Forum menu
[i]So Corbyn promised to publish his tax return, did so, and a load of the usual suspects cry "cock up". It's shown that there wasn't a cock up and the "financial experts" don't have the decency to admit that they got it wrong. Quelle surprise. [/I]
As said previously, it was in the 'wrong' box, or rather not where some folk thought it should be.
But lets be clear it looks just like the tax return you get back from HMRC, so presumably it IS in the right place, and a serious non-story?
[quote=cranberry ]When the left wants "everyone to pay more tax":
It means everyone but them.
You are the honorouble (sic) member for Clacton, and I claim my £5 - how disingenuous of both of you when the chap in the video says he is quite happy to pay more tax (demanding a cheque is a straw man - though like #trumptweets it plays well to the kippers who are too daft to recognise one, which is all he cares about).
p.s. I'm not a natural leftie
[quote=jambalaya ]@aracer there is only so long the eurozone / EU can keep kicking the can down the road / into the long grass.
That doesn't appear to answer my question - was it 5 years ago or 10 years ago you first made such a prediction?
You are the honorouble (sic) member for Clacton, and I claim my £5 - how disingenuous of both of you when the chap in the video says he is quite happy to pay more tax (demanding a cheque is a straw man
That is the short version of the video of one of the 1% - as the liked to label people, repeatedly saying he wanted more tax to be paid and repeatedly ignoring Carswell's help to go to the tax office and give over a cheque - of any amount. It displays well the hypocrisy of those who very loudly signal their virtue, on the basis that other people will be actually pay the bill.
Owen Jones is estimated to have earned £500,000, mostly from book sales, in 2015.
And how much tax did he pay?
Not enough according to the words he speaks - he wants *everyone* to pay more tax.
You would assume that *everyone* includes himself, that he wouldn't just be calling for other people to pay for the things he wants ?
You're hilarious
"demanding a cheque is a straw man"
Explain.
You would assume that *everyone* includes himself, that he wouldn't just be calling for other people to pay for the things he wants ?
Either you're being willfully stupid or just trolling. As you well know, Owen Jones or anybody for that matter individually volunteering to pay more tax will make negligible difference. Society as a whole collectively paying more tax however would make a huge difference. If you can't tell the difference between 'we should all pay more tax' and 'you/I should pay more tax' then you're an idiot.
So the news today is that Theresa intends to announce loads of money for education. if by 'education' you mean her socially divisive, 1950's retro-tastic, bollocks-to-social-mobility, grammar schools programme. Thus ensuring that nice middle class kids from leafy suburbs (whose parents vote Tory, obvs) never have to experience anyone wearing a tracksuit, who might live on a council estate.
Anyone expecting to hear anything from Jeremy today on the issue?
He'll probably be on his allotment, bless him. Suns out, and its a busy time of year when you've vegetables to attend.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/07/stephen-hawking-jeremy-corbyn-disastrous-labour-resign ]Stephen Hawking is not happy.[/url]
[quote=outofbreath ]"demanding a cheque is a straw man"
Explain.
In case you need an answer to that specific question, dazh covered it. Not volunteering to pay more tax when nobody else does is completely different to not being happy to pay more tax if everybody else is which appears to be the accusation.
If you can't understand that, you're probably a kipper.
@aracer we had a discussion on this before, it is always caveated. I will pay more tax; if we end poverty, if the rich pay their fair share etc etc. When I suggested we have WTO tariffs on EU imports (would raise many many billions) and that all the money went to the NHS there was ZERO support. Ditto VAT on food like they have in Germany, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium ... As soin as you suggest a tax everyone will pay out comes the oppostion / excuses.
Labour said in 2015 they'd raise £2bn for the NHS by that old faithful, a banker bashing bonus tax. £2bn is/was a fraction of what the NHS needs. It barely scratches the surface.
What Labour mean is somebody else should pay more tax.
Labour had zero credibility on tax in 2015 and Corby/McDonnell have a lower rating than that.
[quote=Jamie ]Stephen Hawking is not happy.
