You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Of course increasing tax to somewhere near the european average would bring in huge sums.
so why is the spin lopsided
It's an interesting question. I noticed that the Tory that accused Labour of spending their way to a 1.2 trillion pound debt (or was it billion? Doesn't matter either way because it was based on nothing)
Wasn't pulled up for not having anything to back up the claim. Further, when pressed on his own partie's spending plan,, which he might know something about, and whether that might also run up a large deficit, he stated he wasn't going to bandy figures about. And was allowed to get awat with it.
So…
Tory Brexit bad, Labour Brexit good.
Labour borrowing bad, Tory borrowing good.
Is that the current state of the big two campaigns?
What we need is to stop Brexit, use the positive financial benefits of that, increase income tax and corporation tax, introduce wealth taxes that can’t be avoided by buying an island or living for enough of the year on someone else’s, and invest in Britain.
What we need is to stop Brexit, and use the positive financial benefits of that, increase income tax and corporation tax, inteoduce wealth taxes that can’t be avoided by buying an island or living on someone else’s, and invest in Britain.
Wouldn't hurt. 2nd week maybe have a look at fixing inequality.
I’d hope the increase in taxation and investment would be formed in a way aimed at addressing just that. Shift the taxation burden (and target investment) so that the benefits of stopping Brexit, and of our economy more generally, were shared in a way that seeks to address those areas and people who have been treated as second class since at least 2008.
If we push inequality back to the 3rd week we could abolish the notion of money the 2nd week. By 3rd week everyone will be working for the good of each other instead of personal reward.
Also on austerity - how much was given away to the rich in tax cuts? How much was spent on bombing brown people? How much has been wasted on brexshit nonsense
Shackleton
Subscriber
why is the spin lopsided making the tories sound generous while labour sound irresponsible?
I can't possible imagine.
outofbreath
Member
If you could simply borrow and spend your way to a successful economy, every nation in the world would be rich.
Well, of course it's not simple. You have to borrow wisely and spend well, it requires at least fiscal competence which all too many political parties lack. It also requires the ability to pursue a plan past the next local/eu/general election. And it's easier to break than it is to sustain, if another party comes into power- and by breaking the process midcycle they can ensure it fails to reap the rewards and depict the policy as a failure. (just as it's far harder to build a national public service than it is to sell it for a quick buck) And of course, not all countries have the access to cheap borrowing that we do.
So aye, it's not simple, hardly anything worth doing is. Just about the only spending policy that is simple, is slashing away like a maniac without a care for damage. I think we've had enough simple.
Labour spending bad, Tory spending good.
It’s shameless.
cromy ^^^ every tory who's been on the media today trotting out the £1.2 trillion labour spend lie has been directly challenged by the programme host on the number and how it's been calculated.
No credible answer from any of them.
Are you referring to Kwasi Karteng on Sky? He was directly challenged by Sophie Ridge on both points; first, being unable to stand up the £1.2trillion; second, refusing to discuss tory spending plans and deficit impact.
All other tory politicos have been equally challenged every time they attempted to make that spurious claim about labour spending plans.
What programme were you watching or listening to?
Yup, came across as a complete fraud on BBC news when questioned… but… the headline was still their invented claim… lots of people won’t look further than that.
re you referring to Kwasi Karteng on Sky? He was directly challenged by Sophie Ridge on both points; first, being unable to stand up the £1.2trillion; second, refusing to discuss tory spending plans and deficit impact.
Yeah, probably. I saw a fair bit in fits and starts so it all started to bleed together. If it was, I thought she let the "not going to bandy around facts and figures" go rather than point out that he had done exactly that in slagging off labour but was now refusing to engage. She did challenge him a bit throughout but I thought failed to go after that bit of hypocrisy hard enough.
’d hope the increase in taxation and investment would be formed in a way aimed at addressing just that. Shift the taxation burden (and target investment) so that the benefits of stopping Brexit, and of our economy more generally, were shared in a way that seeks to address those areas and people who have been treated as second class since at least 2008
I think that is part of the equation. For it to genuinely work, I think we have to change attitudes, which is the other half and much harder.
For instance, perhaps we could make it impossible for anyone who suggest benefit claimants should be put down to ever receive a penny in government money in salary expenses fees etc. Also bar them from holding public office of any kind for life and make it ground for failing the fit and proper person test for being a company board member.
If we did that sort of thing, we might actually make some headway not just in making a more just society but also demonstrating to people who have been pushed out and made to feel they aren't part of the wider society. Which also couldn't hurt.
For it to genuinely work, I think we have to change attitudes, which is the other half and much harder.
