Politics, politics, politics

[Gilzeantoscore]

Not at all. Everyone should pay less tax, not just the rich.

How about this for a plan, set a ceiling on what corporations can spend on tax advice? Your statement is fine in principal, but the harsh reality is that the nation would cease to exist without infra structure and services provided by government and PAYE taxpayers are propping up the tax revenues of this and pretty much every other western developed country, all at the same time when wages are falling relative to profits in GDP figures word wide.

 

[milo]

This! oh the poor Tories, they called a snap election to catch Corbyn with his pants down and guess what? Nobody thought to do any hard policy development work. And why would they, when they could rely on good ole Rupie Murdoch to smear them back into power?

They'll still win though but the reputational damage to May could be fatal.

 

[milo]

If Labour are to spend as much as they plan to spend they'll need to raise taxes for you lot too.

They won't be able to, of course. Whoever wins the election will do nothing significant other than Brexit. It will consume all of their political energy and leave no time for anything else.

 

[scaramanga]

How about this for a plan, set a ceiling on what corporations can spend on tax advice?

That would be state intervention which is bad.

The definition of what we have to pay in tax is what HMRC's rules say we are legally required to pay. The extension of that is that we can only not do what HMRC can successfully argue we cannot do in court.

I assume you don't offer HMRC a bit extra at the end of the month, so why would anyone else? I'm guessing you have an ISA, or have taken childcare vouchers, or bought something from duty free..... This is all legal tax avoidance, just like hiring a tax accountant is.

Your statement is fine in principal, but the harsh reality is that the nation would cease to exist without infra structure and services provided by government and PAYE taxpayers are propping up the tax revenues of this and pretty much every other western developed country, all at the same time when wages are falling relative to profits in GDP figures word wide.

Lower taxes increase spending, investment and employment. All of this leads to a larger tax take which would offset the lower percentage tax rates.

 

[the dza]

There'll be a lot more than that - every independent analysis has agreed on that.

If Labour are to spend as much as they plan to spend they'll need to raise taxes for you lot too.

The IFS estimates that Labour's tax changes could raise £40billion, instead of the £49 billion that Labour has calculated. And that would be £40billion in extra tax that comes from the top 5% of earners and corporation tax raised, but still the lowest in the G7 (basically, a reversal of Tory corporation tax cuts since 2010).

If that's the case and Labour have to deliver 80% of what they have promised, I would still rather 80% of Labour's manifesto than 100% of the Tories -- and it turns out, we can't even get 100% of what the Tories offer, because it's based on the sort of maths that thinks you can do a kid's breakfast for 7p.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

That would be state intervention which is bad.

The definition of what we have to pay in tax is what HMRC's rules say we are legally required to pay. The extension of that is that we can only not do what HMRC can successfully argue we cannot do in court.

I assume you don't offer HMRC a bit extra at the end of the month, so why would anyone else? I'm guessing you have an ISA, or have taken childcare vouchers, or bought something from duty free..... This is all legal tax avoidance, just like hiring a tax accountant is.


Lower taxes increase spending, investment and employment. All of this leads to a larger tax take which would offset the lower percentage tax rates.

Theses are all classical economics assumptions, which are not always played out in reality, as you well know. This is the orthodoxy that neo-liberals always bleat. As I said, people on high incomes have greater powers of discretionary spending, so bunging more tax saving to them, will not necessarily result in them spending more. Give a tax boost to a man on minimum wage and it certainly will. This is an economic fact that cannot be disputed. Neo liberals deny it, because it doesn't suit their narrow partisan political agenda. Which is kind of ironic, given their admitted self interested philosophy.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The IFS estimates that Labour's tax changes could raise £40billion, instead of the £49 billion that Labour has calculated. And that would be £40billion in extra tax that comes from the top 5% of earners and corporation tax raised, but still the lowest in the G7 (basically, a reversal of Tory corporation tax cuts since 2010).

If that's the case and Labour have to deliver 80% of what they have promised, I would still rather 80% of Labour's manifesto than 100% of the Tories -- and it turns out, we can't even get 100% of what the Tories offer, because it's based on the sort of maths that thinks you can do a kid's breakfast for 7p.

Ha, ha you can't make this stuff up can you? The financial bottom line is all these Trogs understand. As Wilde said, "they know the price of everything and the value of nothing."

 

[scaramanga]

Theses are all classical economics assumptions, which are not always played out in reality, as you well know. This is the orthodoxy that neo-liberals always bleat. As I said, people on high incomes have greater powers of discretionary spending, so bunging more tax saving to them, will not necessarily result in them spending more. Give a tax boost to a man on minimum wage and it certainly will. This is an economic fact that cannot be disputed. Neo liberals deny it, because it doesn't suit their narrow partisan political agenda. Which is kind of ironic, given their admitted self interested philosophy.

Give a tax boost to someone on minimum wage and you have to make someone else pay (or make spending cuts). That someone else not only has more discretion in their spending but also in their taxation.

Taxing very rich people doesn't work because they'll either find a way around it or live somewhere where the government appreciates what they bring to the country.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Give a tax boost to someone on minimum wage and you have to make someone else pay (or make spending cuts). That someone else not only has more discretion in their spending but also in their taxation.

