[Politics] Liz Truss **RESIGNS 20/10/2022**

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I read that. One of the most bonkers articles that the Telegraph has printed ... and that's saying something. I don't know what's the most deluded statement. That the critics of the government plans in the major banks are "hard-left" or that the Labour revival has failed to materialise (on a day when the party is 17 points ahead, according to the latest poll)

The papers will have seen the polling and will be going hard at labour.

Expect savage repetition of attack lines and Russian levels of truth distortion for the next 2 years. It has worked for them before and it might again. Sir Keir must be careful.

 

[Igzilla]

The Guardian is hardly one to make a stand firmly behind it, is it?

It wasn't a Guardian opinion - it was the opinion of the Nomura bank, if you could be bothered to actually read, or indeed, to understand.

 

[Bakero]

The Guardian is hardly one to make a stand firmly behind it, is it?

That quote is from Nomura, a Japanese financial holdings company. The Guardian, along with the rest of the media, just reported it.

 

[Is it PotG?]

It wasn't a Guardian opinion - it was the opinion of the Nomura bank, if you could be bothered to actually read, or indeed, to understand.

I don't read The Guardian, no. Is it behind a paywall?

That last comment, 'understand', was it really necessary?

 

[Is it PotG?]

That quote is from Nomura, a Japanese financial holdings company. The Guardian, along with the rest of the media, just reported it.

My apologies, I wrongly assumed that it was from a reporter.

 

[Bakero]

I don't read The Guardian, no. Is it behind a paywall?

That last comment, 'understand', was it really necessary?

The Guardian isn't behind a paywall.

Th quote is here https://www.theguardian.com/busines...live?page=with:block-6331a7ac8f0877eea340588b

Or you can read it here on Reuters https://www.reuters.com/markets/cur...-by-end-november-0975-by-year-end-2022-09-26/

 

[Igzilla]

I don't read The Guardian, no. Is it behind a paywall?

That last comment, 'understand', was it really necessary?

Everything you needed to know was in my post. You didn't need to read the Guardian, so I figured you either hadn't read my post or if you did, you didn't understand it.

 

[nicko31]

What is the enlightening bit of the article? It looks like an opinion piece without any enlightened opinions. Would be interested to know what you found enlightening?

Doh, couldn't read it as headline the Monaco / Brecqhou offshore paywall....

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is the policy the government is following. Disaster capitalism (yes, I know this tweet is three years old, but the same principle applies)

[tweet]1106132343356563457[/tweet]

 

[Bold Seagull]

Indeed, therein lies the problem.

All we've heard is its the end of the world financially, we're all doomed. This fresh perspective offers up that very scenario. Still, I'm sure for all our benefit the electorate hope it will indeed succeed.

I don't think you're agreeing with [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION], unless I'm the one to be corrected. I think they were saying it is 'enlightening' the article only gives an 'if' rather than a 'why'. Thought the article was basically saying that because the policy has been roundly doomed, any success could be seen as a big success for Truss - it didn't give any reason why that might be the case. If that's a fresh perspective for you, must be why it's worth a £9.99 pcm subscription.

 

[Weststander]

sounds like the US tax system. doesnt stop them using offshore tax havens.

what is being suggested is taxing wealth, which sounds good until you realise that means assets getting sold off to meet tax demands. that may be the intent, devaluing assets or breaking up businesses.

Personally, I just want all worldwide income taxed at UK tax rates, similarly all gains (I know evasion where gains avoided CGT, where events were manipulated to make them off the UK radar).

Two issues that always spring to mind for me on a wealth tax are:
- A retired couple in a £2m home bought years ago, through no fault of their own it's risen hugely in value, caught by this. I know this for a fact because I see real finances, often these people are cash poor.
- The hard left saw it as a stick to make some wealthy give up their assets, in the same way that owners of estates sold them in the 60's or gifted them to the NT. As well as being a spiteful motive, all that would happen in reality is that people would sell to the new rich including overseas folk seeing easy pickings.

My preference is for full income and CG taxes catching all who reside here.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't think you're agreeing with [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION], unless I'm the one to be corrected. I think they were saying it is 'enlightening' the article only gives an 'if' rather than a 'why'. Thought the article was basically saying that because the policy has been roundly doomed, any success could be seen as a big success for Truss - it didn't give any reason why that might be the case. If that's a fresh perspective for you, must be why it's worth a £9.99 pcm subscription.

it doesnt show confidence in the policy, just suggest it might do better than some people expect. not a great exposition.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'd love to see a breakdown (falling apart), as far as the UK is concerned because the world aren't going to properly tackle it (although Biden, Johnson and the EU went part of the way), of the beneficial effects of tax havens. You know all the usual suspects - BVI, Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Panama, Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Monaco.

It's not a new thing under 'evil' Johnson, I know newly qualified professionals who went off the work there in the late 80's, in effect to help tax cheats ('mitigators'). It's a vast industry.

How?

