2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[MooseBreath]

Not all of their money no. But while there are people who don't have enough money to eat or live under a roof in the world, I think we should be taking money from the very richest and using it to support the very poorest.

Assuming simply giving money to the poor will solve all ttheir problem, what happens when you run out of rich people's money?

[Guest Bilo]

Tax avoidance to me is when someone jumps through loopholes to avoid tax. This isn't like that, there just isn't any tax to pay. Let's not dress this up as something it's not. It's labour proposing a tax on the rich, rich foreigners no less, even though it makes no financial sense, purely because it will appear to a the misguided sense of injustice their core voters feel towards the rich.

I don't adamantly believe that material wealth is the only form of success. I've never said anything like that. I have said that control of the economy should be a priority for any government because without money a government can't do anything useful. But on a personal level I don't believe money is as important as other things in life.

 

Firstly, there are a number of rich people who happen to be foreigners but far from all.

 

James Caan and Lord Ashcroft are two key examples - Duncan Bannatyne refused to enter a business with the former over his non dom status of having over £17m in foreign banks - with the  Chief Exec of HSBC being another, despite living in this country for 12 years and sending his kids to school here.

 

 

Furthermore, we're in the minority on non-doms. Even the USA, hardly a land of rich man bashing, has imposed similar laws to prevent non-doms from moving their money around.

 

It's interesting to note the number of hereditary non-doms as well.

 

This law, as recently as February of this year, has led to some business people moving their wealth to Swiss banks and avoiding paying any tax on it at all. The Goldsmith family are notorious for this kind of money movement, Zac had to give his up when he ran for office, but his brother (and Tory donor) had the entitlement moved onto him.They apparently have £300m in off shore banks.

 

We lose serious money due to non-doms moving their money to banks in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and the BVI etc. 

 

I repeat, this isn't rich man bashing. Most of the EU and the US do not have this non-dom status, with ths US saying that all residents must pay US tax on income and capital gains all over the world. What Miliband is proposing is far from unusual in the world, if anything we're the anomaly for allowing this to go on so long.

[1993fox]

Registered in the British Consulate in Hong Kong to vote, brilliant.

 

UKIP for me. Cue the 'racist!' comments, I'm Asian you know.

[bovril]

Registered in the British Consulate in Hong Kong to vote, brilliant.

 

UKIP for me. Cue the 'racist!' comments, I'm Asian you know.

 

Can Asians not be racist?!

[MooseBreath]

Firstly, there are a number of rich people who happen to be foreigners but far from all.

James Caan and Lord Ashcroft are two key examples - Duncan Bannatyne refused to enter a business with the former over his non dom status of having over £17m in foreign banks - with the Chief Exec of HSBC being another, despite living in this country for 12 years and sending his kids to school here.

Furthermore, we're in the minority on non-doms. Even the USA, hardly a land of rich man bashing, has imposed similar laws to prevent non-doms from moving their money around.

It's interesting to note the number of hereditary non-doms as well.

This law, as recently as February of this year, has led to some business people moving their wealth to Swiss banks and avoiding paying any tax on it at all. The Goldsmith family are notorious for this kind of money movement, Zac had to give his up when he ran for office, but his brother (and Tory donor) had the entitlement moved onto him.They apparently have £300m in off shore banks.

We lose serious money due to non-doms moving their money to banks in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and the BVI etc.

I repeat, this isn't rich man bashing. Most of the EU and the US do not have this non-dom status, with ths US saying that all residents must pay US tax on income and capital gains all over the world. What Miliband is proposing is far from unusual in the world, if anything we're the anomaly for allowing this to go on so long.

Fair enough, I don't know the in's and out's of other country's tax systems. Though I'm sure for every tax they have that we don't, we have a tax that they don't and vice versa.

Your point about "losing serious money due to non-human moving their money to foreign banks" strikes me as inaccurate though. They do pay tax on earnings from this country, so if they subsequently move it abroad, they've already paid tax. Only earnings made abroad aren't taxed, and that seems logical to me, especially when you consider that the fees involved in keeping non-dom status amount to far more than the average British citizen pays in tax.

There is a lot more than can be done on real tax evasion that is unarguably fair and will result in unquestionable gains. Perhaps labour should focus on that instead of going for this populist picking around the edges.

[Guest Bilo]

Fair enough, I don't know the in's and out's of other country's tax systems. Though I'm sure for every tax they have that we don't, we have a tax that they don't and vice versa.

Your point about "losing serious money due to non-human moving their money to foreign banks" strikes me as inaccurate though. They do pay tax on earnings from this country, so if they subsequently move it abroad, they've already paid tax. Only earnings made abroad aren't taxed, and that seems logical to me, especially when you consider that the fees involved in keeping non-dom status amount to far more than the average British citizen pays in tax.