Taxing very rich people doesn't work because they'll either find a way around it or live somewhere where the government appreciates what they bring to the country.

Yeh, what patriots, these are the same flag wavers who call on working class men to fight their wars for them. Your argument seems to be...look it's all too hard taxing the rich, go after easier targets, tax those PAYE people over there. BTW, spot the contradiction in your argument. Didn't you state above that the Tories would pay for their 65 billion in tax cuts for corporations by cutting spending. So someone else pays when a cut is afforded to the poor, but nobody pays when it is afforded to the rich? Illogical!

 

[milo]

Give a tax boost to someone on minimum wage and you have to make someone else pay (or make spending cuts). That someone else not only has more discretion in their spending but also in their taxation.

Taxing very rich people doesn't work because they'll either find a way around it or live somewhere where the government appreciates what they bring to the country.

I think that there is a good argument against doing it when half of Europe will be offering sweeteners to tempt the jobs to there.

The tax burden argument between the two parties is harder to argument at the moment because the likelihood is that the Tories will increase NI and VAT after the election.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I think that there is a good argument against doing it when half of Europe will be offering sweeteners to tempt the jobs to there.

The tax burden argument between the two parties is harder to argument at the moment because the likelihood is that the Tories will increase NI and VAT after the election.

Well of course they will, they just love regressive taxes that ordinary people cannot possibly avoid and of course this is just another example of the Tories attempts to redistribute wealth from those at the bottom to those at the top. The taxation burden shift. like the shift from wages to profits has been going on since the neo-liberal agenda came into being in the late 80's. They are fighting a class war and they are winning.

 

[milo]

Well of course they will, they just love regressive taxes that ordinary people cannot possibly avoid and of course this is just another example of the Tories attempts to redistribute wealth from those at the bottom to those at the top. The taxation burden shift. like the shift from wages to profits has been going on since the neo-liberal agenda came into being in the late 80's. They are fighting a class war and they are winning.

Part of the attraction of them to governments is that the burden of collecting them does not fall on the state and they are hard to avoid. Going after high income earners and companies is difficult.

Personally, I would favour switching the emphasis onto unearned wealth but it would be a tough sell in an election.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Part of the attraction of them to governments is that the burden of collecting them does not fall on the state and they are hard to avoid. Going after high income earners and companies is difficult.

Personally, I would favour switching the emphasis onto unearned wealth but it would be a tough sell in an election.

It wouldn't be a tough sell for me. I say go after the rentier class.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Oh what surprisement! The Tories really are 'caring' after all. They have just discovered this thing called domestic violence and by golly they are going to bloody well do something about it too. Cynical?

 

[milo]

It wouldn't be a tough sell for me. I say go after the rentier class.

A land ownership tax and inheritance tax are the two obvious ones and reduce income tax so that most people feel the benefit now.

The problem is that both are toxic to politicians and you'd get slated in the press.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

A land ownership tax and inheritance tax are the two obvious ones and reduce income tax so that most people feel the benefit now.

The problem is that both are toxic to politicians and you'd get slated in the press.

Cut in an inheritance tax at around 10% for estates over 10 million pounds in value. What would be controversial about that?

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Anyone want to suggest the most outrageous Murdoch hack inspired front page smear against Corbyn that will be coming up in the next ten days? How about Catholic School Girl Tells All: "Jezza was such a powerful lover, he nearly broke the bed."

 

[milo]

Cut in an inheritance tax at around 10% for estates over 10 million pounds in value. What would be controversial about that?

It's 40% over £850k now.

Inheritance Tax is unpopular because people see it as being taxed on money that they have already been taxed on and understandably they want to pass on money to their children. I am in favour of increasing it or having a higher band but it would be unpopular and play badly in the press.

 

[scaramanga]

Yeh, what patriots, these are the same flag wavers who call on working class men to fight their wars for them.

Last time I checked our armed forces were voluntary. And there are plenty of high earners in the military.

Your argument seems to be...look it's all too hard taxing the rich, go after easier targets, tax those PAYE people over there.

No, my argument is tax everyone less.

If you increase the top rate too far you will decrease the total tax take. It's not just free market types who believe that, pretty much everyone who analyses manifestos and budgets comes to the same conclusion.

BTW, spot the contradiction in your argument. Didn't you state above that the Tories would pay for their 65 billion in tax cuts for corporations by cutting spending. So someone else pays when a cut is afforded to the poor, but nobody pays when it is afforded to the rich? Illogical!

Nobody pays, the government just spends less.

 

[scaramanga]

I think that there is a good argument against doing it when half of Europe will be offering sweeteners to tempt the jobs to there.

The tax burden argument between the two parties is harder to argument at the moment because the likelihood is that the Tories will increase NI and VAT after the election.

Post- Brexit, if we're not trading freely with the EU then we absolutely have to have taxes low enough to make up for any extra cost of being outside the EU.

The EU wants to put a 10% levy on banking, cut taxes by 15%. 5% on car imports? Cut taxes by 10%.

If the EU wants to put up barriers then we'll just start a taxation war that they can't possibly win. They have too many countries not contributing, too many countries like France, Spain and Italy that can't/won't work for a living. Cut taxes enough and we can make the UK the everything capital of Europe.