what do you think ?
I think that the number of rich people is small enough that you're not going to make a significant difference to the tax take no matter what the top rate of tax is. I think that it's a good idea to reduce tax avoidance/evasion, but that they're doing that anyway. I think that stopping SAS from having a bus pass and winter fuel allowance will make very little difference to the country's budget - see point 1, there just aren't enough people who you could remove such benefits from to make a noticeable difference.
Oh, and I also think you're not very good at inferences.
I don't see how cutting more jobs and putting more people on the dole (jobs which have been proven to actually save money)
So how is increasing the numbers by 3000 cutting jobs which have been proven to save money?
I merely said that you'd have to be very naive to believe this government is really taking it seriously.
Well they are bringing in general anti avoidance legislation which has never been done before, they are trying to get international co-operation to tackle it (without this they are fighting with both hands tied behind their back) they have increased staff in Enforcement, they have banned the use of service companies in the public sector. Seems to me they have done quite a lot.
It also seems to have an effect in that most tax avoidance cases are now losing at the Commissioners which implies that it is more difficult to get a scheme to work and many of the firms that used to market these services have reduced their headcount massively.
Why sic for ubber - you think there are not ubber rich people out there?
Uber (I assumed you're using the German word as a synonym for super) only has one b.
yes they are vague terms, yes we could debate what the money point is but it is not that relevant for this thread
I'd say that they are very relevant to all such debates. People generally want to reduce government spending as long as it doesn't affect them and similarly people want tax rises for the rich provided it doesn't include them. It is therefore a bit dishonest to say "tax the rich" without being specific about who these "rich" are.
We simply need to accept that some folk are rich/well off and some folk and very very rich for the point to stand. I assume you accept this even if there is debate a[and there would be] about exactly where the threshold/line is.
I absolutlely accept this, and I count myself in the well off category (purely based on income rather than assets) but the point still stands that if you say tax the rich/cut benefits to the rich you need to be a lot more open about who this actually includes so that everyone knows what they personsonally stand to gain or lose.
I merely said that you'd have to be very naive to believe this government is really taking it seriously.
Seems like the government is deadly serious about taking on the [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/revenue-shame-hmrc-amazon ]big boys[/url]
Maybe you'd like to try and explain the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion to the journo, binners?
Seems to me they have done quite a lot.
By their own estimates the gap between what HMRC thinks it should get and what it actually gets is 30 billion pounds a year.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-gaps.htm#4
These proposed changes aim to save 4.2 billion over 5 years. Meanwhile the relentless media focus from the Tories is on blaming 'scroungers', who actually cost the country a fraction of the amount of lost taxes. So no I don't believe they are taking it seriously.
Have just managed to listen to what IDS says "if I had to I would". I'm impressed at how good a job everybody is doing at pointing out he doesn't have to...
they are trying to get international co-operation to tackle it (without this they are fighting with both hands tied behind their back)
The "big boys" tend to place functions in other jurisdictions which are low tax. It is impossible to legislate against this in isolation as international treaty obligations trump domestic legislation. (We already have a whole raft of legislation designed to tackle offshore avoidance). Therefore you have to get international agreement, without that you can achieve very little.
By their own estimates the gap between what HMRC thinks it should get and what it actually gets is 30 billion pounds a year.
Of which about £3 billion relates to avoidance, the rest is evasion, errors etc so it is not really the golden goose is it.
Done
Of which about £3 billion relates to avoidance, the rest is evasion, errors etc so it is not really the golden goose is it.
So we can't really do anything about it? I've got an idea, lets sack thousands of people at the HMRC, that will sort it.
Lets concentrate on the 'golden goose' of trying to convince everyone that benefit cheats caused the financial crisis instead. As soon as we've made a few of them homeless all our financial woes will be over.
I'm sure plenty would manage it for a week, but try it for two months.
The national Welfare bill is £220,000,000,000.
Of which the vast majority goes on pensions and in work benefits (often subsidising the profits of major companies who don't pay a living wage). What's your point caller?
Most people consider HMRC's estimates on lost taxes very conservative btw.
The "big boys" tend to place functions in other jurisdictions which are low tax. It is impossible to legislate against this in isolation as international treaty obligations trump domestic legislation.
It's not really that difficult. All you have to do is pass legislation along the lines of any profits made in the UK (or wherever) must be taxed at a rate equivalent to that which exists in the UK. They've done it for oil and gas production in the UK none of which can be offset or moved to be set against losses or charges from elsewhere so I fail to see why it can't be done for every business. Doesn't the US have a law along these lines?
Of which the vast majority goes on pensions and on work benefits (often subsidising the profits of major companies who don't pay a living wage). What's your point caller?
Increase wages and cull the old I'm guessing.
Lets concentrate on the 'golden goose' of trying to convince everyone that benefit cheats caused the financial crisis instead.