Maybe, but maybe not. I think most people dislike "fat cats" and think they should pay their fair share. I also think most people also don't like "big multi-national corporations" avoiding paying their taxes. These two things are opposite to what Tories want - the problem is convincing people to vote along those lines. But people say things like 'oh well I don't trust Corbyn' or '1970s/Venezuela blabla', without ever having really considered it. We're tribal first, gullible second and rational a distant last. This is the real problem. The best policies don't win, the best PR image wins. This is an absolute travesty, and completely ruins democracy as you cannot vote well on things you don't understand.
There is a pretty simple solution. If people don't really understand poltics we can teach them in school. We don't need GCSEs, just a few small modules explaining the basics. Politics, so people know the difference between left and right; economics, so people understand stuff like like free trade, labour movement or fiscal policy. And philosophy, so people can hear ideas about what government should be aiming to do. No-one gets taught these things so it's up to us to teach ourselves (which most don't) or glean things from the news. And as we know, the news can be nothing more than a mouthpiece - which is where we get "I just don't trust 'im" in place of a rational thought process.
This is the real problem. The best policies don’t win, the best PR image wins. This is an absolute travesty, and completely ruins democracy as you cannot vote well on things you don’t understand.
That's certainly true, although the same can be said in the other direction too. You cannot tax the rich and corporations to a 'fair' amount because they will simply spend their money on tax minimisation. It's pretty well established what those levels are and that taxing beyond that will be counterproductive. That's a reality that you just have to live with, however unfair it is. So the appeal to voters who want them squeezed hard is just as disingenuous.
Fat cats don't realise how fat they are and how far away from other people their reality is. They are ignorant in the nicest sense of the word and so far attempts to rectify that have failed.
Creating a system which is much less susceptible to those influences will be a good start. It would probably get more people more involved, if they thought they had a genuine role and a voice that counted for something. The info. on whats wrong and suggestions on how to fix it get dismissed as social justice warrior foaming at the mouth delusions. Just look at the abolishing private schools debate
fixing all that is about as likely as curing the common cold though.
You cannot tax the rich and corporations to a ‘fair’ amount because they will simply spend their money on tax minimisation.
Simply whacking up corporation tax or income tax - yeah, it's problematic. It's been tried, after all. That's why we need new ideas. It won't be easy though, not when people with the money are appealing to people's base instincts. That's why the bottom line is education - it always is.
You can tax people and corporations much more and more fairly. You outlaw the tax dodges. any company like starbucks for example that tranfers profits overseas to avid tax simply get taxed on turnover to a punative level. they soon will stop
On thing that would help greatly on tax evasion is to beef up the tax inspectors. they recover more money than they cost.
they recover more money than they cost.
They do. Although they tend to pick the low hanging fruit. Often average individuals and small traders who are clumsy in their attempts to evade tax, or make genuine mistakes.
The rest get away with it because the gov't simply can't afford to pay the types of people who come up with the avoidance strategies, to turn cop. Plus they are massively outspent on solicitors, accountants and barristers if they ever do get to court.
Just read about some country using data from trade suppliers to track down the tradies working under the table.
You can tax people and corporations much more and more fairly.
Having the will to try would certainly go some way but no matter how draconian you are willing to be, if you want to have some sort of economy you are going to have to be pragmatic, sadly.
Your best chance probably lies with public opinion. If you can get people to demand it and embarrass the companies into behaving better, that's your best chance. It has worked to some degree in a small scale.
When do we find out where the Brexit Party are unleashing their loose cannons?
Can we ask them how much they agree with the last lunatic thing that Ann Widdecombe said in lieu of a published manifesto?
Nigel's Garage jalopy is looking like an MOT fail before it leaves the forecourt.
I was rather hoping to have a candidate here, but it seems unlikely now - will there be any anywhere outside of Stoke on Trent?
It’s pretty well established what those levels are and that taxing beyond that will be counterproductive
Go on… actually, no, don’t bother… take it to the Laffer Curve thread.
You have absolutely no idea whether increasing the highest rate of income tax and the level of corporation tax for larger companies by a few % points would be counterproductive at all… you’re just guessing… it isn’t an absolute, and depends greatly on what else is going on at the time. Which is why I started with stop Brexit before mentioning tax levels. Make Britain a better county to do business with and from, and use tax and investment to ensure that benefit is shared.
I was rather hoping to have a candidate here
The worry is, that Farage’s Brexit Party are dropping to a campaign focused on Labour voters in areas where that might help the Conservative Brexit Party, and quietly downing tools in seats that might negatively effect the Conservative Brexit Party vote.
