• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Baleforce said:
I think we are still in the window where we can beg forgiveness and idiocy, and rejoin on the same terms, but that window will close soon.

It would be a great advert for the EU for us to admit our mistake, it would also be very "big boy pants" of us to do so.
Click to expand...
I think it has closed already. Why would Europe let us back in giving us a better deal than every single other member has? They wouldn't.
 
DTA said:
i dont think they would let us rejoin on the same terms. Would be great if they did. But I can’t see that.
Click to expand...
They won't and neither should they. We'll be back in at some point in the future with us adopting the Euro and having our interest rates set by the European Central Bank.
 
Finney Is Back said:
They won't and neither should they. We'll be back in at some point in the future with us adopting the Euro and having our interest rates set by the European Central Bank.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure either will still be in place when the next generation possibly considers revisiting this. I'm sure it will all be the Yuan and Bejing Central Bank by then if globalisation is still the thing.
 
Baleforce said:
It's not about listening, you can't summon a unicorn just by wishing for it. What we need is honesty from government.

The UK economy can't survive out of the CU, anymore than you or I could survive without oxygen.
Click to expand...
It can survive. It will just need some (determintal) adjustments.... We will need to decrease our spending (on things like the NHS and Pensions) and increase personal taxation to make up the difference.
 
Finney Is Back said:
It can survive. It will just need some (determintal) adjustments.... We will need to decrease our spending (on things like the NHS and Pensions) and increase personal taxation to make up the difference.
Click to expand...

Or increase our spending and introduce taxation on the rich and big businesses
 
Last edited:
Gutter Boy said:
Our increase our spending and introduce taxation on the rich and big businesses
Click to expand...

don’t you understand that those big businesses are already leaving? We will likely see reduced tax on big businesses in order to try to get them to stay… thanks Brexit.

your thinking really isn’t joined up.
 
Lilbaz said:
Gdp and tax are 2 different things.
Click to expand...
Indeed they are.... but (all things being measured equal - i.e. no inflation, no changes in tax rates and a net migration level of zero) if the GDP of a country rises then the tax collected rises. That increased tax revenue can then either be spent so that spending per capita increases (hopefully) improving the quality of life or reducing the level of debt that the country is in (thus likely improving the quality of life for future generations). If the GDP of a country doesn't rise (or falls) then the only way to collect more tax is to increase the tax burden on the population of the country, which is less likely to improve the quality of life.

Tax collected will always likely rise during a time of high inflation, surely you realise this? By far the largest three contributors to the UK's tax income are Income tax, VAT and National Insurance

Inflation sees wages go up, thus income tax revenue rises (especially when the income tax bands are frozen as they have been in recent years).
Inflation also sees the cost of goods go up and therefore VAT receipts will rise (especially considering the huge rises in the cost of energy).
On top of those things we also had the large increase in employer and employee National Insurance contributions in recent times. Again more tax income.
Last up we've also seen the government increasing public spending in recent times to help prop up the weak GDP numbers. Again, this additional government investment (funded by borrowing) will also increase tax revenues (any government spend will result in a portion of tax being recouped).

Therefore, as you can see, these rises in tax income for the exchequer do not signify in any way a healthy economy.

The further recent hikes in tax levels (and lengthened band freezes) will continue to see tax income rise in the UK. It is however achieved at the expense of the personal wealth of the citizens of the UK.

Is it better for a nation when its ruling party is able to increase its tax revenue by increasing GDP? Or is it it better for a nation when its ruling party increase its tax revenue by a combination of making its people poorer while increasing borrowing thus likely making future generations poorer as well?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
DTA said:
don’t you understand that those big businesses are already leaving? We will likely see reduced tax on big businesses in order to try to get them to stay… thanks Brexit.

your thinking really isn’t joined up.
Click to expand...

The vampire ones that never contribute anything anyway? If we increase tariffs, only those paying fair taxes here will be able to operate anyway – that locks them in to contributing to public services. It’s joined-up, it’s just a sea change in approach.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Why on earth would big business choose to locate itself in (a high tax) UK? Tell me how you would go about taxing 'the rich' (also who, in your opinion, counts as 'the rich')?
Click to expand...

As above, because they'd have to locate and pay tax in the UK to be able to operate here.

I think you are maybe looking at tax rates of >£100k of 60% and >£1m 70%. Something like that; more in line with northern European levels. Also heavily clobbering multiple property ownership.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Indeed they are.... but (all things being measured equal - i.e. no inflation, no changes in tax rates and a net migration level of zero) if the GDP of a country rises then the tax collected rises. That increased tax revenue can then either be spent so that spending per capita increases (hopefully) improving the quality of life or reducing the level of debt that the country is in (thus likely improving the quality of life for future generations). If the GDP of a country doesn't rise (or falls) then the only way to collect more tax is to increase the tax burden on the population of the country, which is less likely to improve the quality of life.

