Off Topic Politics Thread

Finally got time to reply to this. Thanks for the response, sounds like you got what i was asking. reading back i obviously didn't make it clear. I haven't really formulated any opinions on how to tax so i'm genuinely interested.

My main concerns with this is firstly, value is subjective. Ok, you can put a value on mass produced items that have a sale price or houses where you have a large sample of data to derive a price from, but what about unique items like paintings brought from auction. or things that are custom made. as well as things like depreciation. I just get the image of Nazi's hoarding paintings in caves rather than having liquid assets. While VAT my make barriers to selling, i feel like a tax on assets would create a situation where things are bought and not used which is something even worse to the economy imo. I don't know how you can determine value if not at the point of purchase by how much somebody is willing to pay for it.

Secondly is a change of situation, for example a house massively increasing in price. I have a house with two bedrooms and a value over 300k now due to the large garden and location, but was much cheaper. with my income i probably wouldn't be able to afford tax on it so would be forced to sell to somebody with more income. But that person wouldn't deserve the house any more than i would as far as i'm concerned. It suits my needs and has extra value to me as its my home i've lived in for a long time. i'd rather have the home than the 300k and i don't want a tax that would force me to sell.

Another consideration is if income drops, i get this with shared ownership properties at work. somebody is able to afford to buy half a house and pay rent on the other half. but then loses his job so needs to find somewhere cheaper. but he can't find a buyer for his half of the house and is stuck paying rent he can't afford which pushes him massively into debt. I feel like an asset tax would create these situations.

Put those two together and i feel like the rich would hoard things they don't even want while the poor would be forced to sell... that doesn't sound like a good combination to me.


This is me just thinking off the top of my head, i'm open to being convinced on this one.

 

Speaking on my own behalf I haven't paid any tradespersons, no. I have youtube/internet to help me with most of it and the Council can sort the rest out. lol

I know what you mean though.

As for not declaring money for favours, there is a certain amount before you have to declare it. I do agree with you though. I think we should stop banging on about the rich whilst forgetting that everyone is (or would) do the same at every level and just say "These are the rules" and enforce them whether it is going to pull in a fair few quid or cost the public purse.

 

Thinking off the top of your head is what this forum is for, isn't it? We're mostly not in a position to put forward a fully reasoned response, but we could all point out the inequity of our current systems. Ultimately I can't see any great tax shake up if it were to mean the wealthy paying more. But is doesn't mean we can't have a damned good squeal about it!

 

Donald and Vladimir sitting in a tree .... KISSKGB

 

A point about tax; I am in currently in Rome, so it seems pertinent to make a comparison with antiquity.

Prominent Roman citizens in the days of the Republic knew they were expected to make generous civic donations to their community, from their own pockets. They provided bread and circuses to keep the mob onside, paid for public lavatories and parks, paved roads and built arenas for public use.

They did this partly out of naked self interest (they didn't want to be dragged out into the streets by the mob), and partly out of a patrician sense of duty.

So the powerful families of 2000 years ago knew to dip into their own pocket to provide for the communty in which they lived and upon whom they depended for their own wealth, yet we can't ensure that modern billionaires make a reasonable donation to the exchequer? And that's okay because the self employed plumber gives duscounts for cash jobs? Do me a favour ffs.

 

If I was you Donald, I'd skip the Philippines (they have a different way to impeach a President)

 

I couldn't help laughing at this one. Well it's either that or cry!

 

We know what you're doing': Theresa May slams Russia over election meddling and fake news.

So, when is she going to slam the Mail, Express, Telegraph, Times and Sun for doing the same?

 

This subject came to mind today. A potential customer in the street asked me to do a small job for her for £20. If I took the job, I'd lose £3.33 in VAT, leaving me with £16.67. I'd then pay corporation tax at 19% on it (it's an additional job late in the year so it's pretty much pure profit), another £3.17. Then, out of the remaining £13.50, I'd pay 7.5% dividend tax (£1.01) for taking the profit out of the company. So my total take from a £20 job would be £12.49.

Thus, my marginal tax rate is 37.55%.

Questions:
1. Does anyone think I'd be a fool to take on the job?
2. If I did take it on would you understand if I didn't declare it?
3. Do you think any celeb or major corporation is paying 37.55% tax?

Vin

 

1. Do you want to turn away customers? Perhaps this small job could lead to more work in future?
2. I don't view a sole trader (if that's what you are) failing to declare a £20 job (whether to avoid the cost or the admin) in any way morally equivalent to large corporations systematically ripping off the exchequer. It really isn't the same thing in my book.
3. No idea. Some probably are - the honest ones anyway.

 

The Conservatives have been accused of “economic murder” for austerity policies which a new study suggests have caused 120,000 deaths.

