UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Rosemary (The Nosemanny) wrote: "What this country needs is some sensible housekeeping and some honest to goodness fairness ..."
Absolutely but the sheer number of entrenched vested interests probably means it won't happen.For example,Pensioners vote, so their pensions won't be cut.
Meanwhile the EU is shocked at how many British women aren't out there in the workforce. They're needed to both breed (because we're falling dangerously short of working people to pay for all these pensioners) and also to do something productive as well that can be taxed to fund everything else
Rosemary (The Nosemanny) wrote: "One thing that I don't understand is how it's possible to have a minimum wage that is less than the so-called living wage...??"Well, there is an answer to that:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spe...
David wrote: "Rosemary (The Nosemanny) wrote: "One thing that I don't understand is how it's possible to have a minimum wage that is less than the so-called living wage...??"Well, there is an answer to that:
..."
Thank you David
Well, t does seem somewhat absurd for the low paid to lose some of it in tax. They are the ones the tax system is supposed to help, not penalise.
Now that I've got permission to rant and rave about the Tories, I shall :)Honest to God, I cannot understand why people vote for these bastards!
To sanction a man, who missed an appointment at his jobcentre, because he was having a heart attack, is one of the most cruel, and inhumane things I've heard off, in recent months. There are numerous examples of this, and I could go on all day.
Foodbanks are on the increase up here, more cuts on the way. It's hard not to conclude that this is an ideological war, rather than an economic necessity.
Will wrote: "No Will, I'd rather invest and repay the debt by growth, which cuts and austerity do not create. Anywhere, ever.Did you hear David Camaron today? 'I shall drive wage growth by... reducing the ta..."
This is a very sensible idea that I agree with, and it would also get around big companies dodging their tax paying duties, because they would have to dish out more in wages.
Why the government doesn't go for this is strange, and only leads me to conclude that they don't want to upset their friends in the business world.
And another rant. Osborne announces a fire sale of RBS shares, and his friends and associates snap them up, just like they did with Royal Mail, thus making themselves money into the bargain. What a corrupt racket.
R.M.F wrote: "Now that I've got permission to rant and rave about the Tories, I shall :)Honest to God, I cannot understand why people vote for these bastards!
To sanction a man, who missed an appointment at ..."
That is because it is NOT an economic necessity, despite Will's attempt to defend the indefensible, RMF. There is no joined up thinking in the present economic approach, only cherry picking from a total requirement, designed to encourage wealth disparity.
RMF. The government has been sanctioning people for not turning up for their appointments at the Jobcentre for as long as I can remember. And that's a long time, trust me.Even the Daily Mirror had to quote the Department of Work and Pensions:
"A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said yesterday they were unable to examine David’s claims because the Jobcentre is closed at the weekend and they couldn’t contact the staff who dealt with him.
But he added: “Anyone who misses an appointment with good cause will not be sanctioned.
“This would include someone having suffered a heart attack.”
The full article is here - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/...
It is hardly a Conservative cruelty measure.
Reducing Working Tax credits will force employers to increase wages. At present they can keep wages down in the full and certain knowledge that the government will subsidise their employees wages.Food banks are a symptom of our times, I agree. However, it may not be quite as it seems.
In the days of local shops, many people had a tally so that when money was short at the end of the week they wouldn't go hungry. Supermarkets do not support such a system and would probably have to be registered as a lender to do so. Food banks provide that same buffer.
As for corporations not paying their fair share of tax, this is far from a Conservative government policy and more to do with the treaties signed between the EU, USA and other large nations. When the EU signs up, we are automatically bound by that decision.
Economic theory is bankrupt. Friedmanism beloved of Thatcher was just an updated version of Cobden & Bright's Free Tradeism of the 19th century, while Keynes and Scandi corpratism (with cradle to the grave welfare) just a watered down version of a Command Economy. The Scandis could do it because they have tiny populations compared to ours. There has been nothing new under the sun. We still operate under the haze of the free market which Adam Smith described as working 'as if by the operation of an invisible hand' ie we don't actually know how it works, because the mechanism is 'invisible'. It just seems to basically work, only of course it doesn't, not all that well. I would have presumed with increased computer processing power we could model all the intricate relationships of a complex market and have a better understanding of economics, but we don't seem to.Will how far do you want to take your austerity argument? The reason we need cutbacks is because we have gradually erected a huge state welfare system to support our population of 60+ million. But we were only able to do this because of our history of a) being the first to industrialise allowing a boom in our population and b) our empire bringing in huge exploited wealth we no longer have access to. We cannot sustain much of where we find ourselves as a nation, but expectations & demands of our citizens are at the level they are because of the historical foundations of our wealth which are no longer there. By your logic for proper proportionate spending against wealth generation, austerity should be at the level of Greece's I should think. But we aren't going to accept that as a populace and no government is going to admit that's what it would actually take because to do so would be electoral suicide. Britain not 'Great' anymore? Our national ego couldn't cope with that.