There is a lot more than can be done on real tax evasion that is unarguably fair and will result in unquestionable gains. Perhaps labour should focus on that instead of going for this populist picking around the edges.

 

On that I absolutely agree. Tax dodging costs the country far more than things like benefit fraud and indeed welfare as a whole, so the targeting of welfare spending for cuts by the government has been driven by ideological, rather than fiscal, concerns.

 

I think Labour could gain far more political capital from clamping down on tax evasion as well as tax avoidance than they would from focusing exclusively on non-doms.

[sphericalfox]

 

Cameron's education plans don't go down well...

[Strokes]

Cameron's education plans don't go down well...

Can't see that doing him any harm, shame the video wasn't working. Did you see it?

[Charl91]

Registered in the British Consulate in Hong Kong to vote, brilliant.

 

UKIP for me. Cue the 'racist!' comments, I'm Asian you know.

 

 

Can you vote for someone if they're not a virgin?

[Charl91]

Can't see that doing him any harm, shame the video wasn't working. Did you see it?

 

 

 

 

Here's the video. Media making something out of nothing, yet again.

[Strokes]

Here's the video. Media making something out of nothing, yet again.

Cheers, yeah not much wrong their.

[Sir Fynwy]

Yep. There's that and another old Leicester pub re-opens up on Foxestalk. They don't seem to last very long though.

Should use the County Arms then give it a rest since that's being redeveloped as a retirement home.

[Guest Bilo]

Says here they scrapped it a few months ago.. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11383801/Greens-ditch-citizens-income-from-election-manifesto.html 

 

No, it's back.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32203799

 

I do like her claim that they're the third biggest party in politics though. At £5 a year for students, they're bound to grow fairly quickly! In terms of their actual power to do anything with membership numbers, the Lib Dems and UKIP will both be bigger than them in a month, putting them neatly into fifth.

 

It's a shame in a way that they come out with such silly statements and policies, a left-wing alternative to Labour (in the same way that UKIP are a right wing alternative to the Tories) may well enliven politics as a whole. As it is, the Greens will do well to get more than a seat or two in May.

[Jon the Hat]

Its an interesting question as to whether you could pay everyone a set amount to cover all benefits, and recover it through tax on those who don't need it.  Not very different to tax credits where you tax people then give something back.  You could do away with all the eligibility criteria, and just make it taxable.  If you earn on top you pay tax on it, if you don't you don't.

[Guest Bilo]

Its an interesting question as to whether you could pay everyone a set amount to cover all benefits, and recover it through tax on those who don't need it.  Not very different to tax credits where you tax people then give something back.  You could do away with all the eligibility criteria, and just make it taxable.  If you earn on top you pay tax on it, if you don't you don't.

 

The admin bill for that would surely be spectacular. It just seems like another ill-considered bit of blue sky thinking that'll fall apart under scrutiny.

 

Did anybody see Bennett's interview with Andrew Neil? In the words of The Thick of It, it was like watching a lion rape a sheep, but in a bad way.

[Jon the Hat]

The admin bill for that would surely be spectacular. It just seems like another ill-considered bit of blue sky thinking that'll fall apart under scrutiny.

 

Did anybody see Bennett's interview with Andrew Neil? In the words of The Thick of It, it was like watching a lion rape a sheep, but in a bad way.

 

Admin wise, assessing whether people qualify for things is what costs the money.

[Guest Bilo]

Admin wise, assessing whether people qualify for things is what costs the money.

 

That's the thing though, where would the cut off be? Who wouldn't qualify for Citizens' Income? Would it be means tested and if so how?

 

I also don't see how they can pay for it. £280bn is a gigantic amount of money that wouldn't be raised even if you scrapped the benefits system and replaced it with this idea.

[MooseBreath]

The admin bill for that would surely be spectacular. It just seems like another ill-considered bit of blue sky thinking that'll fall apart under scrutiny.

I think basic income is an interesting idea. You wouldn't have any other benefits so all costs associated with administrating the current system would be removed, which would be a huge saving.

Employers wouldn't be able to exploit low paid workers as they would just quit. It would improve work life balance and health for some people as they became more choosey about what jobs they took. More people would probably take on the risk of becoming entrepreneurs which could lead to a more vibrant economy. Probably some unexpected benefits too.

On the downside you'd have ghettos of people who couldn't be bothered to work and who would become something worse than the underclass, spending all day in some drugged up and drunk stupor, like 'Hamsterdam' in The Wire and the consequent social problems.

You'd also have lots of people retiring early or going part time just because they can, which would lead to huge falls in productivity and more than likely render the whole thing hugely unaffordable, if it ever was.