The paper found that there were 45,000 more deaths in the first four years of Tory-led efficiencies than would have been expected if funding had stayed at pre-election levels.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...e-social-care-government-policy-a8057306.html

 

No one dies if Bill Clinton doesn't speak at their event. So no, not really the same at all.

Of course politicians are somewhat hypocritical. It sucks, but people keep voting for them, so what can you do?

The thing is, HC was not exceptionally awful in this way. But people believed that she was.

Not only did they believe that she was exceptionally corrupt, they believed that Trump somehow was not. The opposite is the case. Clinton was far from an angel but her and her administration would have been business as usual.

Trump is not blowing up the system. He’s the ultimate embodiment of the system. He is the most cynical exploiter of the system’s major flaw. Namely that people are stupid and easily manipulated.

Politicians thought they had to be clever and balance some semblance of the truth with their lies. And that at some point, if you pushed too far people would wise up. They overestimated the populace.

It turns out, adults are no smarter than grade schoolers. Trump uses grade school tactics you wouldn’t think would fool anyone. But they worked.

 

And they will keep working while you are presented with politicians like the Clintons that work the system, blatantly go out of their way to setup the system in a way that suits their backers yet believe they can spout pretty words that contradict the policies that they put through.

Going by what you are saying that is what Trump has done so maybe he is a better politician than you give him credit for

You see the difference between you and I in terms of opinion here is symbolised in that one moment in the debates.

Trump answering Hillary's attack about "not paying taxes." The reply is what is the difference. Him saying "you could have changed the rules."

You hear that and jump up and down "he doesn't pay his taxes, he just admitted it."

I hear Trump say exactly what I think. Why are rules not changed by politicians that keep coming out with these "moral outrage" speeches.

I saw that moment as key in the run up to the election. He was honest and on the money. He had played by the rules that she (and her fellow politicians) had the power to change. They didn't change it yet they then think they can attack someone for being within the rules that they had the power to change but didn't.

To a lot of people they would have also been nodding like me. And we saw the result of the election. That was the point he started to gain ground and fast.

 

The reason why Trump's taxes were an issue is because he claimed that he paid a lot of taxes, and then wouldn't release his tax returns. When they were leaked, it turns out that of course he paid the bare minimum and made out like a bandit.

When caught in the lie, he did what he always did which is go on the attack, blame someone else, and deflect any responsibility. It works, because people like yourself who are mad at the system don't look at anything else. As long as he is being an asshole to the right people, you believe he's on your side when the truth is he's just an asshole.

So now Trump is President. He's spent his entire term so far blaming everyone else for his failures. It's Congress's fault that he couldn't repeal Obamacare. It's the media's fault for the Russia stuff. It's Democrats obstructing his policies. If you hold him to the same standard to which he held Clinton, then all of this is under his control and he has no excuses, right?

 

EMA moving to Holland and EBA moving. Congrats Brexit

 

UC is also been ****ing disgusting

 

Just because Trump pays the bare minimum doesn't mean he doesn't pay a lot of taxes!!! Apple just played that card. "We are the world's largest taxpayer."

If politicians want to play this "tax" card then they have the power to change the rules.....they don't. They can't keep on banging on about the moral obligation.

 

It's what people voted for, Beef. Like a report that yer average Brit family is worse off by about £800 a year thanks to the Brexit vote and no-one knows what'll happen if we go off the edge. Like the fact that the government have just agreed to cough up a few more billion for the divorce bill, and have got sod all left to give to out under-funded public services.

It's the will of the people, for goodness sake. You should be proud to live in such a democracy where our government is able to work out every nuance of what it meant to vote leave. My Daily Mail reading brother-in-law will be ecstatic that we've moved from "not a single penny" to about £40bn. It's what The People wanted allegedly.

Bollocks? Of course it is. So this democracy? Can we have a bit of autocracy please?

 

What do you mean by change the rules?

A single politicians certainly can't just go a create a perfect tax system. And since tax affects just about everyone, every rule change is scrutinised. With external pressure on every decision.

What your saying sounds like an incredible oversimplification of a very complicated system.

 

Not at all. I am not suggesting it is easy. I am just stating that politicians who on the whole aren't even interested collectively in changing the tax rules then grandstand babbling on about moral obligations.

Now whether it is because in reality those tax rules shouldn;t be changed but Joe Public wouldn't understand that is another matter but these are deflections.

Did Amazon or Starbucks (or Trump) break the law to avoid tax? Nope. Why? Because they abided by the rules. Why aren't the rules changed then? Because it would not actually result in more tax take / just mean they go somewhere else etc. etc. etc.

If the actual result would be that changing the rules would end up with a worse off situation then be honest about that. Don't start grandstanding harping on about moral obligations. Trump played by the rules. End of story.

And on that note. If we accept that is the reality does that render Corbyn's stance on this as "pie in the sky" thinking?

Is this all just the "window tax" reinvented?