Nails it in the first 3 paragraphs of that article. Even if you think Corbyn is great (he's far from the worst leader the Labour party has had in my lifetime) it is clear that he's not good for the party electorally. I mean FFS as I wrote above I'm not a natural leftie or Labour voter, but I'm looking around for somebody to vote for who isn't a Tory (or a kipper 🙄 ) right now. I'm exactly the sort of voter Labour needs to attract, yet I'd still struggle to vote for Corbyn's Labour. (in reality Labour don't have a hope in my constituency, so I'm hoping the Lib Dems put up somebody a but better than they did last time, but if I lived half a mile away in a Labour/Tory marginal it would be an incredibly difficult decision)
[quote=jambalaya ]@aracer we had a discussion on this before, it is always caveated. I will pay more tax; if we end poverty, if the rich pay their fair share etc etc. When I suggested we have WTO tariffs on EU imports (would raise many many billions) and that all the money went to the NHS there was ZERO support. Ditto VAT on food like they have in Germany, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium ... As soin as you suggest a tax everyone will pay out comes the oppostion / excuses.
Now you're strawmanning - what a surprise! WTO tariffs is a different subject, though it has similarities to VAT on food in being a regressive tax (it also has similarities with Trump suggesting he'll make the Mexicans pay for the wall through tariffs, your thinking is as clear as his), forgive me if I don't support that. Yes of course there is a caveat that the rich should pay their fair share - which you think so unreasonable. (almost) Everyone pays income tax, I don't think anybody suggesting higher taxes is against raising that, therefore disproving your point.
£2bn is/was a fraction of what the NHS needs. It barely scratches the surface.
Thanks for pointing out where Carswell fails with his demand for a cheque.
BTW you still don't appear to have clarified how many years ago the EU failed according to your predictions.
Thanks for pointing out where Carswell fails with his demand for a cheque.
I work it out to £206 per labour voter ( going by 2015 voting tendencies )
Too much to pay to signal how virtuous they are ?
You're not giving up on this are you? Which part of "everyone to pay more tax" is it you don't understand?
Though it shouldn't really surprise me that a kipper can only see things from the perspective of the individual.
VAT cannot be regressive since it is not a tax on income, it's a tax on consumption. But carry on.....
(not everyone pays income tax either, but since when has precision been important when talking about tax?)
[quote=teamhurtmore ]VAT cannot be regressive since it is not a tax on income, it's a tax on consumption.
Yeah, because that's an essential part of the definition. Quick question for you - if VAT was levied on food, would the poor pay a larger portion of their income on food VAT than the rich?
(not everyone pays income tax either, but since when has precision been important when talking about tax?)
Hence "almost", but then I'm not sure what the big problem is with the poorest not paying any more tax than they do already under the "everyone to pay more tax" theory. Unless of course you're the honourable member for Clacton who probably thinks somebody on the breadline should pay as much tax as his millionaire mates.
pointless argument aracer, he never changes his mind. But simply VAT targets lower income people more. I'm sure THM knows the days well when VAT went up (or Fuel Duty etc) and the amount of money left in his bank acount dropped noticably. Or how the increase in VAT levied goods meant he had to stop buying other essentials or decide which one to pay for this week.
If you can put your disposible income into pensions, property and investments then maybe it's a bit easier...
"But simply VAT targets lower income people more."
Can you cite a reliable source for that.
VAT is impossible to legally avoid and poorer people spend a higher proportion of their income on zero rated goods like food.
I'd have thought sales taxes were good for the poor and bad for big spenders.
Aracer, correct it's THE essential part of the definition. Get that wrong and you score nul points in an econ exam. The reason "he never changes his mind." and a pretty good one IMO.
VAT doesn't target anyone.
All governments use it increasingly for a specific reason and effect. The result that you allude to - albeit incorrectly - also changes over one's lifetime and is the subject of considerable academic debate not least because "over the lifetime" the IFS (for one) claim that the "impact" on lower income groups is not as commonly described. The reason why Vat is used - some claim that it is less distorting than income tax as it doesn't affect the incentive to work among other things - is also disputed.
The breakdown of who does and doesn't pay tax is easily available.