By making it a criminal offence punishable by prison and hefty tax penalties to hold assets and/or yield income outside the UK, not declared on a UK tax return. Then all taxed at UK tax rates. All overseas assets to be declared through the same law.

This is far more pervasive than the usual talked about characters of Philip Green, Tory donors, oligarchs. I personally saw and wider than that know of liars worth a few £1m who were hellbent on not paying their full whack of UK tax. They're not small fry, they're in huge numbers, the sums add up. Off the radar, they like privacy to cover their back.

This might push a load of people to emigrate. So be it.

Yes, agreed, it stretches all the way back through centuries even further than before the BoE was created. The big shifts came in the 1920s, when governments really started hiking up taxation to fund wars, pensions, etc. And then again in the 70s/80s with computerisation that facilitated the neoliberal financialised globalisation that we've had to endure since.
It will be incredibly difficult to tackle. As [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] says, the US are way ahead of the UK on this front. The EU has been trying to facilatate something for a while now, which is a welcome departure from the policy framework JC Juncker has done so much to promulgate. Due to this attempt, it's no great surprise that -- alongside Putin -- the Brexit campaign was funded by those seeking to resist such regulation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Personally, I just want all worldwide income taxed at UK tax rates, similarly all gains (I know evasion where gains avoided CGT, where events were manipulated to make them off the UK radar).

Two issues that always spring to mind for me on a wealth tax are:
- A retired couple in a £2m home bought years ago, through no fault of their own it's risen hugely in value, caught by this. I know this for a fact because I see real finances, often these people are cash poor.
- The hard left saw it as a stick to make some wealthy give up their assets, in the same way that owners of estates sold them in the 60's or gifted them to the NT. As well as being a spiteful motive, all that would happen in reality is that people would sell to the new rich including overseas folk seeing easy pickings.

My preference is for full income and CG taxes catching all who reside here.

To reiterate a prior point, you're (by no means invalidly) considering this through the current configuration, but regarding your two points here (which I may well have misunderstood).
1, agreed, there are plenty of examples of £2m homes which have reached that value because property/asset prices have greatly outstripped labour over the past 40 years or so. This is as a result of government policies, and minimal input from the property/asset owners (they might have invested in insulation, or a fancy new kitchen like we have, for example). Again, I may have misunderstood you, but I'd be more than happy if that couple were forced to move out of that property as a result of higher property taxes on £2m+ homes, to correct the asset/property inflation that they've been lucky enough to enjoy. While we're on this, note how dreadfully regressive Council Taxes have been (I can't see a better option than a LVT).
2, the huge hike in taxation levels and introduction of progressivity into them (via shifting the balance towards assets and incomes) that began in the 1920s did result in the aristocracy having to abandon their piles. They didn't work for them, merely inherited them, and the wealth taxes proposed would/should be predominantly collected by inheritance taxes. I really don't see this as spiteful but, again, you might have other examples in mind through your (much better) acquaintance (than mine) with UK fiscal history, ie you're mentioning the 60s.

 

[Weststander]

To reiterate a prior point, you're (by no means invalidly) considering this through the current configuration, but regarding your two points here (which I may well have misunderstood).
1, agreed, there are plenty of examples of £2m homes which have reached that value because property/asset prices have greatly outstripped labour over the past 40 years or so. This is as a result of government policies, and minimal input from the property/asset owners (they might have invested in insulation, or a fancy new kitchen like we have, for example). Again, I may have misunderstood you, but I'd be more than happy if that couple were forced to move out of that property as a result of higher property taxes on £2m+ homes, to correct the asset/property inflation that they've been lucky enough to enjoy. While we're on this, note how dreadfully regressive Council Taxes have been (I can't see a better option than a LVT).
2, the huge hike in taxation levels and introduction of progressivity into them (via shifting the balance towards assets and incomes) that began in the 1920s did result in the aristocracy having to abandon their piles. They didn't work for them, merely inherited them, and the wealth taxes proposed would/should be predominantly collected by inheritance taxes. I really don't see this as spiteful but, again, you might have other examples in mind through your (much better) acquaintance (than mine) with UK fiscal history, ie you're mentioning the 60s.

1. We may never know, but I don't think higher value homes will fall in value due to a 1% annual wealth tax. Instead the retired couple would sell to new money or an UK/overseas tax evader. Council tax (and other taxes) is an interesting one - why should the retired couple pay heavily for municipal services, whilst a family with many kids and decent or excellent income not do so? I think it should be worked out with care, even cross party support, to give a system that lasts. Rather than reversing every time a new government forms.