What is iniquitous about the Tory strategy, is they refuse to go after their allies, the tax dodging companies and individuals, the rip off denationalised companies in power and rail, all of which dwarf the savings on the welfare system they are trying to squeeze with austerity. If HSBC flounce out of the country because they don't like the criticism and standards now expected of them, good riddance I say. If an individual flounces off in exile because his tax rate has gone from 40& to 50% then again, good riddance; hardly demonstrating a love of country and commitment to it now are they? They are demonstrating only naked self-interest and I don't believe that works as the sole basis for state-building. But then the collective ideal in this country has taken a battering every decade since Thatcher and yes I include Labour governments in that too.
There comes a point where every citizen needs to ask what are the plus points of being as citizen of a country and as the government erodes our rights and benefits one by one, there will reach a point where people say 'very little, **** this for a game of soldiers'. I just hope we don't let Russell brand be in charge of that movement.
Bloody hell, I agree with Marc :)Benefit fraud pales into insigficance when compared with tax dodgers, and yet, there are more people going after benefit cheats than tax dodgers.
The poor are easy targets to demonise and score cheap political points.
Bigger companies, such as Amazon, rung rings around the government, because they can afford the lawyers and the accounts to keep one step ahead.
But we are all tax dodgers, RMF. Do you have an ISA? That's a way of dodging tax, as it's tax deductible. The list of tax exemptions is huge.What you need to differentiate is between tax avoidance and tax evasion. The first is legal, the second is not.
Buying a personal pension is employing tax avoidance as it allows you to pay less Income Tax. Asking someone to pay cash for work done and not declaring it is evasion.
During the period of the last Labour government, Gordon Brown increased the tax code from being one set of books about 3 feet high, to a set of books that went from floor to ceiling three times. When you do something like that, the effect is that you create an industry that's sole purpose is to find loopholes in that tax code. Paradoxically, the more rules you introduce, the more loopholes are available to exploit.
Big corporations are not here to serve anyone but themselves, if they were human they would be classed as psychopaths. For this reason, they are not morally committed to the social mores of the society they interact with. It is therefore pointless to expect them to pay tax in the UK, unless there is a business benefit for doing so. Starbucks did not decide to pay tax in the UK for altruistic reasons, they did it because it had the potential to hit their bottom line.
you're right to emphasise the difference between avoidance and evasion. The point is the current government are not minded to shift a whole raft of avoidance practises to make them evasion.
Marc wrote: "you're right to emphasise the difference between avoidance and evasion. The point is the current government are not minded to shift a whole raft of avoidance practises to make them evasion."I'm not sure I agree with you, Marc. HMRC are cracking down on the margins between avoidance and evasion very heavily of late. A number of schemes that allowed contractors to take 90% of their income using a dubious lending scheme, are being closed. The problem is that these things are fought through the courts that are then subject to a number of appeal processes. The result is 5 years of court processes before the loophole can be closed and money recouped.
If however, you are talking about corporate tax avoidance then that should be addressed to the EU rather than the UK government. Their hands are tied unless we leave the EU. And even if we do that, will need to join the EFTA if we wish to trade with the EU, which we would be suicidal not to do as over 50% of our exports are to the EU, so we will then be bound by the same treaties.
Contractors are small fry, so it's disingenuous to say that they're cracking down on this kind of thing.HMRC got rid of huge numbers of their staff so they no longer have the expertise or the resources to go after the big fish.
Michael, on the one hand you complain that the government is not cracking down on tax avoiders and closing the loopholes, then complain that contractors are small fry. The last study, by the Small Business Research Centre at Kingston University, recorded 1.4 million. When there are 30 million people in work, that's a significant percentage.The problem with having huge numbers of HMRC staff is that they cost money to employ and this comes out of tax. Numbers do not always equate to expertise. What do you consider "big fish"?
But contractors are small fry.And I never said that huge numbers equate to expertise either.
So what do you mean by large fry? And why should they be targeted?Average contractor income is £65,000. That's £91 billion. Not so small fry.
It's not £91 billion in avoided tax and the opportunities for someone on £65k to avoid tax are slim by definition.We're getting into reductio ad absurdum territory here.
