[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[nicko31]

If windfall taxes are "Labour idea" presumably corporations earning billions in profits while ordinary people pay through the nose and pushed into fuel poverty is a conservative idea?

[tweet]1557810549563576320[/tweet]

The price of other peoples misery..

 

[Acker79]

i dont think you could say, reliably, before a contract whether the profit will be excessive or not. easy enough to forecast higher cost projections, and at the time of Covid it was more important to supply wasnt it?

My understanding of the argument is that it isn't about knowing when the contract is awarded if there will be excess profits, it's about monitoring (hence the open books), and building in safeguards to contracts so that should it occur measures can be taken to protect the taxpayers' "investment".

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You are as generous as ever.
This also might disappoint you, however, but I'm with [MENTION=30631]pocketseagull[/MENTION] on the points made, and the fact that there is a posse forming, and you're on the other side might also illustrate that you are advocating a heterodox position ...
... although I think I've grasped the point you're making which (I think) is:
Person A on 200k p.a. is taxed at 20% and contributes 40k to HMRC's coffers
Person B on 20k p.a. is also taxed at 20%* and contributes 4k to HMRC's coffers
Therefore the rich A contributes 40k and the poor B contributes 4k, and that is progressive.
Logically that might work, but it assumes that language is logical, which it is not. The term progressive when applied to taxation has a history, to which you allude, and is when the rich were taxed until their pips squeaked.
If you want to develop a richer understanding on taxation and economic history more generally, I can highly recommend Thomas Piketty (not for the first time). The last chapter (17) of Capital and Ideology contains his proposal/blueprint for a form of socialism that he calls participatory socialism. It has a very different view of income taxation and, even more so, asset taxation than you have expressed. But, more importantly, it has impressive explanatory power.


*I know that you mentioned 10% but that, by definition, wouldn't be a flat (income) tax > note: the term flat tax is reserved for taxes on income

Many thanks, again.

I should add that I hate jargon. We have it all over the place in my game and it drives me mad. 'Progressive', I assume, has a real meaning in economics, but I suspect the word gets misused for political reasons. In my game people talk about 'potency' (which means the concentration achieving half maximal effect) when they mean efficacy (the ability to produced a maximum response at some concentration or other).

I will try to find the time to read up on this stuff. Travelling today (and back in time for Newcastle - hooray!)

 

[RandyWanger]

Do politicians have to disclose their investments in the UK? There's some wonderful stuff about how US policy makers can directly influence outcomes to boost their portfolio. Assume that level of corruption exists over here and would make interesting reading.

 

[Bakero]

I struggle to understand how you distinguish betweeen equality and ....handouts.

And I will never understand how you think that 10% of £20,000 and 20% of £200,000 are the same/equal/fair

We normally see eye to eye but I'm struggling here.

If someone on 200k contributed 20% tax, they could still lead a very comfortable life and would've boosted the government's coffers considerably. Taxing the low wage earner at the same rate would put them into poverty and not have raised much revenue for the country. It seems perfectly logical to me that a high earner can and should contribute more. Most governments around the world are in agreement on this.


Back in the pre-Thatcher years, I can see how you might argue that the top rate of tax was excessive but nowadays at 45% on income over 150k no pips will be squeaking.

If you had a flat rate, what would suggest the personal allowance should be and how would you make up for the shortfall in government revenue?

 

[nicko31]

The bizarrely named James Cleverly...

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/e...ap-eu-rules-bold-britain-tory-leadership-race

WITH rising inflation driving up the cost of living, the highest tax burden in 70 years and forecasts of a recession, it may not feel as if there is much to celebrate at the moment.......

It is a British tendency to sometimes see the glass as half empty. There is cause for optimism. We can turn the ship around, and this Conservative leadership contest gives us a chance to.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

The bizarrely named James Cleverly...

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/e...ap-eu-rules-bold-britain-tory-leadership-race

WITH rising inflation driving up the cost of living, the highest tax burden in 70 years and forecasts of a recession, it may not feel as if there is much to celebrate at the moment.......

It is a British tendency to sometimes see the glass as half empty. There is cause for optimism. We can turn the ship around, and this Conservative leadership contest gives us a chance to.

That is about as reliable as the Express weather forecast front pages.

 

[bWize]

Meanwhile Boris and Carrie...



