May Has 10 days.

[Blue Valkyrie]

Surely if they are so opposed to the affects that the DUP agreeing to a pact with the Tories and are determined to help Corbyn bring about their downfall, as their leader says, it is time to perhaps reconsider their principals and act in accordance with todays demands

Calling @DrNo

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[WATFORD zero]

Surely if they are so opposed to the affects that the DUP agreeing to a pact with the Tories and are determined to help Corbyn bring about their downfall, as their leader says, it is time to perhaps reconsider their principals and act in accordance with todays demands

Ever thought of investing in one of these ?

 

[Ernest]

I'm surprised she got through the weekend but having to publicise the DUP deal won't help her today and then she has to try and get through Wednesday all the time those behind her are plotting to remove her ASAP

 

[Bold Seagull]

Haha, 11% annual deficit is not high. OMG, you've plumbed new depths here.

On one hand you are chastising the Tories for the doubling of the National Debt, but if they inherited a debt vs GDP ratio of 60% and had continued to spend (waste) at the same level (say 10% GDP) as 'Prudent' Brown over say 5 years, then the debt ratio would be in excess if 100%. I would hazard a guess that economics and maths aren't exactly strong points for you.

And as for only 13% over 13 years of Labour, what about the PFI debts not included? They are debts and liabilities.

A 11% deficit has to be judged against the debt and the percentage of public spending, not isolated as a stand alone figure against GDP. The debt to GDP ratio of 60% was to nationalise part of the banking sector and QE, so it wasn't waste, it was necessity due to the financial crisis. The big question to my mind, is whether cutting taxes rally increases the tax take? It isn't a long term strategy because for a lower tax rate to bring in more, your growth has to be exponentially bigger year on year. Higher tax rates may not attract as much outside investment, but as long as you maintain growth, then your tax take can still grow.

I agree with you, PFI, and other past decisions are costing us, so we need a strategy to at least get the budget in surplus. I can understand we need to cut our spending, what I don't understand is how cutting taxes achieves this other than you might get some short term growth. I hear that Britain is strong, that we should be proud of our economy from the likes of David Davis talking up Brexit, but if we are so strong, why do we need tax rates below everyone else of similar GDP and scale of economy to attract growth and investment? You cannot say on the one hand you go into Brexit negotiations as a strong independent economy, and on the other have a fiscal policy of the only way we grow is to have bargain basement tax rates.

 

[larus]

A 11% deficit has to be judged against the debt and the percentage of public spending, not isolated as a stand alone figure against GDP. The debt to GDP ratio of 60% was to nationalise part of the banking sector and QE, so it wasn't waste, it was necessity due to the financial crisis. The big question to my mind, is whether cutting taxes rally increases the tax take? It isn't a long term strategy because for a lower tax rate to bring in more, your growth has to be exponentially bigger year on year. Higher tax rates may not attract as much outside investment, but as long as you maintain growth, then your tax take can still grow.

I agree with you, PFI, and other past decisions are costing us, so we need a strategy to at least get the budget in surplus. I can understand we need to cut our spending, what I don't understand is how cutting taxes achieves this other than you might get some short term growth. I hear that Britain is strong, that we should be proud of our economy from the likes of David Davis talking up Brexit, but if we are so strong, why do we need tax rates below everyone else of similar GDP and scale of economy to attract growth and investment? You cannot say on the one hand you go into Brexit negotiations as a strong independent economy, and on the other have a fiscal policy of the only way we grow is to have bargain basement tax rates.

I accept that there were exceptional circumstances causing the 11% deficit. What causes irritation though is the complete refusal by many on the left to accept that Gordon Brown was far from prudent and he continually extended his timeline for the economic cycle, in effect , never expecting a recession so he could go on spending. The other denial from many on the left is that the economy had tanked after the financial crisis and that this doesn't bounce back straight away, so the deficit was not miraculously going to disappear. They moan about austerity and then they moan about the debt. WTF? Moaning about spending too much and then cutting too much.

Regarding the level of taxation, I feel as though there will be (for want of a better description) a 'Goldilocks' zone. Too high and you encourage avoidance or relocation. Too low and, as you say, the level of GDP required is too high. I have seen first hand someone move out of the UK for tax reasons. He is the owner of a company who I do consultancy for. He had a tax investigation (personal and company) in the early 2000's. There was something about tax on repatriated profits and he took this bad. So, he set-up a new head-office in Isle Of Man, and did group purchasing here which, in effect, means a lot of the profit now end up in the Isle of Man and not the UK. His personal tax is limited to about £120k p.a. as they have a system where you can make a payment and then not have to declare any more, or so I've been told (bear in mind he's earning millions each year). So HMRC has lost out on his say 40% tax and the tax on the profits now being made in the Isle of Man. This is the point which many of the left fail to realise - if you tax too high, those who can will try to avoid.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I accept that there were exceptional circumstances causing the 11% deficit. What causes irritation though is the complete refusal by many on the left to accept that Gordon Brown was far from prudent and he continually extended his timeline for the economic cycle, in effect , never expecting a recession so he could go on spending. The other denial from many on the left is that the economy had tanked after the financial crisis and that this doesn't bounce back straight away, so the deficit was not miraculously going to disappear. They moan about austerity and then they moan about the debt. WTF? Moaning about spending too much and then cutting too much.