[img] 
[/img]
How is that a straw man aracer? That's exactly what the government is doing. And you seem to be falling for it by the looks of things.
Lets concentrate on the 'golden goose' of trying to convince everyone that benefit cheats caused the financial crisis instead.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Good film but I fail to see the relevance...
All you have to do is pass legislation along the lines of any profits made in the UK (or wherever) must be taxed at a rate equivalent to that which exists in the UK.
I thought the whole point was that Ambucks don't officially make that much profit in the UK. How exactly do you propose to legislate on how they do their accounting?
They've done it for oil and gas production in the UK none of which can be offset or moved to be set against losses or charges from elsewhere
You appear to have answered your own question.
That's exactly what the government is doing. And you seem to be falling for it by the looks of things.
Go on then, give us a nice direct quote or reference.
Though if it helps at all, I don't believe that benefit cheats caused the financial crisis, I don't believe we're currently discussing benefit cheats (not until you brought them up) and nor do I believe it's all that helpful considering what (who?) caused the current situation when determining what to do to solve it.
How exactly do you propose to legislate on how they do their accounting?
Wasn't that quite a bit to do with internal corporate charges? It cannot be beyond the wit of man (although it may be beyond the current batch of politicians) to devise a scheme that taxes profit before such charges are made.
....nor do I believe it's all that helpful considering what (who?) caused the current situation when determining what to do to solve it.
Ah, now I see your problem.
Try to figure out what caused the current situation, before searching for solutions.
That's exactly what I was suggesting we shouldn't do 😕
How exactly do you think it will help?
Yes I noticed. And I'm suggesting that you are wrong. To find the solution you need to understand the problem.
<I'm sure Junky will love this one>
It's rained a lot recently. Do you suggest the best way to stop my house flooding is to try and stop it raining?
Though if it helps at all, I don't believe that benefit cheats caused the financial crisis, I don't believe we're currently discussing benefit cheats (not until you brought them up) and nor do I believe it's all that helpful considering what (who?) caused the current situation when determining what to do to solve it.
My point - which would be fairly obvious if you weren't trying to be belligerent/obtuse - is that the government's relentless media campaign to demonise 'scroungers' and 'shirkers' is cynical, misleading, and deeply unpleasant. This thread is about benefits, and the government's attitude to them - pretty relevant I would have thought.
You might wish to look up the definition of a straw man btw.
How exactly do you think it will help?
Are you actually serious?
Wasn't that quite a bit to do with internal corporate charges? It cannot be beyond the wit of man (although it may be beyond the current batch of politicians) to devise a scheme that taxes profit before such charges are made.
The problem is we have surrendered our taxing right under the treaties so no matter what our legislation says it is irrelevant as it can't be applied - oil & gas has a separate regime and countries have much wider taxing rights.
I don't understand why we're stopping at Iain Duncan smith. I don't understand why MP's aren't forced to live in a big communal tenement and fed slops. If they want anything better they can pay for it out of their own pocket, or BAE's or whoever is buying their backside this week.
My point - which would be fairly obvious if you weren't trying to be belligerent/obtuse - is that the government's relentless media campaign to demonise 'scroungers' and 'shirkers' is cynical, misleading, and deeply unpleasant. This thread is about benefits, and the government's attitude to them - pretty relevant I would have thought.
What exactly has that to do with who caused the financial crisis?
You might wish to look up the definition of a straw man btw.
I think it has something to do with suggesting somebody else has a position that they don't?
The problem is we have surrendered our taxing right under the treaties so no matter what our legislation says it is irrelevant as it can't be applied
Rubbish. If you want an example of unilateral taxation, look at the one off tax on Bank bonuses a few years back (09/10).
the government's relentless media campaign to demonise 'scroungers' and 'shirkers'
Actually, I've not seen the government mention it at all
what I [i]have[/i] seen is a widespread media campaign by the opposition and their [i]common purpose[/i] compadre's to categorise perfectly reasonable reforms in the benefits system as an attack on scroungers and shirkers - and I'm willing to bet that if you go and do a search, you'll find that the only politicians categorising people on benefits with the words 'scroungers' and 'shirkers' are from the Labour party
The government has cynically and quite successfully shifted the public/media focus away from anger at the failings/greed of the banks/financial institutions that actually caused the crisis (who have largely got off scot free), to railing against the scummy scroungers on benefits bleeding us dry.
The poorest and most vulnerable in society are bearing the brunt of the crisis caused by the richest and most powerful - something you seem to be absolutely fine with.
What exactly has that to do with who caused the financial crisis?
Iblame babies an pensioners, well actually it's all down to people who unprotected vaginal intercourse and living forever, which are fun, but don't help when your country doesn't actually need people to operate.
It's rained a lot recently. Do you suggest the best way to stop my house flooding is to try and stop it raining?