"Good times never seem so good"

 

[drew]

and what if those shareholders just ponied up millions to fund the expansion of the business to fullfill the urgent demand? i get the argument on excess profit, and most just got lucky with some contracts to supply, risk free. but some didnt and years of investment, loses paid off. its crass way to look at the outcome, they profited more than x so thats bad, with no knowledge of background or details. as i say its a very odd list focusing on one area it seems and then not very exhaustively over 200 companies got test and trace contracts for example.

If they can justify it then fair enough but I would suggest there were many that got involved with PPE contracts for example with no experience and were just middlemen taking an excessive profit from public funds.

I can't quite work out why you say you understand about excess profit, ie where companies have made more than anticipated due to extraneous circumstances, eg war, but you have no problem with someone hiving off from public finances, excess profit?

 

[nicko31]

so company A gets a 1bn contract, will make 10% margin, thats ok. co B gets a 200m contract makes a 50% margin, thats a problem... is that how it should work? or look at the service provided.

there is definatly a lot of questions over awards and in future there should be a pre-approved list for suppliers. there was also screams to do something, anything at the time and no one had apparently planned for this despite department with hundreds of people. focus is on the wrong problems. not too concerned Radox made 300m profit if they delivered what was asked and (as they were) the only company able to do so in early days. there's companies that did big contracts with large gross margins that dont make that list, which is very odd.

Randox, long established Tory donor. Money invested well

We all now know what LFT kits really cost, little wonder their profits rocketed 20 fold and margins quadrupled

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...isemitism-woke-culture?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Can’t see anything else about this on here.

Truss attacking the Civil Service now, who are exactly the people she will need to have onside if she actually wants to do anything.

And not, as far as I can see, having any justification for it - woke culture/ the Jewish State / anti-semitism?

If there are things being done against the Jewish State, it is because of their human rights record, attitude and actions towards Palestine and so on. It is NOT because they are Jewish. And what that has got to do with protecting British Jewry is beyond me. I am aware that all this has been done on NSC before, but:
- if the Russians do something wrong, we act against it.
- if the Saudis or other Arab states do something wrong, we act again…… we’ll maybe not
- if Rwanda has a bad human rights record, we criticise them…… and then decide to send asylum seekers there

This isn’t going well, is it.

But if Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party or members thereof make disgusting comments about individuals BECAUSE they are Jewish, then that is anti-Semitic. If the Nazis decide on the Final Solution aimed initially at Jews, that is anti-Semitic. If our Government - and Civil Servants only act as the Government directs - decide to criticise and / or act against Israel because they are breaking international law and acting inhumanely ( to put it mildly) towards others, what they - the Jewish State - is doing is the equivalent of anti-Semitic. It deserves criticism.

PS - and plenty of Jewish people living either in this country or in Israel would agree with me, I’m sure.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I like how she talks about antisemitism and then explains that conservatism has a lot of shared values with judaism like they are both good at business (i.e. a massivelty antisemitic trope).

 

[The Clamp]

The issue I have with these million pound contracts and bail outs to sectors like the flight industry is that they were completely unconditional. They should have come with binding caveats. Companies like Easy Jet should have been given grants or loans on the condition that they cut down carbon emissions within five years once they started flying again.

PPE contracts should have come with conditions of putting some of the profit into say, social schemes and funding into their local communities.

It’s taxpayers money that provided the funds for bail outs and paid for what these companies produced but it’s shareholders and CEO’s that reaped the benefits. So the Tory’s socialised the risks but privatised the rewards.

 

[portslade seagull]

The issue I have with these million pound contracts and bail outs to sectors like the flight industry is that they were completely unconditional. They should have come with binding caveats. Companies like Easy Jet should have been given grants or loans on the condition that they cut down carbon emissions within five years once they started flying again.

PPE contracts should have come with conditions of putting some of the profit into say, social schemes and funding into their local communities.

It’s taxpayers money that provided the funds for bail outs and paid for what these companies produced but it’s shareholders and CEO’s that reaped the benefits. So the Tory’s socialised the risks but privatised the rewards.

They shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends or reward the directors until they have repaid the majority of the bailouts.

 

[The Clamp]

They shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends or reward the directors until they have repaid the majority of the bailouts.

Quite agree.

It’s like lending someone 100 quid to place a bet, they win £1k and don’t pay you back your 100.

Ridiculous.

 

[nicko31]

Quite agree.