2. The asset rich left those homes, other than a few of NT interest, new money moved in. The periods we're talking about were a time of class war, I'm older than you, imho spite on both sides was part of it ... I recall ridiculous slanging matches over tax from the likes of Eric Heffer. I don't believe in a de facto stick to force home-owners out because it's inherited. My whole ethos is to raise as higher tax revenue as possible in a fair way, not to disincentivise people with too high marginal rates of tax, to close every avenue of tax evasion, tax fraud and immoral avoidance, then to spend the money wisely on the poor, NHS front line, mental health services, infrastructure, etc.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

To reiterate a prior point, you're (by no means invalidly) considering this through the current configuration, but regarding your two points here (which I may well have misunderstood).
1, agreed, there are plenty of examples of £2m homes which have reached that value because property/asset prices have greatly outstripped labour over the past 40 years or so. This is as a result of government policies, and minimal input from the property/asset owners (they might have invested in insulation, or a fancy new kitchen like we have, for example). Again, I may have misunderstood you, but I'd be more than happy if that couple were forced to move out of that property as a result of higher property taxes on £2m+ homes, to correct the asset/property inflation that they've been lucky enough to enjoy. While we're on this, note how dreadfully regressive Council Taxes have been (I can't see a better option than a LVT).
2, the huge hike in taxation levels and introduction of progressivity into them (via shifting the balance towards assets and incomes) that began in the 1920s did result in the aristocracy having to abandon their piles. They didn't work for them, merely inherited them, and the wealth taxes proposed would/should be predominantly collected by inheritance taxes. I really don't see this as spiteful but, again, you might have other examples in mind through your (much better) acquaintance (than mine) with UK fiscal history, ie you're mentioning the 60s.

1. How can you force the couple out of the £2million house if it doesn't sell?

 

[PeakGull]

The pound has been stolen!!

 

[rippleman]

1. We may never know, but I don't think higher value homes will fall in value due to a 1% annual wealth tax. Instead the retired couple would sell to new money or an UK/overseas tax evader. Council tax (and other taxes) is an interesting one - why should the retired couple pay heavily for municipal services, whilst a family with many kids and decent or excellent income not do so? I think it should be worked out with care, even cross party support, to give a system that lasts. Rather than reversing every time a new government forms.

2. The asset rich left those homes, other than a few of NT interest, new money moved in. The periods we're talking about were a time of class war, I'm older than you, imho spite on both sides was part of it ... I recall ridiculous slanging matches over tax from the likes of Eric Heffer. I don't believe in a de facto stick to force home-owners out because it's inherited. My whole ethos is to raise as higher tax revenue as possible in a fair way, not to disincentivise people with too high marginal rates of tax, to close every avenue of tax evasion, tax fraud and immoral avoidance, then to spend the money wisely on the poor, NHS front line, mental health services, infrastructure, etc.

Absolutely. Totally agree. But to administer "the plan" you need a competent tax authority - which we don't have. Look at the fraudulent CJRS & SEISS payments that were made because HMRC failed to proper safeguards in place. Look at how many prosecutions there have(n't) been arising from the offshore tax avoidance schemes and tax frauds exposed by the Paradise Papers (and other similar).

HMRC has just called me to apologise for the delay in replying to a letter I sent them on 3 May!

On tax avoidance (as opposed to evasion), it remains legal (under most circumstances) because politicians are more than happy for it remain a legal avenue to avoid paying "the fair share". You would need a government with the will to make tax avoidance illegal and a tax collection agency willing to be pro-active and aggressive in chasing down the tax avoiders. IMO you aren't going to see either anytime soon.

 

[Weststander]

Absolutely. Totally agree. But to administer "the plan" you need a competent tax authority - which we don't have. Look at the fraudulent CJRS & SEISS payments that were made because HMRC failed to proper safeguards in place. Look at how many prosecutions there have(n't) been arising from the offshore tax avoidance schemes and tax frauds exposed by the Paradise Papers (and other similar).

HMRC has just called me to apologise for the delay in replying to a letter I sent them on 3 May!

On tax avoidance (as opposed to evasion), it remains legal (under most circumstances) because politicians are more than happy for it remain a legal avenue to avoid paying "the fair share". You would need a government with the will to make tax avoidance illegal and a tax collection agency willing to be pro-active and aggressive in chasing down the tax avoiders. IMO you aren't going to see either anytime soon.

I deal with HMRC every week. It's hit and miss.

Try and get a tax coding notice changed over the phone, amazing.

Calling their CIS 'helpline' with a technical question an hour ago, their system hangs up on you without warning after 2 minutes, on repeat.


Years ago there was a professional and colloquial expression something like "evasion is illegal, avoidance is clever tax planning".

This went out of the window in the 90's and 00's with immoral tax avoidance, borderline evasion. Tax lawyers and ex-senior HMRC officers turned poacher, setting up specialist firms or moving to the Top 20, creating schemes with the sole real aim of cheating the public purse. Celebs, TV presenters, people like Alex Ferguson (calls himself a socialist) flocked to them. A web of a structure, always one step ahead of HMRC and us. I've never had any sympathy when they've been caught and go bleating to the media. Multi-millionaires hellbent on paying negligible tax.

Successive 21st century governments, believe it not Tories too, have been systemically closing down these avenues. HMRC have hugely upped compliance and investigating specialists, the annual tax take from their work has been growing exponentially, £30.4b yielded in 2020/21.

 

[WATFORD zero]

[Tweet]1574446197728747522[/Tweet]