You have absolutely no idea whether increasing the highest rate of income tax and the level of corporation tax for larger companies by a few % points would be counterproductive at all
We have data for both those cases because corp tax has reduced recently and revenue increased, and the higher rate of income tax has changed twice in the last 10 years and revenue was neutral.
any company like starbucks for example that tranfers profits overseas to avid tax simply get taxed on turnover to a punative level
Pretty sure turnover taxes are illegal under EU rules. [1] It's not really a big deal 'cos VAT is a close approximation to a tax on turnover. Either are great taxes IMHO 'cos they're impossible avoid. (Note avoid, not evade.)
[1] IIRC that's why Ireland swapped it's turnover tax for VAT when it joined the EU. Hungary has had a few goes at introducing turnover taxes and has been prevented every time IIRC.
We have data
Take it to the Laffer Curve thread.
You can not claim from that data what you seem to be claiming.
As I said, and I repeat, I am not advocating just increasing those tax rates, I am advocating government takes an action to boost the economy (stop Brexit) and increases taxes slightly on larger companies and high earners (to take advantage of the improvement in the trading fortunes of those who most immediately benefit from an announcement to stay in the EU) to ensure all benefit.
Pretty sure turnover taxes are illegal under EU rules.
Do we know why?
You can tax people and corporations much more and more fairly.
It's more complicated than that. There's a limit to what people consider fair, and that is based on their attitudes towards taxation and public spending. In say Scandinavia, governments spend more, but they can get away with promising to spend that much because people value the idea of taxation and public spending and are prepared to vote for it.
Public attitudes dictate government, to an extent - that's democracy. However, people in the UK whinge about public services AND whinge about taxation. The media has managed to plant seeds of excuses in people's minds - 'I'd pay more tax but they just waste it' is something that you hear.
Either are great taxes IMHO ‘cos they’re impossible avoid.
They are regressive though. A multi-millionaire pays the same tax on a litre of diesel as someone on the breadline.
They are regressive though.
True, but you could for example increase the indirect tax rate paid on the fuels used in private jets and helicopters, but reduce the indirect tax paid on those things you consider are purchased more by someone “on the breadline”…
…or more simply, use our direct tax and benefits systems to help those “on the breadline”, and invest in the services that they need.
True, but you could increase the indirect tax paid on the fuels used in private jets and helicopters, but rescue the indirect tax paid on those things you consider are purchased more by someone “on the breadline”
That's exactly what I was talking about.
Cool. Just a reminder that direct taxes can be regressive (some of our NI rules and rates are) and indirect taxes can be progressive… it’s not a simple rule that the opposite is always the case.
They are regressive though.
Take it up with TJ, it was his suggestion.
Take it to the Laffer Curve thread.
Northwind won't like you confusing Laffer Curves with Revenue curves! 😀
Pretty sure turnover taxes are illegal under EU rules.
Do we know why?
No idea and google didn't help me. My *guess* is it's due to double taxation. If you're in the EU you have to have VAT (I think) so if you have a turnover tax as well you're taxing the same thing twice.
I don't think turnover tax and VAT are equivalent. The buyer pays VAT, but the vendor would pay turnover tax. And some things like services may not be subject to VAT?
True, but you could increase the indirect tax paid on the fuels used in private jets and helicopters, but rescue the indirect tax paid on those things you consider are purchased more by someone “on the breadline”
That’s exactly what I was talking about.
TJ is specifically talking about Coffee from coffee shops. Increasing VAT on people's coffee won't be a vote winner AFAICT.
You or I might consider coffee from a coffee shop an extravagant waste, but millions don't.
My *guess* is it’s due to double taxation
Fuel duty is a form of taxation but we also pay VAT on it.
I don’t think turnover tax and VAT are equivalent. The buyer pays VAT, but the vendor would pay turnover tax.
You acknowledged they were broadly equivalent when you said "They are regressive though.".
Businesses turnover comes exclusively comes from their customers so a turnover tax is not broadly different to a sales tax like VAT. How could it be?
And some things like services may not be subject to VAT?
Agree with this. A turnover tax would catch a vast amount of stuff that VAT is tuned to miss.
Fuel duty is a form of taxation but we also pay VAT on it.
Maybe it's something else then or maybe there's a reason that isn't double taxation. Like you I'd love to know the reasoning.
I did not say vat
Businesses turnover comes exclusively comes from their customers
Does it?
Interest on loans to other businesses? Return on investments of other businesses, perhaps in different jurisdictions? Sale of stock? Sale of assets to other companies? Transferral of leases? License revenue? I'm not an expert in corporate affairs but it seems to me that a large company will have a lot more going on than simply selling stuff.