So, again Michael, what do you consider large fry, and why should they be targeted?
Because it makes sense to prioritise those avoiding millions/billions over those who are avoiding tiny sums.Asking someone to define the line between small fry and large fry is pointless.
Well you feel very strongly about this, Michael, that is apparent. However, where do you think those avoiding millions/billions are?It is meaningless to quote Latin and make sweeping statements like "Because it makes sense to prioritise those avoiding millions/billions over those who are avoiding tiny sums.", without substance.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "But we are all tax dodgers, RMF. Do you have an ISA? That's a way of dodging tax, as it's tax deductible. The list of tax exemptions is huge.What you need to differentiate is between tax avoid..."
I agree with you that big corporations are only in it for themselves, which makes them entirely predictable, but as others have pointed out more eloquently than me, no man is an island.
Their workforces need to be educated, fed, looked after when sick, need transport to get to work etc etc
That requires tax money to provide for these things. They have a moral responsibility to pay tax.
The problem with going for the big companies is that they will undoubtedly have better lawyers than the government, and their lawyers might well blow holes in UK tax law by showing how the UK is breaking EU law or international agreements.Going for the small fry is far easier. Think of a number, bill them and sit back secure they cannot afford the legal process anyway.
It's far cheaper, the return on investment is better, the small fry are the low hanging fruit.
The problem is that the major companies are merely using the law that the politicians created. If the politicians want to change things they merely have to change the law. That's what they're paid to do. Not sit and whinge and moan that these people are too powerful.
A nice simple tax system, get it back to a mere three feet or so thick.
R.M.F wrote: " To sanction a man, who missed an appointment at his jobcentre, because he was having a heart attack, is one of the most cruel, and inhumane things I've heard off, in recent months. There are numerous examples of this, and I could go on all day. ..."
Given that sanctions came in a couple of decades ago I don't think we can blame the fact that there are a lot of jobsworths working in the various branches of the civil service on any political party.
It's interesting that I've watched the sort of attitude work it's way though the bureaucracy and it seems to be generated from within.
Back under Tony Blair staff at the BCMS were told that they had to regard all farmers as liars and not trust what they said. That went down badly because a lot of staff were the wives and daughters of farmers which is how it came to leak out.
It's an attitude that has become more prevalent within the bureaucracy, a contempt for the people they're supposed to be serving
Jim wrote: "The problem with going for the big companies is that they will undoubtedly have better lawyers than the government, and their lawyers might well blow holes in UK tax law by showing how the UK is br..."It's one of the reasons why Scottish independence was popular with some of the business community. There was a chance to design a brand new tax system from scratch, fit for the 21st century. Sadly, that went west.
Marc wrote: "what Greenland you mean?":-)
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Well you feel very strongly about this, Michael, that is apparent. However, where do you think those avoiding millions/billions are?It is meaningless to quote Latin and make sweeping statements ..."
So which part of my sweeping statement are you disagreeing with?
I'm dead impressed with the Latin.
This is what I disagree with, Michael:"Because it makes sense to prioritise those avoiding millions/billions over those who are avoiding tiny sums."
As I have already said, avoiding tax is legal. If you go after those who, you allege but do not name, you must also expect a knock on your door. Under the law, all are equal.
If they are avoiding tax then so be it. Where do you say we should draw the line, after all we have to start somewhere. Do we start with those that avoid £1000 of tax, £10,000, £100,000? Perhaps we should go back to the 1970s when the rich were effectively paying 96% tax. We pulled in less tax than ever because those that were targeted left.
If I may make some points on both taxation and Enquiry work, a subject on which I have expertise:HMRC decided some years ago that what Jim describes as 'Low hanging fruit' were not in fact worth chasing, and that:
a) Resources should be concentrated on higher value cases
b) as a consequence the trained, expert ( and therefore relatively expensive - compared to the sum paid to the average teenager/school leaver who now forms the bulk of HMRC staff) staff could all be let go, even though HMRC is actually one of the most efficient operations in the UK, when calculated in terms of cost per £ 1 of tax collected.
Gordon Brown did not in fact largely increase the volume of tax legislation, but did start the ongoing Tax Research Group tasked with simplifying the tax code. Their problem being that most of the volume of legislation is there to stop clever accountants using the loopholes left by lawyers when they drafted the laws in the first place.
The UK tax Revenues could be easily improved by training staff or rehiring ex Revenue investigators (like me) and giving them some freedom to go out and get money...