It’s like lending someone 100 quid to place a bet, they win £1k and don’t pay you back your 100.

Ridiculous.

A lot of "so called" PPE companies were worth jack shit at companies house and had no cash. Government must have paid huge amounts of cash infront, that is not the done thing in public sector procurement

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We normally see eye to eye but I'm struggling here.

If someone on 200k contributed 20% tax, they could still lead a very comfortable life and would've boosted the government's coffers considerably. Taxing the low wage earner at the same rate would put them into poverty and not have raised much revenue for the country. It seems perfectly logical to me that a high earner can and should contribute more. Most governments around the world are in agreement on this.


Back in the pre-Thatcher years, I can see how you might argue that the top rate of tax was excessive but nowadays at 45% on income over 150k no pips will be squeaking.

If you had a flat rate, what would suggest the personal allowance should be and how would you make up for the shortfall in government revenue?

This is the tricky bit. Do you slide in the tax or step it in?

The only feasible way for me is flat rate across the board. At the bottom end - pay people more! And at the top end - pay them less.

Consider, someone on 25K now pays nothing on the first 15K (ish) then something on the next lot. Bonkers. hard to manage. Expensive to calculate and monitor. Who wouldn't do some cash in hand?

I can guarantee that someone on £25K has no idea how much % they pay in income tax. And then there is all this credit bollox. All a olitician has to say is 'we will lower tax' (whatever that means) and people will vote for it.

 

[drew]

[/B]

This is the tricky bit. Do you slide in the tax or step it in?

The only feasible way for me is flat rate across the board. At the bottom end - pay people more! And at the top end - pay them less.

Consider, someone on 25K now pays nothing on the first 15K (ish) then something on the next lot. Bonkers. hard to manage. Expensive to calculate and monitor. Who wouldn't do some cash in hand?

I can guarantee that someone on £25K has no idea how much % they pay in income tax. And then there is all this credit bollox. All a olitician has to say is 'we will lower tax' (whatever that means) and people will vote for it.

And I suspect a billionaire will have no idea how much tax he pays. His accountant will but probably not the billionaire himself.

Tax free thresholds are not complicated and as most people on the level of income you mention are most likely on PAYE then it is not hard to administer.

It's easy for you to say pay people more at the bottom end but that isn't what happens. Businesses tend to pay as little as they think they can get away with because the lower their costs, the more profit they make which goes in the pocket of shareholders. That's why the minimum wage was established.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And I suspect a billionaire will have no idea how much tax he pays. His accountant will but probably not the billionaire himself.

Tax free thresholds are not complicated and as most people on the level of income you mention are most likely on PAYE then it is not hard to administer.

It's easy for you to say pay people more at the bottom end but that isn't what happens. Businesses tend to pay as little as they think they can get away with because the lower their costs, the more profit they make which goes in the pocket of shareholders. That's why the minimum wage was established.

As with my conversation with machiavelli this is not something that can be resolved easily on NSC. I need to understand where people are coming from so to speak. For example, I have no idea what that means. What is easy for me to say is 'can we have a tax system that people can understand and that is fair, please?'. Not something that is understandable only by economics and maths graduates.

 

[Bakero]

[/B]

This is the tricky bit. Do you slide in the tax or step it in?

The only feasible way for me is flat rate across the board. At the bottom end - pay people more! And at the top end - pay them less.

Consider, someone on 25K now pays nothing on the first 15K (ish) then something on the next lot. Bonkers. hard to manage. Expensive to calculate and monitor. Who wouldn't do some cash in hand?

I can guarantee that someone on £25K has no idea how much % they pay in income tax. And then there is all this credit bollox. All a olitician has to say is 'we will lower tax' (whatever that means) and people will vote for it.

I don't think it's as complicated as you suggest. As far as I know, the first 12500 is tax free then the rate is 20% up to 35 or 40k (I'm not sure on the exact figures). So someone on 25 grand would pay £2500 (20% of 12500) tax.

The big issue with the idea of a flat rate is that you'd have to pitch it low or it wouldn't be feasible for anyone on a modest income. However, that means you're giving a massive tax cut to the rich. Why would you be in favour of that?

The only way I can see around it is ensuring that everyone is paid a living wage (of course, that should be a given) and raising the tax free allowance to something like 25 grand. That's a hard sell for the public though as it would involve those in the 25k + bracket getting hammered. The current system perhaps seems preferable.