Interest on loans to other businesses? Return on investments of other businesses, perhaps in different jurisdictions? Sale of stock? Sale of assets to other companies? Transferral of leases? License revenue?
All of these required some cash in the first place which required the firm to sell goods or services in the first place. Five of them *literally* are selling stuff to customers!
You said a turnover tax is regressive, which means you accept my point, and clearly I accept your point because I'm not saying that VAT/Sales tax is *identical* to a Turnover Tax. So we can probably quit.
All of these required some cash in the first place which required the firm to sell goods or services in the first place. Five of them *literally* are selling stuff to customers!
A partner isn't necessarily a customer.
So we can probably quit.
Yeah. Just trying to explore the subtleties of the different ideas. I think that's what would matter if a party were to push for it as policy.
Here we go… as feared… Farage is giving a speech and it looks like he’s getting ready to use his party to make things harder just for Labour, not for the Tories…
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1193863447315914755?s=21
I think we’re staring at a Conservative majority now.
BBC have been caught out doctoring footage of Boris Johnsons wreath laying, replacing his performance with one filmed in 2016. It's not even the same colour of wreath. No bias there then.
I think we’re staring at a Conservative majority now.
TBH I've been reading the polls that way anyway.
Yup, we’re screwed. Farage just stated Brexit Party standing against all Labour & LibDem MPs, but not against ANY Conservative MPs. We’re all screwed.
No bias there then.
It’s just a cock up, no?
It's theoretically possible that BP was taking more Labour voters than Tory voters in marginal seats, so this could have unintended consequences. Not sure anyone has numbers to give an indication?
I think we’re staring at a Conservative majority now.
Can't disagree.
It’s theoretically possible that BP was taking more Labour voters than Tory voters in marginal seats, so this could have unintended consequences. Not sure anyone has numbers to give an indication?
For sure, but I don't think we will know until the date.
Yup, we’re screwed.
Why the surprise? There was no way Farage was ever going to go against what Trump wants him to do. Those labour leave voters just became the focus of this election. Labour might well come to regret adopting a more remainey policy with a second referendum.
This is also going to screw up the polls, because the question 'would you vote for the Brexit Party' depends on if a candidate is standing, and if the respondent knows whether or not a candidate is standing.
Well I suppose it's possible some of the more Brexity tory voters will jump ship to BP too.
Why the surprise?
I’ve been warning that this will happen for years now, and that the opposition parties need to be ready for it by stepping aside for each other in key seats. Trollalong now please.
Libdems make a pact now?
I’d like the LibDems to simply stand aside in some seats… unilaterally, just like Farage’s company has, and the Greens have in some seats… this Labour Party won’t be making any pact for this election with anyone… they seem to see this as a battle to become the next official opposition, and treat that as another success story somehow. Sharing power with the other opposition parties isn’t in their game plan.
Sharing power with the other opposition parties isn’t in their game plan.
At this stage how don't know how you can say anything for definite.
Maybe Labour can now say "if you vote BP it's the same as voting Tory", and keep voters that way?
I can't do the maths currently (work hey) but on LBC they are saying it only allows Boris to fight his existing seats (without BXP candidates) so doesn't automatically give him any more seats than currently - assuming 2017 plays out!
That right?
Looks like Farage is going to spend the election campaign as an unofficial outrider for the ERG wing of the Tory party then.
That right?
No, it’s not right.
Many target seats for the Tories rely on ex-Labour voters who no longer consider Labour as the party for the patriotic working class voter turning to Farage’s joke candidates. It makes little sense, but there you are.
Those labour leave voters just became the focus of this election
Leave voters that are Labour, is not the same thing as Labour supporters that voted Leave. The generally accepted figure is 3-4 million Labour supporters voted leave, I think it's fair to say that some of those will hold their noses and vote for a far right single issue party, but most (according to dazh anyway, as he says that most voters vote as per normal) will still vote Labour.
I think this news reflects that fact that after Farage decided not to stand personally, his party is effectively a busted flush, and this act (to try to inflict damage on the Left) his his last hurrah.
Of course this doesn't change the fact that even in Labour seats, the Brexit party will still largely spilt the vote between themselves and the Tories
his last hurrah
Last Hurrah for the “Brexit Party”, which will be gone before we have the next election after this one… but we haven’t seen the back of Farage. He’ll find another way to mess things up here… probably after a few years in the USA.
Those labour leave voters just became the focus of this election. Labour might well come to regret adopting a more remainey policy with a second referendum.
and then lost labour remainers, - 2/3rds of their supporters?
No, it’s not right.