All under the law should be equal. High risk/ high net worth individuals and lower earners too. We see Greece castigated for its culture of not paying tax - trust me on this - we are no different at all.
It also should be pointed out that whilst Will gives a peon of praise to austerity and cutting welfare spending, under the official definition that has been in place for many, many years, Child Poverty has risen for the first time since 1990.Truly George Osborne has an achievement to his name.
The problem with our definition of poverty ( http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf... ) is that it can never be eliminated (other than by paying everybody pretty much the same because it's defined as below 60 per cent of the median income (but can be reduced.)The other problem with the figure is that it can be reduced by massively reducing the incomes of high earners, but without those 'in poverty' ever getting a penny more. So for example if we limited the salaries of all civil servants (or software engineers or any other large but arbitrarily chosen group) to, say, £25K we'd actually drive down 'poverty' because we'd reduce the median.
Similarly they can get more money but still become poorer if the median shifts upwards at the same time.
That's why a lot of organisations now seem to be looking at more meaningful definitions such as 'absolute poverty' which we have no excuse for not eliminating, and access to resources which can be more telling than the 60% figure.
It may be a difficult definition, but it is telling that the first time in 30 years the definition is questioned by an administration is when child poverty increases, isn't it?And with even a rightwing think tank alarmed at the impact of Osborne's next set of cuts on the poorest in society, it is time we were all concerned about the issue.
Interesting, that definition of poverty. I was involved in a census whilst in Nigeria. Questions included if I had a wood or concrete floor. If I owned a television or radio. How many livestock I owned, if any...It's all a matter of perspective.
Will wrote: "It may be a difficult definition, but it is telling that the first time in 30 years the definition is questioned by an administration is when child poverty increases, isn't it?And with even a rig..."
The problem with the definition is that it doesn't do anything for those who need help. It's a useful definition for campaigners, because poverty will always be with us by that definition. But it isn't any real use. For example some of the old pointers were things like 'no indoor toilet' or 'no bathroom'. These are things you can tackle and set out to eliminate. You can make a difference.
There are definitions which we could use, one might be 'cannot get children into a decent secondary school.' The figures we've got show an increase in poverty, but frankly I'd say they understate the increase. We've got a problem in some areas with a 'poverty of aspiration.' People are so put down that they no longer realise it's happening.
Poverty such as my Father's generation knew no longer really exists in this country, but I think what we've got is worse because it's just a grey, soulless, bleakness that just slowly drags people down.
We've also lost the social safety net. The fiscal one provided by the state might give you more money, but the communities that helped people and gave them direction have gone. For example, the strong women who kept everybody in the street in order have faded away. I remember when lads did their underage drinking in the same pubs where their father or his mates would drink. A bit of horseplay from lads was expected, just as it was expected that they'd happen drink a bit much. But if they were heading into trouble, someone would pull them up sharpish, or just mention to their Dad next day at work.
Frankly I think people need hope more than they need anything else, and I think they need a fair crack of the whip. Decent schools, education that educates and gives them a chance in the world. Broadens the mind and gives you confidence.
If you know lads who went to your school qualified as lawyers or got engineering degrees and are earning good money out in Saudi or wherever you begin to feel that you can do that.
Good points Jim but how are they achieved?
I think that the state has to be rolled back. Because it's created an expectation that cannot be fulfilled. Look at the states contribution to education. Would you teach in a UK school?
Or look what the state has managed to do with the NHS?
The problem is that in many of these cases the state is both the manager and the person you appeal to when the manager has screwed up.
The state can set things up, but it should leave them as autonomous organisations with their own funding stream and step back. Stuff should be broken up into more manageable chunks and run more locally. I think the idea of letting Manchester have it's own NHS (very crudely put on my part) which integrates hospitals and social care is a very interesting development and might be a big step forward.
Because as you push this stuff downwards you bring in more people locally and the state can then act as the honest arbitrator, rather than just being someone else with a dog in the fight.
Also we've got to roll back regulation. Have you seen the sheer amount of regulation that someone has to sign up to if they become a school governor?
Law and regulation solves nothing. In about 100AD Tacitus said "Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges."
which can be translated as "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
It's getting now that you have great difficulty finding volunteers to do stuff because people just don't want the hassle of all the vetting and barring stuff, and having to go on endless training courses about vulnerable this and endangered that. (To be fair this is an unintended consequence, it's because any organisation with volunteers is terrified of being sued so puts everybody through endless courses as part of a due diligence defence.