Hint: we're not doing an economics exam and you're not ninfan - I couldn't care less about the semantics. Answer the question: which part of the population spends the highest proportion of its income on food?
It seems you couldn't care less about precision either.
Oh I care a lot about that - I care about real world precision where the means for collecting tax makes no difference at all to how much you pay. Your refusal to answer a simple question speaks volumes.
Here's an economics professor - I presume you've passed more exams than him?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/04/why-vat-is-regressive/
Yes, I'm giving you a get out clause from a worng arguement - you just don't realise it. That's what a lack of precision does for you.
Anyway, I'll humour you as you persist.
What sort of food are we talking about - a rich tea, chcccie digestive or a Jaffa cake?
Why don't you humour me by explaining why you're a better authority than an economics professor? The point was a suggestion to levy vat on all food, not to revisit the question of whether a jaffa cake is a cake or a bisquit, something you seem to have forgotten in your eagerness to appear clever
VAT cannot be regressive since it is not a tax on income, it's a tax on consumption.
What definition of regressive are you using there?
Pedantry over the incorrect use of the word 'targeted' aside, are you seriously saying that the burden of this kind of indirect taxation is not heavier on the lowest income groups?
"Pedantry over the incorrect use of the word 'targeted' aside, are you seriously saying that the burden of this kind of indirect taxation is not heavier on the lowest income groups?"
I haven't seen a definitive answer but I suspect it's heavier on high income people because it can't be avoided , rich people buy more stuff and poor people spend more on zero rated stuff like food.
Coffee chains can avoid corporate tax but they can't avoid VAT
Given the lack of a definitive answer from google I'm guessing nobody really knows.
I haven't seen a definitive answer
Well i gave a link up there, I'm not going to try and argue the case, but just point out that while rich people buy more stuff, such spending is low in income elasticity (ie as people earn more their spending on VAT rated stuff doesn't go up in proportion). I think a lot of this is related to spending on "sin goods".
Though in any case it seems THM has successfully Trumped here by deflecting the discussion - his original reply was to a suggestion of imposing VAT on food, something I think we can all agree is regressive in effect.
"Well i gave a link up there"
I skim read it and it didn't mention tax avoidance which is critical to the calculation.
Even as a PAYE wage slave there are several things I can do to reduce my taxable income, I have no way to avoid a sales tax without smuggling.
[img] 
[/img]
Well I'm enjoying this one, so thought I'd carry on (and was struggling to link from the phone earlier):
[quote=teamhurtmore ]Aracer, correct it's THE essential part of the definition.
Why don't you provide us with a reference for that? Because I'm struggling to find one, whereas I could pretty much just post any random link from a search for "regressive indirect tax" which has an authority discussing how regressive various indirect taxes are. Here are a few examples from various economic bodies:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp
http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/fiscal-policy/regressive-tax/
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Aggressively%20Regressive.pdf
Though I note the following sentence from the last one "It is well established that indirect taxes are nearly always regressive" which is I presume why THM is so desparate to deflect the issue by arguing (incorrect) semantics.
[quote=mikewsmith ]pointless argument aracer, he never changes his mind
I don't really care - I'm happy enough to make him look silly.
Here's an economics professor - I presume you've passed more exams than him?
He is - and he has an economics degree, but I don't see any evidence of any further academic study on his website - no PhD for instance. He has of course been a very active tax campaigner and written few books and one of his ideas has been adopted by the OECD. However, he is not really an academic economist and some of his articles are very light weight. City University does have a habit of making practitioners Professors or Teaching Academics rather than pure academics. Even I have lectured there.
Well I am glad that we are agreed that thinking about food as a homogenous group is incorrect - yes Jaffa cakes were a deliberate choice.
The correct one Martin
Aracer, for the same reason that the IFS disagree with good old Murphy - he's wrong. If your intention is to make ME look silly then please do carry on. It will be amusing ....
I haven't seen a definitive answer but I suspect it's heavier on high income people because it can't be avoided , rich people buy more stuff and poor people spend more on zero rated stuff like food.
