General Election 2017

[BigGully]

I struggle with the fact that according to the Tories we have a wonderfully buoyant economy, yet, the austerity cuts have to continue?
I'm not sure if the Labour Party's manifesto is actually doable but I can't disagree with any of the aspirations therein. And, despite Corbyn being branded a looney for his beliefs, is he not any better than Theresa May, of whom it has been said that, the Tories are trying to create a personality cult around a figure almost entirely lacking in personal qualities?

Surely you would at least offer an argument perhaps that austority isnt actually working anyway or Labour spending promises would accelerate growth and skills etc. which in turn justifies that extra spending and help paying down national debt, but you seem to be saying if we are doing comparitively better than most then why not immediately stop austority as if the current deficit suddenly becomes irrelevent or magically disappears.

 

[crookie]

Surely you would at least offer an argument perhaps that austority isnt actually working anyway or Labour spending promises would accelerate growth and skills etc. which in turn justifies that extra spending and help paying down national debt, but you seem to be saying if we are doing comparitively better than most then why not immediately stop austority as if the current deficit suddenly becomes irrelevent or magically disappears.

Worrying thing is in a so-called bouyant economy, we still have a large deficit, even in the boom years pre-2007 we only recorded a tiny surplus, as soon as tax receipts shrunk the deficit ballooned. We have been living beyond our means as a nation for years, and politicians aren't honest/brave enough to tell us straight, that with the level of public services we expect/demand we will have to pay higher taxes for it. I don't just mean the rich and businesses, every one of us. Or is it right/fair to expect our children and grandchildren to foot the bill for services we demanded but were not willing to pay for.

 

[Buzzer]

We have a growing band of billionaires here who would probably accept losing a couple of percent extra taxes as small change.

I don't disagree with you at all on this and it's small change for a lot more people than billionaires. If you brought in a 2.5% extra rate on any earnings over £150k then if you earned £200k your monthly take home is £10,154. If you plonk our little tax rise on then that's an extra £104 a month tax and a take home of £10,050. I defy anyone to find someone who would notice the miniscule increase in tax or regard it as a disincentive to work.

Saying that though, the top 1% of earners (anyone over £150k) already bring in 30% of all income tax receipts and I'd be more inclined to leave income tax as it is, or use our little increase to go towards increasing the tax allowance for those at the bottom. I would definitely hit corporation tax though as a point of principle and as a very safe target well able to afford it. This scollobs we've been fed for the last 7 years about all in it together has singularly ignored company tax and as a result we've still got one of the lowest tax rates in Europe. If we are all in this together then that includes companies too.

 

[BigGully]

I agree, I am not sure we have a bouyant economy more like an economy performing better than some others and this is despite of Brexit fears, ultimately austerity even with its consequences seems necessary.

 

[Scotchegg]

I agree, I am not sure we have a bouyant economy more like an economy performing better than some others and this is despite of Brexit fears, ultimately austerity even with its consequences seems necessary.

However, there are many that say austrity is an ideological narrative that we've been sold that isn't neccessary at all. It's been criticised openly by many independant bodies. Here's an interesting read as a counter-point, though it is quite long.. https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

 

[GT49er]

Why though? What has she done to make herself so trustorwrthy to you over the others?

I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Buzzer]

I agree, I am not sure we have a bouyant economy more like an economy performing better than some others and this is despite of Brexit fears, ultimately austerity even with its consequences seems necessary.

I agree completely. One area where I'd love to see complete transparency is with tax evasion especially regarding corporation tax. To me it's a complete no-brainer that if we invested more in increasing HMRC investigation depts then they should pay for themselves within a very short time.

And on top of that, I would publish all tax fines and interest as a matter of course. I've got no sympathy for companies that are named and shamed and I'm sure it would act as a deterrent. It would also remove all suspicions of cosy deals behind closed doors where very large companies get a slap on the wrist (Google, Vodafone) and poor old taxi drivers, hairdressers and suchlike appear to get hit relatively harder.

 

[BigGully]

I agree completely. One area where I'd love to see complete transparency is with tax evasion especially regarding corporation tax. To me it's a complete no-brainer that if we invested more in increasing HMRC investigation depts then they should pay for themselves within a very short time.

And on top of that, I would publish all tax fines and interest as a matter of course. I've got no sympathy for companies that are named and shamed and I'm sure it would act as a deterrent. It would also remove all suspicions of cosy deals behind closed doors where very large companies get a slap on the wrist (Google, Vodafone) and poor old taxi drivers, hairdressers and suchlike appear to get hit relatively harder.

We cannot punish people when no law is broken, if they work outside of our currrent tax laws then prosecute and if tightening up is needed then do it.

 

[Buzzer]

We cannot punish people when no law is broken, if they work outside of our currrent tax laws then prosecute and if tightening up is needed then do it.

I'm not talking about punishing anyone who doesn't deserve it. HMRC estimates that tax evasion has robbed the public purse of around £11bn a year. Tax evasion is fraud, pure and simple.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-tax-gap-falls-to-65-as-hmrc-targets-the-dishonest-minority

Set up a new unit at a cost of £100m a year and task them with reducing the tax gap by 10% and we're all better off by £1bn a year. I would only publish fines and penalties for anyone who is guilty of tax evasion. As far as I can see it's no different from courts publishing fines imposed on individuals.