Tax collected will always likely rise during a time of high inflation, surely you realise this? By far the largest three contributors to the UK's tax income are Income tax, VAT and National Insurance

Inflation sees wages go up, thus income tax revenue rises (especially when the income tax bands are frozen as they have been in recent years).
Inflation also sees the cost of goods go up and therefore VAT receipts will rise (especially considering the huge rises in the cost of energy).
On top of those things we also had the large increase in employer and employee National Insurance contributions in recent times. Again more tax income.
Last up we've also seen the government increasing public spending in recent times to help prop up the weak GDP numbers. Again, this additional government investment (funded by borrowing) will also increase tax revenues (any government spend will result in a portion of tax being recouped).

Therefore, as you can see, these rises in tax income for the exchequer do not signify in any way a healthy economy.

The further recent hikes in tax levels (and lengthened band freezes) will continue to see tax income rise in the UK. It is however achieved at the expense of the personal wealth of the citizens of the UK.

Is it better for a nation when its ruling party is able to increase its tax revenue by increasing GDP? Or is it it better for a nation when its ruling party increase its tax revenue by a combination of making its people poorer while increasing borrowing thus likely making future generations poorer as well?
Click to expand...

You are forgetting tariffs that have been introduced since brexit. That has boosted our tax revenues. It has also meant that french winemakes are also creating vineyards in the south of england (partly due to climate change).
 
Gutter Boy said:
The vampire ones that never contribute anything anyway? If we increase tariffs, only those paying fair taxes here will be able to operate anyway – that locks them in to contributing to public services. It’s joined-up, it’s just a sea change in approach.
Click to expand...
No, not the vampire ones.... The business I have just agreed to relocate back to the EU paid several million per year in corporation tax and far more in employer NI contributions and the employees paying lots of PAYE). I suspect another company will pick up our IT Consultants as they phase out during our transition but that is only the case while some of those 'vampire companies' as you call them remain in the UK employing those high skilled workers. The carrot for a business doing so is noticeably reducing.

'Increase tariffs'. What do you mean by increasing tariffs?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Gutter Boy said:
As above, because they'd have to locate and pay tax in the UK to be able to operate here.

I think you are maybe looking at tax rates of >£100k of 60% and >£1m 70%. Something like that; more in line with northern European levels. Also heavily clobbering multiple property ownership.
Click to expand...
So you only want to allow companies that locate themselves in the UK to be able to operate in the UK? How does that work in a reciprocal way for every other country and every single multinational company in the World? Do GSK have to base themselves in the US and pay their tax there to operate there for example?

Describe how your 70% tax rate for those earning more than £1m works and more importantly how you ensure that those rare jobs paying more than £1m per annum (or even those paying more than about £250k a year, remain in the UK? The very first thing that I would do with my investment funds is move my high salaried positions to another country, I would actually pretty much be forced to as the top talent would be seeking jobs in lower tax countries anyway. Also if moving the top talent from my funds overseas, then I might as well just move the whole business overseas. If doing that meant that I could no longer invest in UK companies (I'm not sure what your rules on overseas investment would be) then so be it, with your other rules coming into place UK companies would be awful investments anyway.

Multiple property ownership meaning landlords/companies with a property portfolio that consists of more than 1 property? How do you propose you go about 'clobbering' those?

The soundbites you make such as these ones and your standard 'nationalise it' ones might sound great to the uneducated but, just like with many good soundbites, tend to cause a reaction that is far less positive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Lilbaz said:
You are forgetting tariffs that have been introduced since brexit. That has boosted our tax revenues. It has also meant that french winemakes are also creating vineyards in the south of england (partly due to climate change).
Click to expand...
Please tell me the additional £billions that are raised per annum from trade tarrifs since Brexit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Lilbaz said:
Almost £2bn increase in the last year.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/284363/customs-duty-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/
Click to expand...

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Economists tend to believe that impairments to trade are counterproductive. Obviously great to have an extra 2b (even if net we're down 40b). Who is paying that extra 2b? Consumers of course, contributing to UK inflation. These things are not black or white, they are messy, with all sorts of complex implications. All you can do is take a global overview, and see on balance what the outcome looks like. For every 2b we raise we likely lose 10s of billions. At least that is what the OBR and others suggest. The biggest danger is that things spiral. Investment in the UK stops, confidence in the UK is hit, and we become less productive with less forward-thinking companies locating here. Or we could attract new companies and ventures. But we are yet to see it. On balance, it is clear that we have a budget deficit, which is partly due to Brexit.

You still haven't updated me whether you think higher taxes or public spending cuts are the answer to the lost tax revenue. Did anyone vote Leave for less spending and higher taxes? Of course not! Can we at least be honest about that?
 
DTA said:
don’t you understand that those big businesses are already leaving? We will likely see reduced tax on big businesses in order to try to get them to stay… thanks Brexit.

your thinking really isn’t joined up.
Click to expand...
One big thing that’s changed that hasn’t been mentioned
Remote working
We look after a huge number of banks and most have HQs that are at peak 2/3rds full and that’s for one day a week
Most of the time it’s 40%
Those companies are already working with us to down scale the real estate and as such allow their workers flexibility
One of my opposite numbers is moving to the Swiss German border so he can work at their Swiss office when needed but pay tax in Germany
The remote working change has meant people can be more transient and live where they want/pay tax where they want
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back