Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Our very own Laksmi Mittal is deciding which country should have the benefit of his presence as he doesn’t wish to be taxed twice on his overseas earnings as is proposed under the new non dom rules, even after they have been watered down.

A large part of me thinks good riddance but of course if enough of the uber rich follow suit (apparently as of January 12 billionaires and 78 centi millionaires had already left since the election) then the policy fails (as had been predicted anyway by IFS etc). The top 1% in terms of wealth contribute 29% of income tax revenue (which is the governments biggest income stream). If this number falls I suppose the rest of us have to take up the slack somehow.

Reeves’ growth rhetoric in the context of soft core capitalism which is what I guess Labour represents is coherent but her policies have the reverse effect. It’s just rhetoric.

Looks like liberal democracy is struggling to cope with the range of challenges it faces. Weird scenes insides the goldmine.
 
sb_73 said:
Our very own Laksmi Mittal is deciding which country should have the benefit of his presence as he doesn’t wish to be taxed twice on his overseas earnings as is proposed under the new non dom rules, even after they have been watered down.

A large part of me thinks good riddance but of course if enough of the uber rich follow suit (apparently as of January 12 billionaires and 78 centi millionaires had already left since the election) then the policy fails (as had been predicted anyway by IFS etc). The top 1% in terms of wealth contribute 29% of income tax revenue (which is the governments biggest income stream). If this number falls I suppose the rest of us have to take up the slack somehow.

Reeves’ growth rhetoric in the context of soft core capitalism which is what I guess Labour represents is coherent but her policies have the reverse effect. It’s just rhetoric.

Looks like liberal democracy is struggling to cope with the range of challenges it faces. Weird scenes insides the goldmine.
Click to expand...

Liberal democracy is under threat from all sides. Hard to see how it survives.
 
Stroller said:
Semantics. They had to raise taxes overall - everybody knew that - but they said they wouldn't increase income tax or NI rates for employees, and they haven't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm far from happy overall, but they were dealt a bad hand - which has become much worse thanks to the Orange man-baby - and I imagine taxes will have to go up again in the next budget. As I've said I'd like to see a one-off Wealth Tax to raise maybe £25bn, this to be used partly for the sadly necessary increased defence spending, but also for clearing NHS waiting lists by using spare capacity in the private health system. Paying incapacity benefit to people who can't work because they're waiting for NHS procedures is a nonsense.
Click to expand...

Semantics only when it suits the left wing supporting labour luvies........ If the Tories had pulled that stunt the left wing labour supporting luvies would have been apoplectic with rage.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr, bobmid and Wherever
Trammers said:
Semantics only when it suits the left wing supporting labour luvies........ If the Tories had pulled that stunt the left wing labour supporting luvies would have been apoplectic with rage.....
Click to expand...

Tories taxing businesses? Why would left wing 'luvies' be upset by that?
 
It seems Starmer is now seeking an 'Economic Guru' as cracks appear in his relationship with Rachel from Accounts. So many economists panned her original budget and have been proven right, it can only be a matter of time before she is replaced.

On the subject of employers NI contributions an employee working 8 hours a week on minimum wage of £12.21 an hour would be subject to the employers contribution, hardly an incentive to have part-timers and many who can only work up to 16 hours a week before losing benefits could now be caught out costing the government if they are laid off. It really is the economics of the madhouse...
 
One thing about Reeves's Spring statement that hasn't had much attention is the proposed crackdown on tax avoidance. All governments say that they're going to crack down on avoidance, but what Reeves proposes will have real teeth, going so far as to criminalise the whole avoidance industry. This is good.
 
Stroller said:
One thing about Reeves's Spring statement that hasn't had much attention is the proposed crackdown on tax avoidance. All governments say that they're going to crack down on avoidance, but what Reeves proposes will have real teeth, going so far as to criminalise the whole avoidance industry. This is good.
Click to expand...

Tax Avoidence is legally exploiting the tax legislation to to reduce tax liability..... Tax Evasion is when a person or company escapes paying tax illegally.....

So is Rachel from accounts going to close loopholes or is she going to crack down on Evasion?
 
Trammers said:
Tax Avoidence is legally exploiting the tax legislation to to reduce tax liability..... Tax Evasion is when a person or company escapes paying tax illegally.....

So is Rachel from accounts going to close loopholes or is she going to crack down on Evasion?
Click to expand...

Thanks for that clarification <doh>. As I think you probably know, there's a whole industry of tax avoidance 'advisors' whose schemes border on illegality. Reeves's statement shows real intent to both close loopholes and prosecute people whose advice is found to have crossed the borders of legality. Surely you must approve?
 
Last edited:
Stroller said:
Thanks for that clarification <doh>. As I think you probably know, there's a whole industry of tax avoidance 'advisors' whose schemes border on illegality. Reeves's statement shows real intent to both close loopholes and prosecute people whose advice is found to have crossed the borders of legality. Surely you must approve?
Click to expand...

Sure.... but firstly what the tax advisors are doing isn't illegal, might be immoral but If it doesn't break the law it can't be criminalised and if Rachel from Accounts does manage to close those loopholes do you seriously believe that more tax saving schemes won't be thought up? Plus it will take a long time to rewrite the tax legislation and to pass it into law.....

Now if she gave HMRC more powers/staff to crack down more on tax evasion, then that's a good thing and should be applauded, but isn't she talking about reducing civil service numbers to save money..... things really don't add up.....
 
Trammers said:
Sure.... but firstly what the tax advisors are doing isn't illegal, might be immoral but If it doesn't break the law it can't be criminalised and if Rachel from Accounts does manage to close those loopholes do you seriously believe that more tax saving schemes won't be thought up? Plus it will take a long time to rewrite the tax legislation and to pass it into law.....

Now if she gave HMRC more powers/staff to crack down more on tax evasion, then that's a good thing and should be applauded, but isn't she talking about reducing civil service numbers to save money..... things really don't add up.....
Click to expand...

They're talking about effectively criminalising the tax avoidance industry....

Spring Statement sneaks in the biggest crackdown on tax avoidance in decades - think tank

This is serious, and welcome, stuff.
 
Should we respond to Trump's tarriffs? Yes, but not by imposing our own tarriffs - just stop buying their ****. Get off X, get off Facebook, don't use Amazon (buy direct from the supplier), boycott Starbucks, MacDonalds, all of them. Buy British, European, Canadian, even Chinese instead.

**** USA!
 
  • Like
Reactions: finglasqpr
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back