their initial million. 

 

But hey, the fact we have wages as far apart as this is a problem in itself. 

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

The amount of 30% may be a lot higher in your example, but a reduction of £7,500 is likely to mean a lot more to the person earning £25k than a person losing £300,000 from their initial million. 

 

But hey, the fact we have wages as far apart as this is a problem in itself. 

It's great to be high your high horses about wage disparity but by following football we are contributing to an industry that is just that. 

I see people jumping on catchy bandwagons forcing companies not to advertise in hateful papers being relatively successful, maybe we should start boycotting companies that pay sky high wages to directors but employ low skilled staff on minimum wage? Right so who is up for boycotting the city, they only pay minimum to the kids in the megastore?  

Edited 13 July 2017 by Strokes

[DJ Barry Hammond]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It's great to be high your high horses about wage disparity but by following football we are contributing to an industry that is just that. 

I see people jumping on catchy bandwagons forcing companies not to advertise in hateful papers being relatively successful, maybe we should start boycotting companies that pay sky high wages to directors but employ low skilled staff on minimum wage? Right so who is up for boycotting the city, they only pay minimum to the kids in the megastore?  

 

Well as football fans, we should all be boycotting the game - because fans have been taken for a ride. It could even be the cause that the powers that be in football are the ones responsible for projecting the notion of "the true fan" that goes to every game etc, because doing so and giving being a fan a competitive element can only strengthen their bottom line.