All that "vetting and barring stuff" may be a hassle, but it is intended to stop another Saville. That's one of the root problems here. The Government (any political party) is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.Introduce regulations to protect vulnerable children and someone will moan about too much regulation. Don't introduce those regulations and someone (sometimes the same someone!) will moan about the Government doing nothing.
Local or regional NHS? I'd like to think that it could have some benefits, but it doesn't address the core problem. The NHS is overwhelmed because we have an ageing population which needs more healthcare. The question of who runs it is not all that important.
Autonomous NHS? Great in theory, but who pays for it? The cost of the NHS has to be met through taxation, either national or local. Given the disparity in wealth across the UK, that probably means national taxation (ie income tax and duties) rather than local taxes. So there will always be a debate about how much money to put into the NHS from central coffers. Because of this it will be very difficult to have a truly autonomous NHS.
Will wrote: "It also should be pointed out that whilst Will gives a peon of praise to austerity and cutting welfare spending, under the official definition that has been in place for many, many years, Child Pov..."I am not quite sure what point you are making. Austerity hurts, of course it does. That is pretty much inevitable. The question is what is the alternative to austerity and whether we can apply the pain equally and fairly.
Because if you think that austerity is making things difficult now, just imagine what it would be like if we allowed borrowing to spiral out of control. Some pain now or more pain later?
The definition of poverty is designed to move as the nation becomes more wealthy. It links the living conditions of the lowest earners with the highest. It does not measure absolute poverty, only relative poverty.
I am not an apologist for the conservative party. Some of the things they are doing are right and some are too much and too fast. My ideal outcome from the last general election was some form of coalition to moderate the Tory zeal for cuts. But there is no doubt whatsoever that some cuts are needed. The state as it currently stands is unaffordable and we can't keep borrowing our way out of trouble.
It's because of the abuses of the past, when there was no vetting, that we now have all those troublesome training courses.
If it prevents even one child from being hurt, the hassle is worth it.
Michael Cargill wrote: "It's because of the abuses of the past, when there was no vetting, that we now have all those troublesome training courses."The problem is that most abuse seems to occur in the home (where nobody is vetted), or in residential care where they were always supposed to have been vetted.
The problems we've seen in Rochdale or we've seen with Saville is that people knew it was going on but wouldn't do anything about it.
Listen to staff talking about Saville and the problem was that he was too useful to people higher up the food chain.
Will wrote: "Autonomous NHS? Great in theory, but who pays for it? ..."The same people who do now. Managing internal capital flows is one thing that a nation state can do, and which a body like the EU struggles with
Just a remark on vetting. If someone has no actual convictions the vetting comes up clear doesn't it. So it screens out a convicted offender only.
For once Will and I are in complete agreement in that the fiscal imbalance can't continue.Where we disagree is that he supports austerity, which inevitably impacts only on the poorest in society - the better off can always afford to replace shrinking services from their income and apart from grumbling do not see an impact in their lives, whilst those on fixed low incomes can ill afford a reduction in those incomes: the impact affects their quality of life too much. Growth is what is needed here, not cuts, in order to generate greater tax receipts from higher spending (through VAT receipts) and highe PAYE through better wages.
Cuts reduce VAT receipts - people can't spend cash they haven't got...
Jim is correct in saying that national taxation is the only way to pay for a balanced NHS, whether it is controlled regionally or locally. Else we will wind up with London having a solid gold service, and the poorer regions such as the North east barely able to afford a sticking plaster
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
Osborne is keen on making the least well off reduce their incomes as a way of narrowing the fiscal gap, and has in effect widened that gap by using such savings as he has made to cut tax rates on the higher echelons of society, a most foolhardy and yes - an idea that lacks intellectual rigor - as it has in effect widened the fiscal gap, not reduced it by further reducing the taxation receipts when he should be increasing those. Oh, and he has caused hardship and misery to many of the poorest in our society, but hey, who cares about that?
Your argument rests on the fallacy too that debt was out of hand when the coalition took power. This was simply not the case: there are plenty of statistics around to prove that. The effect of the austerity program has been to substantially reduce this country's growth (- in Greece, austerity has successfully reduced GDP by 25% -) at one point threatening to drive us into a depression - and under Osborne the rate of increase in national debt is accelerating because he is doing nothing to stimulate growth, and the cuts he makes effectively continue to drain money out of the economy, which will not recover under this policy.
And most leading economists are NOT saying austerity works. That's simply inaccurate. I read economists - it's part of my day job, too. There are some, like Ms Lagrange of the IMF, - not her deputies, by the way, who do like austerity for others (not of course for themselves!) but the concept is rapidly becoming discredited because of its failure to deliver real growth.