What a ridiculous comment.
I see that I'm going to have to hold your hand and help you with this one.
Start off by having a quick read of this :
[url= http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-instability-of-inequality ]The Instability of Inequality[/url]
Then check out this :
[url= http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/ ]Food stamps offer best stimulus - study[/url]
Quote :
[b][i]"For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy"[/i][/b]
The most effective way to stimulate the economy is to give poor people more money, the least effective way to stimulate the economy is to give rich people more money.
You need the economy back on its feet if you want to reduce the benefit bill, but that isn't going to happen if you ignore the problems.
Although for obvious reasons the Tories don't like the idea of more money for the poor and less for the rich.
The poorest and most vulnerable in society are bearing the brunt of the crisis caused by the richest and most powerful - something you seem to absolutely fine with.
My only fault is that I'm not an idealist (well it's actually one of many, but I'm trying to gloss over the others).
Oh another glib facetious comment rather than actually engaging the point. What a surprise. 🙄
still, all this petty egotistical bickering aside..
Iain Duncan Smith really really should do this..
I must have misunderstood you ernie - I thought you were suggesting fixing the economy by punishing the bankers. Or did I misunderstand that they caused the financial crisis - was it actually the unemployed?
what I have seen is a widespread media campaign by the opposition and their common purpose compadre's to categorise perfectly reasonable reforms in the benefits system as an attack on scroungers and shirkers - and I'm willing to bet that if you go and do a search, you'll find that the only politicians categorising people on benefits with the words 'scroungers' and 'shirkers' are from the Labour party
Are you for real? That is absolute cobblers! What about George Osbornes conference speech about benefit claimants 'sleeping away a life on benefits'? That's fairly unambiguous.
This government has been engaged in a constant campaign, with the willing aid of its friends in the right-wing press, to demonise the unemployed, the sick, and the most disadvantaged people in society as undeserving of benefits. Softening everyone up for what is effectively the systematic dismantling of the welfare state
I must have misunderstood you ernie - I thought you were suggesting fixing the economy by punishing the bankers. Or did I misunderstand that they caused the financial crisis - was it actually the unemployed?
And again.
Are you for real? That is absolute cobblers! What about George Osbornes conference speech about benefit claimants 'sleeping away a life on benefits'? That's fairly unambiguous.
So you accept he didn't call anyone a scrounger, shirker or skiver then?
All words that came from the Lefty outrage bus!
I think that the number of rich people is small enough that you're not going to make a significant difference to the tax take no matter what the top rate of tax is.
what we dont have enough rich people to increase the tax burden and raise more money - you may not agree with it as apolicy but I m sure we do have enough rich folk to increase their tax burden.
If true why did they care enough to reduce the higher tax rate?
Sur e zulu could do us the graph showing us how much the wealthy allready contribute as a %
I think that it's a good idea to reduce tax avoidance/evasion, but that they're doing that anyway.
none of them [labour included]were any good at this and they say this when it is in the public eye but I doubt the commitment from either party to this tbh - CMD's father made his money running tax avoidance schemes so i doubt dave cares[morally] that much tbh
We could do more for sure and we are certainly not giving the same attention to these people and companies as were are the 3% of social payments that go to the unemployed- whay always target the poor?
I think that stopping SAS from having a bus pass and winter fuel allowance will make very little difference to the country's budget
Not him directly but i would target all universal benefits and reduce payments to many pensioners tbh - they are no longer [ all of them anyway] amongst the most needy in our society. Not convinced by the cost claim tbh[ sure it might not save shed loads but do you think the HB change will? - surely we just remove it them means test it - not like SAS will chnace it to see if he is eligible now is it.
Seen any figires for how much would be saved ? Computer very slow cannot google
Thanks for answering [ not sarcasm]
Uber (I assumed you're using the German word as a synonym for super) only has one b.
I cannot spell in English there is little chance of german but cheers I get the point
i think we would just be here going round in circles debating if rich is 75 k per annum or 75k per week or somwhere in between- i doubt we will get a universal agreement however we do it and as for an exact figure I have not given it that much thought as i am not about to legislate on thisIt is therefore a bit dishonest to say "tax the rich" without being specific about who these "rich" are.
I thought the whole point was that Ambucks don't officially make that much profit in the UK. How exactly do you propose to legislate on how they do their accounting?
turnover then ? No one believes they dont make a profit here except on paper - their own blurb shows [ as does the exapansion of outlets] that they clearly make money.
really 😯 if you ignore history you tend to repeat it , you cannot be being serious.nor do I believe it's all that helpful considering what (who?) caused the current situation when determining what to do to solve it.
It's rained a lot recently. Do you suggest the best way to stop my house flooding is to try and stop it raining?
I dont get your anologies tbh I wonder if anyone else does.