The only thing that really matters is the amount of money you're giving to the government relative to your own income. If all essentials were zero-rated, then it would be a tax on non-essential consumption, and more progressive in nature.
But you're paying VAT when you fill your car, buy clothes, pay line rental or a phone contract and even (at a reduced rate) for domestic energy supplies. It's largely unavoidable in modern UK society, regardless of your income group.
As for the economist quoted above being a bit 'lightweight', I think it's fair to say that this kind of analysis doesn't really sit at the cutting edge of modern economics.
He's not lightweight - I read q a lot of his tax stuff. He's generally interesting, has a strong political bias to his work, but he is often wrong.
I favour the IFS conclusion but even then they slip and can be misquoted about regressive v progressive. But at least they are not falling at the first hurdle. FWIW, they are clear in their conclusion tha the notion that VAT is regressive (sic) is a myth.
[quote=teamhurtmore ]yes Jaffa cakes were a deliberate choice.
Well of course they were - it was clearly an attempt to deflect discussion by going down that particular wormhole. The suggestion by jamba appeared to be VAT on all food, which is what we were discussing, so homogeneity is irrelevant.
The correct one Martin
Care to provide a link?
Aracer, for the same reason that the IFS disagree with good old Murphy - he's wrong.
Wrong about whether indirect taxes [b]can[/b] be regressive? Because he's discussing VAT in general and I'm just providing that as an example of the possibility that VAT can be regressive. If you consider IFS to be an authority, here we go:
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4813
"the ONS analysis suggests VAT is regressive even as a percentage of spending"
[quote=teamhurtmore ]FWIW, they are clear in their conclusion tha the notion that VAT is regressive (sic) is a myth.
Aha, so you agree that "regressive" is one possibility! 😆
VAT: one of its key benefits is that its paid by tourists/business visitors and those who evade/avoid other taxes
We have more vat exemptions and lower rates than most European countries
Aracer, you are the one that is defecting. In your haste to jump on Jamba you started with the idea that WTO tariffs are a form of tax - ok - you then got lost (1) with VAT, food and regressive ideas and (2) the notion that everyone pays tax. Both are wrong. That was the defection from the relevant point which was about WTO and on the correct path.
Thank you for quoting the ONS. The sloppy use of the term regressive is catching.
"The only thing that really matters is the amount of money you're giving to the government relative to your own income."
Why income? There's no natural law hat says income has to be taxed at all. You could easily run an economy without taxing income.
[quote=jambalaya ]VAT: one of its key benefits is that its paid by tourists and those who evade/avoid other taxes
Oh you're back.
VAT on food - regressive or not?
When did you predict the EU demise would be?
In fairness, aracer, that's one line from a report which broadly aims in the other direction. Partial quoting doesn't actually counter their argument.
However, the main argument that the percentage of spending stats are misleading seems to be that for many in the lowest decile of income, it's just a temporary thing, and the burden will somehow be 'smoothed out' when they are not a student or retiree, or between jobs.
That's all well and good, but a sizeable chunk of that decile, and the chunk we should be interested in, are those whose presence there is not a transient one. They have no opportunity to smooth things out by getting a well paid job or drawing down on savings.
The other point is that the IFS revised chart looks at VAT as a percentage of post-tax income. In other words, the direct effect of VAT may be regressive in isolation, but the overall tax system more progressive because of the allowances system. That doesn't suddenly make VAT flat or progressive, it just means that its effect has been mitigated by more progressive elements such as income tax or NI take.
For me, at least, there's nothing there that disproves the 'myth'. Just finding ways to adjust the graph so it isn't so striking.
[quote=teamhurtmore ]The sloppy use of the term regressive is catching.
Opinion is divided on the subject.
Edit. Double post by mistake
Aracer, you are the one that is defecting.
<precision> Where's he defecting to? Is he Russki? </precision> 😀
[quote=teamhurtmore ]Aracer, you are the one that is defecting.
(sic) 😆 - it's part of your standard methodology, and you still haven't answered a simple question
the idea that WTO tariffs are a form of tax
looks like a tax, smells like a tax (who gets the money? follow the money...)
the notion that everyone pays tax.
quote me
That was the defection from the relevant point which was about WTO and on the correct path.