Regarding the level of taxation, I feel as though there will be (for want of a better description) a 'Goldilocks' zone. Too high and you encourage avoidance or relocation. Too low and, as you say, the level of GDP required is too high. I have seen first hand someone move out of the UK for tax reasons. He is the owner of a company who I do consultancy for. He had a tax investigation (personal and company) in the early 2000's. There was something about tax on repatriated profits and he took this bad. So, he set-up a new head-office in Isle Of Man, and did group purchasing here which, in effect, means a lot of the profit now end up in the Isle of Man and not the UK. His personal tax is limited to about £120k p.a. as they have a system where you can make a payment and then not have to declare any more, or so I've been told (bear in mind he's earning millions each year). So HMRC has lost out on his say 40% tax and the tax on the profits now being made in the Isle of Man. This is the point which many of the left fail to realise - if you tax too high, those who can will try to avoid.

Your example is one you have to accept unless you want an economy that looks to undercut everyone. At present we undercut the G7 but quite a margin, and further cuts will have us below a large number of developed economies - where do you stop to avoid your example, and where do you draw the line and say this is our tax system, you will benefit greatly from our economy, it is worth the tax price. Don't confuse it with purely left or right, there are plenty in the Conservative Party who believe this tax strategy goes too far and is well passed the Goldilocks zone. Got to have a bit more guts to say people want to work, trade, invest here because we are generally a reliable place to be and it is worth the expense. You cannot plan your tax outlook on being scared people might leave - that is a low confidence model.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I'm surprised she got through the weekend but having to publicise the DUP deal won't help her today and then she has to try and get through Wednesday all the time those behind her are plotting to remove her ASAP

Hopefully she has 10 hours rather than 10 days.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Bozza]

I'm surprised she got through the weekend but having to publicise the DUP deal won't help her today and then she has to try and get through Wednesday all the time those behind her are plotting to remove her ASAP

A bit naive if you really thought there was a chance she'd go this weekend. As much as many in the Parliamentary Party want shot of her, I still feel that ultimately heads will rule hearts and they'll allow her to proceed until the Summer recess at the very earliest. Doing anything that could increase the chances of another election occurring and gifting Number 10 to Jeremy Corbyn would be electoral suicide for many individuals at constituency level and the party as a whole.

I'm not sure Wednesday (and the debate and vote that will take place over the following week) will present any problems at all. Whether a DUP deal has been announced or not by Wednesday seems largely irrelevant given the DUP have already said they'll vote in favour of the Queen's Speech. They still hold plenty of cards in terms of being able to stuff almost anything else the Tories try and put through.

May is a goner, certainly, but only when doing the deed is seen as doing minimal damage to the Conservative Party, and that time is not now.

 

[larus]

Your example is one you have to accept unless you want an economy that looks to undercut everyone. At present we undercut the G7 but quite a margin, and further cuts will have us below a large number of developed economies - where do you stop to avoid your example, and where do you draw the line and say this is our tax system, you will benefit greatly from our economy, it is worth the tax price. Don't confuse it with purely left or right, there are plenty in the Conservative Party who believe this tax strategy goes too far and is well passed the Goldilocks zone. Got to have a bit more guts to say people want to work, trade, invest here because we are generally a reliable place to be and it is worth the expense. You cannot plan your tax outlook on being scared people might leave - that is a low confidence model.

I think corporation tax is at the bottom end and could/should be higher, maybe 25%.

I think personal taxation thresholds are reasonable at £11k before paying tax.

I would like NI to be abolished and integrated into tax.

I think a low band of 20% is fair, or 32-33% if combined with NI.
I think there should be a middle band and then a top band.
Somewhere in the region of 40% for the middle band and a top band of 50%. However I feel as though the top band should kick in about £400k-£500k income. I don't feel as though someone who is earning say £300k is 'rich' (awaits the gaps of incredulity from some posters). Even at 40%, they would still be paying in just short of £120k in tax. They are doing very, very well, but they won't be owning mansions or private planes etc. I'm trying to highlight the difference between people who are succeeding and those who are rich, the multiple millions/billionaire level.

The current tax/NI system is unfair and misleading. For example, there is a marginal rate of 60% when you get above 100k as you lose the tax allowance.

A bigger problem is the lack of international cooperation in corporate tax avoidance. Juncker was instrumental in setting up many of these types of deals to enable large multinational corporations to funnel tax into Luxembourg and avoid tax in other higher taxation countries. Think of Starbucks etc. Also, the elite and using off-shore tax havens is wrong. If they paid their fare dues, then taxation for even relatively high earners would be lower IMO.

 

[beorhthelm]

A 11% deficit has to be judged against the debt and the percentage of public spending, not isolated as a stand alone figure against GDP. The debt to GDP ratio of 60% was to nationalise part of the banking sector and QE, so it wasn't waste, it was necessity due to the financial crisis.

bank bailout adds to the deficit in one year, and QE doesn't add to the national debt. subsequent years of deficit have been from the effect of financial crisis, because as economy takes time to recover tax revenue is suppressed, while the spending stays the same or increases in real terms and it take years to catch up.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

You mean she can do magic...MAYbe she has something after all
..on a serious note...i agree with the bit about thursday....but it almost seems dammed if she does dammed if she doesn't currently

Nope, not magic. If they'd been on the ball they should have called in all the council housing staff, and drafted in more from other boroughs if it wasn't enough. With regards to psychologists, you only have to google for them and I'm sure they would jump at the chance of advertising that they've worked for the government, on their website etc., - it's not difficult, I'm not asking them to do it for free.

 

[1066familyman]

So it's only their principles that they have stuck with for the last 35 years, and you don't trust politicians who don't stick to their principles.

I'm not supporting any political group here but can you see that you are just posting complete nonsense It's really time to stop digging or start thinking. It might be easier to go for the former

View attachment 86431

I'm glad you answered for me because it really is laughable stuff from BG. I have no intention of responding to such nonsense myself.