General Election 2015

[nicko31]

Given the magic number both parties need to get to is 326 seats I can only predict a minority government being formed. Even if Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems get together they would only need 5 of their MPs to vote against them and they would lose a motion. Herr's prediction is looking rather shaky as convention says the current party in power gets to have a go at forming a government first in the event of a hung parliament, and even if we use Kingmaker Clegg's policy of the party with the greatest number of seats getting a go first, it's looking like goodbye Ed.

Would be funny after all the hype if UKIP only got 3 seats, more tin pot than Bournemouth

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The quotes are rather meaningless without the sources.

Regardless, this new Labour idea that they can raise £7.5bn from tax avoiders is utterly mad. Firstly they have to close all the loopholes ( no government of any colour will do that ), then they have to actually catch the avoiders and even then it is likely to be a one off fine so it's not repeat income. I guess it does allow Labour to pay for something elsewhere on their balance sheet but there is no way they will raise £7.5bn. Also, who the hell is going to believe they will do this ? Let's rewind a little to 2000 and a certain sweetheart deal between Vodafone and HMRC ...... remind me who was in power then ?

I doubt they're claiming or even planning to close every loop hole initially; they wouldn't need to. Making it impossible for a sizeable amount will be a start. And I don't subscribe to the idea that those hit will immediately and effortlessly move to the remaining loopholes as not everyone's finances will be able to fit the remaining gaps. And as I understand currently, if tax schemes do fit the law but are deemed to be an artificial construct then they're illegal. Closing down loop holes will push more into this field. Maybe, just maybe, when faced with these new laws and possible criminal charges, as opposed to the current lazy approach, they will be honest from the off. As an aside, I understand the HMRC now hire some of the best tax lawyers the UK has to offer. Hopefully the incoming Labour government will keep them and new law will be targeted and successful.

And why do I need to rewind 15 years? What relevance has Ed got to do with that Labour government?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Given the magic number both parties need to get to is 326 seats I can only predict a minority government being formed. Even if Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems get together they would only need 5 of their MPs to vote against them and they would lose a motion. Herr's prediction is looking rather shaky as convention says the current party in power gets to have a go at forming a government first in the event of a hung parliament, and even if we use Kingmaker Clegg's policy of the party with the greatest number of seats getting a go first, it's looking like goodbye Ed.

Isn't it 323 for a majority?

 

[cunning fergus]

Osbourne let himself and party down on the marr show . Avoiding questions and again trying to discredit labour . What a sham he is . Doubt makes much difference as opinions formed and can't imagine many floating voters are up watching it anyway , didn't do osbourne many favours Harman played a straight bat and talked very well .

I didn't catch it all but what did she say when Marr raised her aggressive slating of Cameron and Osbourne as "posh boys"?

I think Osbourne laughed and said the Harman went to the same school he did?

Feel free to correct me.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So basically he's right and you're invoking the old 'I can't be bothered to respond ' clause.

I find beorthelm the most unimaginative poster on this board and at times cannot be bothered to engage with him. All he does is defend the status quo, and never thinks "what if". Withdene is neither of these so please see my reply to him.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Would be funny after all the hype if UKIP only got 3 seats, more tin pot than Bournemouth

Three seats is good. Glad I'm not voting for any of the three main parties that look the same and sound the same.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

And why do I need to rewind 15 years? What relevance has Ed got to do with that Labour government?

Much as he might like to forget it, he was a senior member of that government. Those of us here still pay higher energy bills because of Ed.

 

[larus]

Would be funny after all the hype if UKIP only got 3 seats, more tin pot than Bournemouth

So, the SNP get 40 seats with 5%.
Lib dems get 30 seats with 10%.
Yet UKIP get 3 seats with 11%, and with your superior reasoning, you class them as tin pot. Your comment just underlines the inadequacies of the current, first past the post system.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

So, the SNP get 40 seats with 5%.
Lib dems get 30 seats with 10%.
Yet UKIP get 3 seats with 11%, and with your superior reasoning, you class them as tin pot. Your comment just underlines the inadequacies of the current, first past the post system.

This underlines how ridicolous the current system is doesn't it. Nothing will ever change under the current system.

 

[beorhthelm]

Funny. I utterly predicted this response from you. And I cannot be bothered with a proper response as you know jack-shit about tax. You proved this in a discussion about artificial tax schemes some time ago.

i see, unable or unwilling to debate the subject, so play the man and not the ball. fact is tax avoidance is legal use of the tax system, and the result of decades of mucking about with the system every budget. without overhaul, this want change. quite how me advocating an overhaul is "defendig the status quo", i dont know.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm not sure I agree that people vote for the candidate rather than the party. I appreciate that on the ballot paper it is a named person you are voting for but in the minds of most voters they are voting for the party they want to run the country.

you're quite right of course, this is what happens in practice. the system is set up assuming the electorate vote for a candidate though. if we are to change, we have to recogise this and the unintended consequence of changing that. i.e. you'll move to a party list system where only the approved, on message party members get into parliament. i think that would be a deteriment to democracy.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Withdene is neither of these so please see my reply to him.

** cough ** Flattered I am but I'd be more flattered if you got my name correct or spelt Withdean correctly.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

** cough ** Flattered I am but I'd be more flattered if you got my name correct or spelt Withdean correctly.

Damn. I was aware that I kept misspelling your name as Westdean, so I consciously made the effort on that post to correct this and ended up with Withdean. Must try harder.