So I was deflecting from a deflection? 😆 We [b]were[/b] discussing Carswell being an arse.
p.s. you might want to google the quote in my previous post
Your versions of precision Aracer is clear. Even with the edit you claim that almost everyone pays income tax. here you go:
(almost) Everyone pays income tax,
1/3 of UK adults pay no income tax. So your benchmark is clear.
you should have stuck to WTO - you were on safer ground there.
edit? that's the original (and if you're asking for precision, then it doesn't provide proof of your claim at all)
I'll take your point about income tax, though it's still quibbling, because those people who have money to pay more tax pay income tax (increasing the threshold to remove people from it is generally agreed to be a good thing - apart from by you, jamba and Carswell presumably).
Though I realised I missed the obvious flaw in your argument - are you suggesting that there are people who spend no money at all on anything other that zero rated VAT items?
Have you seen the level of tax on 20 Bensons?!!
"are you suggesting that there are people who spend no money at all on anything other that zero rated VAT items?"
I would imagine homeless people buy nothing except food.
I would imagine homeless people buy nothing except food.
It's even better than that - many of them are gifted food or bin-dive, which is even more progressive. The economics of homelessness have rarely been more positive.
As soon as they bring in a cardboard allowance, things will be golden for those guys and gals.
[img] 
[/img]
Cheap as chips, and there's no tax at all on brown. Ker-ching!
Oh you're back.
VAT on food - regressive or not?
When did you predict the EU demise would be?
I do have better things to do from time to time.
VAT on food and full rate on utilities is charged throughout Europe (the EU has tried a number of times to get us to charge full rate and even harmonise vat which would have made it compulsory we charge it on food). They seem to manage without society collpasing and millions driven into poverty.
You tell me, please quote a post as you seem fixated.
When (most?) people on the left say they will pay more tax they don't really mean it. What they mean is I'll pay a tiny bit more as long as somelse pays a lot more as that's fair.
Aracer, you are incorrect * again I'm afraid. I am all for a higher personal allowance.
* albeit within your current "levels of confidence" around your precision benchmark 😉
[quote=jambalaya ]When (most?) people on the left say they will pay more tax they don't really mean it. What they mean is I'll pay a tiny bit more as long as somelse pays a lot more as that's fair.
When (most?) people on the right say they're to pay a fair rate of tax they don't really mean it. What they mean is a millionaire paying the same amount of tax as somebody on benefits, and any discussion on alternatives is dismissed as lefties wanting somebody else to pay for things (though this does of course ignore the lefties who already pay more tax than most and are happy to pay even more as long as everybody with their level of wealth does).
[quote=teamhurtmore ]Aracer, you are incorrect *
Well I'm happy to incorrect in this case on something I was simply presuming, rather than anything I'm claiming to be a fact. So that just leaves jamba and the honourable member.
"What they mean is a millionaire paying the same amount of tax as somebody on benefits,"
Of course, you can fix that by biasing your tax take towards VAT which is impossible to avoid.
We could always divert 😉 on to flat rate taxes and whether they are/ can be progressive or not 😉
That's always a giggle
FWIW, I'm in favour of lower taxes across the board.
Poor old boy smashed on his first question in PMQ.
The Shadow Front Bench look particularly miserable today
[quote=teamhurtmore ]FWIW, I'm in favour of lower taxes across the board.
So you are in agreement with Carswell.
If that is what he believes, then yes
(frankly I don't pay him that much attention - £250k cough)
Crap PMQs today. Perhaps they are all distracted by what is or isn't to follow
When (most?) people on the left say they will pay more tax they don't really mean it. What they mean is I'll pay a tiny bit more as long as somelse pays a lot more as that's fair.
Jamba people on the left have never made a secret that the think the rich should pay more tax than they currently do. I have no idea why you think they're trying to hide this. The question is how much more? In a world where the super rich and corporations pay less tax as a proportion of their income than normal working people on average salaries or small businesses it's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that this is borne of envy or double standards.