Many target seats for the Tories rely on ex-Labour voters who no longer consider Labour as the party for the patriotic working class voter turning to Farage’s joke candidates. It makes little sense, but there you are.
No - that's not what I'm saying the point is the seats he's (NF) standing down against are Tory seats already. So the Labour voters probably won't switch to Tory. Whereas they may have switched to BXP. They can't now.
I'm not talking about the ones that Farage is still putting candidates up against.
Of course this doesn’t change the fact that even in Labour seats, the Brexit party will still largely spilt the vote between themselves and the Torie
Yep.
So what does this NF cop-out buy the Tories?
Oh well
hard brexit & 5 years of Johnson
100 seat majority?
You need to think about the seats involved… the Brexit Party vote demographic is very different in, say, the North East than it is in, say, Gloucestershire or Somerset.
So what does this NF cop-out buy the Tories?
Nothing. There is no deal that farage could offer (other than dissolving the BX-P) that could entice the Tories into a deal with him. The same logic that prevents the Labour party from doing a deal with the Lid-Dems (it makes them look weak and desperate) is the same for the Tories. This is a unilateral announcement simply for face saving purposes (and probs the offer of a gong and lift to the other place for Nigel who desperately craves it). Surely the most Establishment anti establishment protester that ever there was.
It makes it all very strange. There is always the chance that it was galvanise people who aren't fond of Brexit or the Tories to get out and vote.
Oh well
hard brexit & 5 years of Johnson
100 seat majority?
They can't get any more Tory seats than have just been dropped by NF. But at the same time the BXP vote will likely split the Tory Vote where Farage hasn't dropped his candidates.
Boris still needs to win those seats from Labour to get a majority. Not that likely.
(All that's happened is Farage has taken the pressure of Boris losing his existing seats to BXP. Still not majority though.)
Not sure the BP news as reported is *that* significant. Brexiteers/Torys need Farage to withdraw from the marginal Labour seats because without taking Labour seats, the Tory's have no hope of a majority because, for sure, they are going to lose seats to the LibDems and SNP.
Mind you surely Farage understands that and is using Tory seats as shorthand for 'seats the Torys have a chance in'.
Or is NF trying to make a hung parliament certain/more likely?
There is no deal that farage could offer (other than dissolving the BX-P) that could entice the Tories into a deal with him. The same logic that prevents the Labour party from doing a deal with the Lid-Dems (it makes them look weak and desperate) is the same for the Tories.
100pc this.
Sharing power with the other opposition parties isn’t in their game plan.
A quick look at Swinsons position would make it rather clear why that isnt an option.
Wonder if he is going to refund the candidate fees or is it going to end up a a nice profit for him and Tice
A quick look at Swinsons position would make it rather clear why that isnt an option.
Yep. She wants a handful more seats at the expense of everything.
So what does this NF cop-out buy the Tories?
Less competition (i.e. none from BXP) in tory safe seats, so it's debatable what that means, they will potentaily lose less safe seats, but that doesnt nessesarily mean they'll gain in the subset of seats as they are already 'safe' tory?
Less competition (i.e. none from BXP) in tory safe seats, so it’s debatable what that means, they will potentaill losse less safe seats, but that doesnt nessesarily mean theyl gain in the subset of seats as they are already ‘safe’ tory?
Exactly. Which places the Tories with no more MP in those seats - Worst(best) case. As it stands currently we know that's not a majority.
This will still win the Tories some seats off of Labour that they wouldn’t win without a Brexit Party candidate sitting. If you can’t see why and how, well…
It also hammers the LibDem chances in some South West seats that the Tories were likely to lose. Conservatives should be very pleased with Farage’s move.
This will win the Tories some seats that currently have a Labour MP. If you can’t see why and how, well…
Depends what seats we are talking about - does anyone know what seats BXP are stading in? do they even know?
Take calderdale for example, not a tory safe seat, lets assume it's 40/40 Lab and Con as in 2017.
A BXP candidate there would see a Labour victory.
dissonance - if candidate nomination forms have not been submitted, deposits will not have been paid; deadline is 4pm on Thursday this week.
Candidate pays deposit.
does anyone know what seast BXP are stading in?
Yes. They announced it today. Read my posts on this page.
No Brexit Party candidate to stand in Calderdale, or any other seat that is currently held by the Conservatives.
If only labour had spent the past 3 years making the case to the labour heartlands brexiters that this is a right wing con job that will destroy them not free them. They have been afraid for too long to tell them they were wrong, that now it is too late and they have lost them anyway with a whimper, without even fighting to be on the right side of history..
What's the Quid Pro Quo for Farage then?
Candidate pays deposit.
I am referring to the fees he charged candidates on top of the official deposit.