Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

I'd agree with half of your assertion re taxes....needless to say the first half. Interestingly under the current system I believe that if you feed ?100 into the UK economy the government will have had all of it in under three iterations via income taxes, profits taxes, VAT, inheritance tax and perhaps capital gains. Oh yes and petrol, booze and fags taxes

[swaledale]

I'd agree with half of your assertion re taxes....needless to say the first half. Interestingly under the current system I believe that if you feed ?100 into the UK economy the government will have had all of it in under three iterations via income taxes, profits taxes, VAT, inheritance tax and perhaps capital gains. Oh yes and petrol, booze and fags taxes

MM and you try to call me out for making exaggerated claims!!

On your belief, no person or business in the UK is making any money then? Plus of course you ignore the fact that the tax raised is actually spent in the UK economy or to provide infrastructure and services which the economy depends upon.

But then we get the Head of Tesco bemoaning that employee NI and minimum wage increase are threatening the business, then Tesco publish half year profits up 1.6% at £1.67 billion and upgrade the profit forecast for the year to £3.1 billion!

Before you say it, I'm not saying they shouldn't be making a profit, just that moaning about Tax increases and then publishing better than expected profits does tend to look a tad like whining for the sake of it.

[Geoff Parkstone]

OK exaggeration, lets see

100 is paid to a normal basic rate tax payer to keep it simple. Lets call him Joe. Before it hits his bank account 30 goes to HMRC in tax and NI |(we will ignore the extra 15 of employers NI for now)extra `

Joe spends his net wages on essentials and whatever else he wants, and lets assume he doesnt save anything. So he gets hit for VAT on some of it, fuel tax, alcohol and tobacco taxes. Lets say half his spend is subject to VAT etc or other "purchase taxes" at an average of 20% - in reality the tax on fuel etc is a much higher element. But lets say thats 14. So iteration 1 gives HMRC 44% of that extra 100.

so those people who he buys from make a profit of lets say 50% on his 70 spend (less the 14 already paid in purchase taxes) and they too suffer base rate and NI on it and of course pay VAT etc on the goods they but to resell to Joe.... and the wheel just keeps on turning: more tax whenever anyone earns anything or spends anything. And god help you if you die.

the three iterations is not my figure but one I was taught in basic Economics 1.1. The tax multiplier effect

Where are the leaks? Savings perhaps but that usually leads to someone else borrowing and spending the laon and thus paying more tax on that perhaps. Money spent overseas will avoid the grasp of HMRC bit it also leaves the UK economy in entirety.

So actually increasing the rate of tax, or decreasing it, doesnt actually make a lot of difference to "who gets it" but rather effects how long it takes for them to get it. Charge more tax, get it quicker - you dont necessarily get any more but you may get it ibn different ways but with collateral damage on inflation, unemployment, savings strategies etc.

Now obviously its not that simple but it doesnt take long for ever amount of growth in the economy to cycle into the governments hands as tax. The only way to increase tax take overall is real growth in the economy, which of course is stunted by increasing taxes.

or borrowing. Which is the usual way forward seen by most governments of whatever hue, despite protestations that they wont increase it. Borrow and inflate away its true cost ?

PS I agree with you re Tesco who are exploiting both suppliers, employees and customers for ever growing profits - so too most big companies involved in the food industry. Much like the energy companies exploiting the fact that they trade in necessities, there is a need for moderation and control via tax system

[swaledale]

OK exaggeration, lets see

100 is paid to a normal basic rate tax payer to keep it simple. Lets call him Joe. Before it hits his bank account 30 goes to HMRC in tax and NI |(we will ignore the extra 15 of employers NI for now)extra `

Joe spends his net wages on essentials and whatever else he wants, and lets assume he doesnt save anything. So he gets hit for VAT on some of it, fuel tax, alcohol and tobacco taxes. Lets say half his spend is subject to VAT etc or other "purchase taxes" at an average of 20% - in reality the tax on fuel etc is a much higher element. But lets say thats 14. So iteration 1 gives HMRC 44% of that extra 100.

so those people who he buys from make a profit of lets say 50% on his 70 spend (less the 14 already paid in purchase taxes) and they too suffer base rate and NI on it and of course pay VAT etc on the goods they but to resell to Joe.... and the wheel just keeps on turning: more tax whenever anyone earns anything or spends anything. And god help you if you die.

the three iterations is not my figure but one I was taught in basic Economics 1.1. The tax multiplier effect

Where are the leaks? Savings perhaps but that usually leads to someone else borrowing and spending the laon and thus paying more tax on that perhaps. Money spent overseas will avoid the grasp of HMRC bit it also leaves the UK economy in entirety.

So actually increasing the rate of tax, or decreasing it, doesnt actually make a lot of difference to "who gets it" but rather effects how long it takes for them to get it. Charge more tax, get it quicker - you dont necessarily get any more but you may get it ibn different ways but with collateral damage on inflation, unemployment, savings strategies etc.

Now obviously its not that simple but it doesnt take long for ever amount of growth in the economy to cycle into the governments hands as tax. The only way to increase tax take overall is real growth in the economy, which of course is stunted by increasing taxes.

or borrowing. Which is the usual way forward seen by most governments of whatever hue, despite protestations that they wont increase it. Borrow and inflate away its true cost ?