I'm guessing Leona Helmsley was a leftie given her views on universality of taxes
Crap PMQs today.
It always is now. May just looks bored. Like she's barely stifling a yawn. Or a grin. A look of 'is this it? This is seriously the best you can come up with?' resignation on her face. The same look on the faces of those on the benches opposite... 'is this it? This is seriously the best we can come up with?'
And why wouldn't she? At least Millibean used to land the odd punch. Know how to get Dave going bright red and lose his shit from time to time. Halcyon days eh?
Mays biggest problems are sat behind her, not mumbling incoherently and totally ineffectually into their notes from he dispatch box in front of her. And she knows it.She needn't expend even the smallest amount of energy, or thought, to casually swat away Corbyn every week. Bigger fish to fry...
Agreed binners
Even Angus was off form today and he is usually the main Opposition
Far too easy....
Was there a letter from Sandra in Cramlington?
He's not lightweight
I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you, as soon as he strays into economic policy all he can do is mash together other peoles's ideas. It was hardly a surprise that he wasn't on Corbyn's panel of economic experts - he doesn't have the heft of Wren-Lewis, Stiglitz, Blanchflower etc.
Now let's move onto taxation, a milieu I know a bit about, I am reminded of [url= http://https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/22/richard-murphy-corbynomics-tax-social-housing-britain ]this article[/url]. I won't go through line by line but there are two pretty startling mistatements (I am being kind).
First, there is this statment
“I did a quick Google search,” he says, “and discovered that I could get 500 courses in accountancy, and none in tax. Why is something that is so important so little researched and only taught as an adjunct to accountancy? Why aren’t we researching the sociology of tax, the philosophy?”
Well his Google is broken because when I google it plenty of courses come up. This doesn't surprise me as two of the best guys I worked with on tax, both partners at one of the major city law firms, studied under John Tiley, the first serious tax academic at Queen's, Cambridge in the 1970s.
Second, there is this one
Vince Cable nicked some of my ideas in 2009 and put them in to the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto, which meant they got into the coalition agreement, which meant the general anti-abuse law [part of the Revenue’s tax avoidance strategy] in 2013 came from me
Now he has really overreached himself here. I trained as a tax adviser at a rival big accountancy firm at the pretty much the same time as Murphy. The relative merits of a general anti-abuse law were being debated in the technical press then. Tony Blair's Labour Government issued a consultative document on it in the late 90s, while he was still a jobbing accountant. It is therefore ludicrous for him to claim credit for the idea.
You may say he must be an expert because he appears on TV and in the papers alot and the International Tax Review said he was the 7th most influential person in the tax world. Media exposure leads to influence and there is no doubt he gets alot of media attention. In my view this is as much to do with the fact that very few people in the tax field want to put their heads above the parapet, it is not in their interests. Second there are alot of unflamboyant and introverted people in tax, there is a lot of truth in the quip, "the quality of the tax advice in inversely proportional to the quality of the suit", when they do get forced into the sunlight, they are dreadful TV.
I am not writing off all his work, but I am always take what he says about anything with a hefty pinch of salt because his level of expertise and achievements are overstated by the media and sadly, it appears by himself.
Well said - although lightweight is too harsh IMO
Phil getting a bit cocky with his delivery on the budget now
May looks knackered (unsurprisingly)
I'm guessing Jeremy is back on his allotment by now?
Do you want him to catch his death of cold? (no, don't answer that) Give him a chance to put his cardy on first
Wednesday is jam day, Binners.
Even though he's totally anti-sugar on health grounds.
Actually. Hammond is messing what has been a good delivery with rather crass and too frequent diggs. The poor old boy is already in the gutter. The Budget isn't the time smash him further. Rather poor show...
Very good to hear a politician describe it as "the NHS" not "our NHS"
Good luck to Jeremy - toughest gig in politics this response.
Any news on 'Hard Working Families'? Its all Brexit this, Brexit that nowadays.
I miss 'Hard Working Families' 😥
Jezza's back and sounding q angry....Not so hot on reading the script though. Intonation is awful.
toughest gig in politics
[img] 
[/img]
Has someone vandalised his shed?