 

[JCL666]

I'm not talking about punishing anyone who doesn't deserve it. HMRC estimates that tax evasion has robbed the public purse of around £11bn a year. Tax evasion is fraud, pure and simple.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-tax-gap-falls-to-65-as-hmrc-targets-the-dishonest-minority

Set up a new unit at a cost of £100m a year and task them with reducing the tax gap by 10% and we're all better off by £1bn a year. I would only publish fines and penalties for anyone who is guilty of tax evasion. As far as I can see it's no different from courts publishing fines imposed on individuals.

The estimates by HMRC are nonsense. They are used to justify the cost of big budget projects and unfortunately those projects will never break even.

 

[Gwylan]

We have been living beyond our means as a nation for years, and politicians aren't honest/brave enough to tell us straight, that with the level of public services we expect/demand we will have to pay higher taxes for it.

I don't think it's true to say that politicians aren't honest. The problem is that when politicians do tell it straight, there's an outcry about it.

The biggest item of expenditure is pensions so the government floated the idea of removing the triple lock - cue a cacophony of complaints. And as pensioners vote, this is an absolute no-no.

The next biggest item is health and, as mentioned previously on this thread, the idea of people paying more (as Germany does) is a no-no. Then there's defence: we pay for more than most other countries but if we didn't renew Trident, then it's a sign of weakness.

We could always hit welfare - the unemployed are always good for a hit - but they're a relatively small part of the welfare bill, most of it goes on housing benefit for people in work. We could cut law and order but then we moan the police aren't around to solve crimes or we try to cut prison population, then we're soft on crime.

But then, if we try to increase taxes, the cry goes up that the hard-working family is being hit or there's a 'tax bombshell'.

I actually think most politicians are fairly honest about some of these issues but stepping out of line brings a welter of headlines in the press, they retreat from them. So, yeah, perhaps they're not brave enough but I don't see how that's going to change.

 

[Buzzer]

The estimates by HMRC are nonsense. They are used to justify the cost of big budget projects and unfortunately those projects will never break even.

Nonsense they may be but I'm not so sure that HMRC over-egg the pudding to justify large budgets, quite the reverse. One of the UK's most respected accountants Professior Prem Sikka (the man's opinions are extremely heavyweight) wrote a report for Labour recently where he suggested that it was actually much larger because they don't include that grey area between evasion and avoidance where Starbucks, Google, Apple and suchlike lurk.He also believed that HMRC showed a reluctance to tackle this.

Here it is: http://taxwatch.org.au/wp-content/u...aking-it-fit-for-the-twenty-first-century.pdf

 

[crookie]

I actually think most politicians are fairly honest about some of these issues but stepping out of line brings a welter of headlines in the press, they retreat from them. So, yeah, perhaps they're not brave enough but I don't see how that's going to change.

Yes I agree with that, our hysterical media prevent a really honest debate about tax and spend, which we desperately need IMO

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Heard May using her dead parents in an interview today to get the sympathy vote, DISGUSTING

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Weststander]

I agree completely. One area where I'd love to see complete transparency is with tax evasion especially regarding corporation tax. To me it's a complete no-brainer that if we invested more in increasing HMRC investigation depts then they should pay for themselves within a very short time.

And on top of that, I would publish all tax fines and interest as a matter of course. I've got no sympathy for companies that are named and shamed and I'm sure it would act as a deterrent. It would also remove all suspicions of cosy deals behind closed doors where very large companies get a slap on the wrist (Google, Vodafone) and poor old taxi drivers, hairdressers and suchlike appear to get hit relatively harder.

Why would HMRC enquire into the affairs of some taxi drivers and hairdressers in the first place?

 

[Buzzer]

Heard my using her dead parents in an interview today to get the sympathy vote, DISGUSTING

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Blimey, you're a sensitive soul. She was asked a direct question about whether losing her parents so prematurely made her question her faith. She's got many faults but I don't think anyone can accuse her of ever playing the sympathy card.

 

[JCL666]

Nonsense they may be but I'm not so sure that HMRC over-egg the pudding to justify large budgets, quite the reverse. One of the UK's most respected accountants Professior Prem Sikka (the man's opinions are extremely heavyweight) wrote a report for Labour recently where he suggested that it was actually much larger because they don't include that grey area between evasion and avoidance where Starbucks, Google, Apple and suchlike lurk.He also believed that HMRC showed a reluctance to tackle this.

Here it is: http://taxwatch.org.au/wp-content/u...aking-it-fit-for-the-twenty-first-century.pdf

I work on the largest digital project that HMRC have ever undertaken. The budget justification is based on income from avoidance and evasion.

 

[Weststander]

I work on the largest digital project that HMRC have ever undertaken. The budget justification is based on income from avoidance and evasion.

Do you earn between £300 and £900 a day on the project, with 100's of others earning the same.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Blimey, you're a sensitive soul. She was asked a direct question about whether losing her parents so prematurely made her question her faith. She's got many faults but I don't think anyone can accuse her of ever playing the sympathy card.

Oh dear, it's so obvious to people with their heads out the clouds that all this going on the one show and strong n stable bollocks is just a farce to make the public think "she's just like us" .
Sadly the majority of the general public are effing idiots and believe it all

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Buzzer]

Why would HMRC enquire into the affairs of some taxi drivers and hairdressers in the first place?

Because it's an easy target as a cash-based business that often doesn't produce receipts so it makes proving their income somewhat difficult, they are also usually sole-trader and speaking from experience as a chartered accountant, they often don't keep the best of records.