PS I agree with you re Tesco who are exploiting both suppliers, employees and customers for ever growing profits - so too most big companies involved in the food industry. Much like the energy companies exploiting the fact that they trade in necessities, there is a need for moderation and control via tax system

Thanks for explaining that your assertion was an not only an exaggeration but false, its appreciated. Not that the tax system doesn't need reforming, its far too complicated and weighted against those who earn the least. Yeah and I did economics, Jeez, so many theories, so much BS!

Of course if you want to look at what a low tax economy looks like, consider the US. Where the richest country in the world has some of the highest levels of poverty and inequality. Still its the land of the free I guess.

Then for a high tax comparison, look at Norway.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Ah yes Norway with it's two trillion oil fund who basically saved its surplus north sea oil profits for future generations of the people. If only we had had such foresight rather than spunking it all away. And what have we got to show for it? **** all. Bloody economic disaster

[swaledale]

Ah yes Norway with it's two trillion oil fund who basically saved its surplus north sea oil profits for future generations of the people. If only we had had such foresight rather than spunking it all away. And what have we got to show for it? **** all. Bloody economic disaster

Thatcher used it to fund her war on the miners and others and introduce the ****ed up version of economics we currently practise in the UK.

Yes Norway is an outlier to an extent, but then Sweden and Finland are also good example's of high tax economies.

I'm not claiming that these are perfect, but then is any institution, organisation or indeed personal life where human beings are involved perfect?

[MadAmster]

Thatcher used it to fund her war on the miners and others and introduce the ****ed up version of economics we currently practise in the UK.

Yes Norway is an outlier to an extent, but then Sweden and Finland are also good example's of high tax economies.

I'm not claiming that these are perfect, but then is any institution, organisation or indeed personal life where human beings are involved perfect?

Isn't Finland top of the happiest population polls just about every year?

Does that put paid to the "the rich will leave if we make them pay all the tax they should" argument?

Same argument over here. The right parties over here from right of centre to right to Wilders far right PVV all spout the "the rich will leave" line. I think it's >90% BS. The odd bod will leave but the vast majority will stay and enjoy, after an initial small dip, the increase in income/profits/dividend a fairer tax regime would bring.

[MadAmster]

I refer TPFKARR to previous posts of mine on going trickle up rather than trickle down and the positive effect that would have on the economy. Less tax on the poorest 70%, more on the top 5% or 10%, all of whom wouldn't miss it.

Sales of goods and services up = more profit to owners and shareholders and more tax for the Treasury

Sales of goods and services up = increased demand creating new jobs, more money in more pockets which will increase spending, profits, dividends and tax revenue.

It will, of course, never happen because those who already have way more than they could ever spend want an even bigger share of the pie.

[swaledale]

Jeez, what farce, Labour really now aping the Tories. With an ethnic minority Home Secretary saying things and pushing a half arsed policy that if delivered by a white male politician would be considered offensive.

My greatest disappointment with Starmer is the continuation of this same old game. Half-arsed policy with focus on electoral dynamics over effectiveness. Underlying situation gets worse. Then you complain the border is out of control, when in fact it is your policymaking which has failed.

How did we get here? Where Farage, a utterly repulsive, wind bag whose only agenda is enriching himself and his billionaire backers sets the agenda. I mean despite false claims the majority of people in this country are not concerned about Asylum seekers and small boats, they are a small percentage of immigrants and again despite media and right wing social media coverage, are not responsible for the majority of crimes in the UK.

But irrespective of the misinformation pandering to those voters who are dumb enough to swallow the Reform BS, Labour are not going to attract those voters by aping Reform.

So disappointed at Labours lack of conviction. Yvette C and Starmer in opposition called out the rank ideology and opportunism behind the stop-the-boats fiasco, a narrative then, surely, for any future immigration policy to be about safe routes, fast processing of claims, deportation of those failed claims, a return to an agreement with the EU about returns that existed pre Brexit, processing claims in France (as offered by the French during Brexit talks) and tumbling net migration.

It’s not rocket science: quick processing is key to everything.

Then have a returns policy with France and let people apply from France (this should reduce the boats considerably)

If granted asylum, let them work.

If denied, send them back,

if they can’t go back, grant temporary refuge.

The Proposals outlined this week simply won't work, and Labour must know this, as the Tories did on the Rwanda idea, impractical, costly and ineffective.

We are back to performative politics, rather than ignoring the noise generated by Reform and getting on with government and introducing actual solutions, the SPADS are pushing performative events that make headlines, in the vain hope this will have an effect.

**** me, its ludicrous!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Thatcher used it to fund her war on the miners and others and introduce the ****ed up version of economics we currently practise in the UK.

Yes Norway is an outlier to an extent, but then Sweden and Finland are also good example's of high tax economies.

I'm not claiming that these are perfect, but then is any institution, organisation or indeed personal life where human beings are involved perfect?

I thought Thatcher used all the money from privatisation for all those things - or was it both. I'm not sure I was expatting at the time. She did also nationalise Britoil.
Wilson had a few years to **** it up too once his government and Heath's had ****ed the economy in the early half of the 70's. In comparison to those two Starmer and Sunak seem almost competent