[Guest Bilo]

I think basic income is an interesting idea. You wouldn't have any other benefits so all costs associated with administrating the current system would be removed, which would be a huge saving.

Employers wouldn't be able to exploit low paid workers as they would just quit. It would improve work life balance and health for some people as they became more choosey about what jobs they took. More people would probably take on the risk of becoming entrepreneurs which could lead to a more vibrant economy. Probably some unexpected benefits too.

On the downside you'd have ghettos of people who couldn't be bothered to work and who would become something worse than the underclass, spending all day in some drugged up and drunk stupor, like 'Hamsterdam' in The Wire and the consequent social problems.

You'd also have lots of people retiring early or going part time just because they can, which would lead to huge falls in productivity and more than likely render the whole thing hugely unaffordable, if it ever was.

 

I think it would become unaffordable very quickly - especially given a stated aim of the plan is making full-time work less necessary than it is now. I see the advantages in principle, but it's not going to work in the long term.

[Jon the Hat]

That's the thing though, where would the cut off be? Who wouldn't qualify for Citizens' Income? Would it be means tested and if so how?

 

I also don't see how they can pay for it. £280bn is a gigantic amount of money that wouldn't be raised even if you scrapped the benefits system and replaced it with this idea.

 

The whole point is there would not be a cut off.  Everyone gets it from Ken to Roman Abramovich, so you spend nothing at all on admin, just make payments.

[Jon the Hat]

The SNP want to get rid of Trident, and wouldn't join a coalition with Labour with that in the agreement.  Can we trust Ed with this most important of decisions?

 

We would be beyond stupid to get rid of Trident.  Russia is becoming an increasing threat again for a start, and we only have a seat on the UN Security council because of it.

[Guest Bilo]

The whole point is there would not be a cut off. Everyone gets it from Ken to Roman Abramovich, so you spend nothing at all on admin, just make payments.

How would that be affordable? Every adult in the UK getting nearly £300 per month has to come from somewhere, the tax burden on those who would go on working would surely sky rocket and ensure they're no better off.

[Alf Bentley]

The SNP want to get rid of Trident, and wouldn't join a coalition with Labour with that in the agreement.  Can we trust Ed with this most important of decisions?

 

We would be beyond stupid to get rid of Trident.  Russia is becoming an increasing threat again for a start, and we only have a seat on the UN Security council because of it.

 

My understanding is that Labour have clearly said that they would keep Trident (or a replacement) and the SNP have clearly said that they would vote against it but that it wouldn't prevent them supporting a Labour minority government.

 

The idea of a formal Lab/SNP coalition seems to be ruled on both sides (and would be a self-defeating strategy for the SNP as it would risk undermining support for them and their long-term goal of independence).

 

One likely scenario is a Labour minority govt supported by the SNP on most important issues. The SNP would then vote against any pro-Trident legislation introduced by Labour....who would presumably get the legislation passed with the support (or at least abstention) of the Tories. That way, the SNP would maintain its anti-nuclear credentials with the Scottish electorate while depicting Lab and Con as 2 English imperialist parties, and the 2 big parties would maintain their credentials with the English electorate as being "responsible on defence". 

[leicsmac]

The SNP want to get rid of Trident, and wouldn't join a coalition with Labour with that in the agreement.  Can we trust Ed with this most important of decisions?

 

We would be beyond stupid to get rid of Trident.  Russia is becoming an increasing threat again for a start, and we only have a seat on the UN Security council because of it.

 

I've made this argument on here before, and I'll do so again. If the time ever comes (all of the powers in the Universe forbid) that we need to use those weapons, we won't be standing alone to do it - we WILL be allied to another nuclear power who will also likely be targetted or respond on our behalf. And in any case, if it comes to that the world is (including us) fvcked anyway - nukes or no nukes.

 

The nuclear game has changed in the last 10-15 years. The threat of full-scale nuclear holocaust is pretty much over (Putin may be a ****, but he's a smart, reasonably rational **** and he knows the rules of MAD still hold): instead the new threat is a small group of ideological nutters somehow getting their hands on a viable bomb and sticking it in a city. Trident can't really respond to that - who would it retaliate against?

I'm for keeping some kind of nuclear deterrent just in case the world changes again, but I do think in this day and age Trident seems awfully obsolete.

[Guest Kopfkino]

I like the idea of a basic income but not a citizens income like the Greens propose. Giving everybody some money and then taking it back away is just a waste of time, effort and money.

A basic income whereby everyone is guarenteed a certain level of income is a much better idea and when you're over that level you get nothing. Couple it with cutting other forms of welfare and you encourage some employement in my opinion. Do it by enforcing a negative income tax as suggested by Friedman and Hayek amongst others, rather than giving everyone money and then taking it back