 

[beorhthelm]

... Let's rewind a little to 2000 and a certain sweetheart deal between Vodafone and HMRC ...... remind me who was in power then ?

exactly the problem with "avoidance" is that most is headlining grabbing instances are based on only perception that it was artificial or aggressive. i assume you refer to the deal following the sale of Bertelsmann, where only the revenue that was repatriated to UK was taxed. most remained within German or Luxemberg holding companies and was taxed there. there was no avoidance, just the amount paid in the UK was less than what some naive observers expected the tax to be based on headline figures of the deal. or maybe you refer to the Indian subsidary sale, which was a great deal more complex and seemed to be a case that country losing out not us.

but its ok, because apparently Labour will come in and rewrite the tax code, remove cross boarder tax treaties, unilaterally change international accountacy rules and tell EU they cant have taxes from UK companies and so on. it would be a welcome change if it happens.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

exactly the problem with "avoidance" is that most is headlining grabbing instances are based on only perception that it was artificial or aggressive. i assume you refer to the deal following the sale of Bertelsmann, where only the revenue that was repatriated to UK was taxed. most remained within German or Luxemberg holding companies and was taxed there. there was no avoidance, just the amount paid in the UK was less than what some naive observers expected the tax to be based on headline figures of the deal. or maybe you refer to the Indian subsidary sale, which was a great deal more complex and seemed to be a case that country losing out not us.

but its ok, because apparently Labour will come in and rewrite the tax code, remove cross boarder tax treaties, unilaterally change international accountacy rules and tell EU they cant have taxes from UK companies and so on. it would be a welcome change if it happens.

George Osborne has also announced that he wants to raise £5bn through tackling evasion and avoidance. So, you're in luck either way.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

exactly the problem with "avoidance" is that most is headlining grabbing instances are based on only perception that it was artificial or aggressive. i assume you refer to the deal following the sale of Bertelsmann, where only the revenue that was repatriated to UK was taxed. most remained within German or Luxemberg holding companies and was taxed there. there was no avoidance, just the amount paid in the UK was less than what some naive observers expected the tax to be based on headline figures of the deal. or maybe you refer to the Indian subsidary sale, which was a great deal more complex and seemed to be a case that country losing out not us.

but its ok, because apparently Labour will come in and rewrite the tax code, remove cross boarder tax treaties, unilaterally change international accountacy rules and tell EU they cant have taxes from UK companies and so on. it would be a welcome change if it happens.

I have no idea what you're on about here. Care to expand on this and why this has to be done to stop loop holes? For example how will this be required to scrap the non-dom tax loop hole?

 

[beorhthelm]

George Osborne has also announced that he wants to raise £5bn through tackling evasion and avoidance. So, you're in luck either way.

and his announcment would be just as empty without policy detail on how it will be achieved. just announcing a crack down on avoidance isnt going to raise revenue. evasion would be more fruitful territory though. i find this information in contradiction with the earlier quote that Tories wont address the issue, so which is it then? or do we just have claim and counter claim from politicains grandstanding on an issue that is popular but they wont deliver on (which was my point originally).

im just surprised you are such a fanboi of Labour to regurgitate thier claims without any question or consideration. i used to think it was being funny, playing to a character, but i dont know anymore.

I have no idea what you're on about here. Care to expand on this and why this has to be done to stop loop holes? For example how will this be required to scrap the non-dom tax loop hole?

good example. close the non-dom will raise pitful amounts because, in most cases, those registered and earning money overseas will already be taxed in that domicile. there are exceptions and those that play the systems off against each other, so theres a bit of scope in there, but theres not a few billion hiding away to fill in a budget hole. for the most part theres no evasion going on, and avoidance is just selective use of favourable tax. like we all do.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

im just surprised you are such a fanboi of Labour to regurgitate thier claims without any question or consideration. i used to think it was being funny, playing to a character, but i dont know


good example. close the non-dom will raise pitful amounts because, in most cases, those registered and earning money overseas will already be taxed in that domicile. there are exceptions and those that play the systems off against each other, so theres a bit of scope in there, but theres not a few billion hiding away to fill in a budget hole. for the most part theres no evasion going on, and avoidance is just selective use of favourable tax. like we all do.

1) The Labour Party has given a very broad outline in the press. That's enough for a lay person like me at this moment. Further, I wouldn't expect any party to furnish me with the finer detailed legal points of any manifesto policy.
2) You didn't answer my question. Why will numerous cross border, EU etc rules need to be changed to close the non-dom loop hole? From what I have read the simple scrapping of this tax-relic is a very very quick and easy win. In fact it seems a no-brainier.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This underlines how ridicolous the current system is doesn't it. Nothing will ever change under the current system.

I very much agree. I hope a few more terms of coalitions will see PR introduced.

 

[beorhthelm]

1) The Labour Party has given a very broad outline in the press. ...

tbf they have and its probably the fault of the media who dumb down the announcments to the soundbite with out any meat. ive read the 10 point plan... its interesting, a few sensible points, half debatable and half you wonder if anyone with passing interest has actually checked the policy (example "hedge fund loophole" - its there to prevent market makers being taxed, which would be to the dterment of the market. who or how are they to implement a change that doesnt have a significant negative impact?). it might have been more productive to point to this 10 point plan earlier, i'll graciously concede on this matter.

on two, get rid of the non-doms if you like, i've become unconvinced about its merit. the point here is that its not the avoidance loophole being made out. the avoidance comes from Mr Patel or Mr Smirnov using the system to pay the lowest tax they can where they can, and there's treaties in place to agree that if tax is paid in India or Russia, it wont be double taxed here. to close the loopholes means changing those treaties. non-dom status seems to mean paying 30k a year to HMRC to avoid any more paperwork on where and how your earnings have or havent been taxed. its proven a popular thing to hit and the rules are daft.