Do you want to discuss boring politics? (31 Viewers)

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Remember when we cut the overseas aid budget to look after our own. NHS staff? No not them. People dependant on benefits? No not them. Pensioners? No not them. Who exactly of our own are we looking after? Doesn’t seem to be the most valuable or vulnerable people in society. Still that VIP lane for cronies paid off. Maybe the best connected elite are our own.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I think it’s worse than that isn’t it? Worst in the developed world I think.
They were discussing pensions on Sky News the other day and someone referred to a study showing ours to be the third worst in the world behind only Brazil and South Africa. Remember thinking that can't possibly be right but maybe it is.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
The right tax is almost always a wealth tax. Especially for a service that’s for the elderly. They’ll never tax wealth.

How would you implement it? The rich put that wealth in lots of different places and would argue that a lot of it isn't liquid so taxes on it would cause them cashflow issues (whether true or not).

We've got a diverse range of taxes to try and tax wealth via various sources (Income, sales, CGT, dividend, interest, inheritance, import etc) so whether they save it, spend it or whatever it's fair share goes towards helping society overall but they rely on money moving around in some form or another. If they just sit on it it can't be touched. So how do you measure that wealth that is being sat on?

How would you tax someone who owned a Da Vinci for example? Would it be taxed on the value it was bought at? Would it have to be revalued periodically?
What if Banksy did a piece on the wall of your property?
How would you keep track of everything everyone owned and what they were worth? Rely on everyone telling the truth?
Would you force the sale of things like property/land/shares/art if they could not pay the wealth tax on the value of those assets? IMO that'd be more likely to affect the middle class and you'd end up with a lot more property and land ending up in the hands of the wealthy who would likely be more cash rich and able to pay.
If you set a tax whereby a percentage of the balance in a bank account is taken each year then people will just stop keeping money in them. You'd probably have to work it out on a daily basis or people would just move the money/take it out on the day the tax is calculated then put it all back in the day after.

Even if you figure all that out and manage to implement it how do you stop people hiding their wealth offshore or in trusts/charities?

Although not a solution perhaps one thing that could be of use is to add in a sliding scale like we have for income tax into sales tax, so the rich who are likely buying more expensive items pay a larger amount (property would need consideration or possibly exemption). So for example items up to £100 = 10%, £1000 = 20%, £10k = 30%, £100k = 40%, £1m+ = 50%. But even that wouldn't tap into much of the wealth and the truly wealthy could source the most expensive items abroad to avoid the tax in exchange for import tax, unless you did the same with that.

Wealth tax would be the best way but I don't see how to make it work without the rich finding some way to avoid it. Hence why it's never been implemented.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
How would you implement it? The rich put that wealth in lots of different places and would argue that a lot of it isn't liquid so taxes on it would cause them cashflow issues (whether true or not).

We've got a diverse range of taxes to try and tax wealth via various sources (Income, sales, CGT, dividend, interest, inheritance, import etc) so whether they save it, spend it or whatever it's fair share goes towards helping society overall but they rely on money moving around in some form or another. If they just sit on it it can't be touched. So how do you measure that wealth that is being sat on?

How would you tax someone who owned a Da Vinci for example? Would it be taxed on the value it was bought at? Would it have to be revalued periodically?
What if Banksy did a piece on the wall of your property?
How would you keep track of everything everyone owned and what they were worth? Rely on everyone telling the truth?
Would you force the sale of things like property/land/shares/art if they could not pay the wealth tax on the value of those assets? IMO that'd be more likely to affect the middle class and you'd end up with a lot more property and land ending up in the hands of the wealthy who would likely be more cash rich and able to pay.
If you set a tax whereby a percentage of the balance in a bank account is taken each year then people will just stop keeping money in them. You'd probably have to work it out on a daily basis or people would just move the money/take it out on the day the tax is calculated then put it all back in the day after.

Even if you figure all that out and manage to implement it how do you stop people hiding their wealth offshore or in trusts/charities?

Although not a solution perhaps one thing that could be of use is to add in a sliding scale like we have for income tax into sales tax, so the rich who are likely buying more expensive items pay a larger amount (property would need consideration or possibly exemption). So for example items up to £100 = 10%, £1000 = 20%, £10k = 30%, £100k = 40%, £1m+ = 50%. But even that wouldn't tap into much of the wealth and the truly wealthy could source the most expensive items abroad to avoid the tax in exchange for import tax, unless you did the same with that.

Wealth tax would be the best way but I don't see how to make it work without the rich finding some way to avoid it. Hence why it's never been implemented.

Start with land and stocks, work from there.
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Anything that goes against a manifesto promise should automatically trigger a general election.

The argument against is that the situation has changed but if it's changed that much then we should have the opportunity to say how we want our government to tackle it.

Tories would still win of course but it makes it more democratic than puling the old Clegg at any opportunity.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
The government creates via the Bank of England the money, it does not need tax to do that. Taxes have other functions but they do not fund public spending.
Well... they do. I just read the prelude to the book you recommended. There's a very big difference between not being scared of a budget deficit, and letting a deficit be whatever you want it to be.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Anything that goes against a manifesto promise should automatically trigger a general election.

The argument against is that the situation has changed but if it's changed that much then we should have the opportunity to say how we want our government to tackle it.

Tories would still win of course but it makes it more democratic than puling the old Clegg at any opportunity.

Manifesto's would change to be even more vague and carefully worded so as to not fall foul of it.

Things like
'we do not intend to raise taxes'
'we will not raise taxes immediately'
'pensions will have increased by the end of the parliament'
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Manifesto's would change to be even more vague and carefully worded so as to not fall foul of it.

Things like
'we do not intend to raise taxes'
'we will not raise taxes immediately'
'pensions will have increased by the end of the parliament'
At that would provide an opportunity for another party to pledge and promise stuff and call the other out on being non-comital and wanting to swindle the country
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Well... they do. I just read the prelude to the book you recommended. There's a very big difference between not being scared of a budget deficit, and letting a deficit be whatever you want it to be.

They do not. The treasury doesn't get on the phone to HMRC to ask them to transfer across tax receipts before issuing a department with a budget.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Not sure if its politics , but when the fuck are we going to scrap our strict school uniform policy over here that is making struggling families struggle even more .

It's ridiculous.

I thought quite a few schools didn't have uniforms now?

The argument is that it makes everyone equal. What you're wearing becomes another potential bullying tool. Kids being made fun of because they don't have the £100 trainers or the right brands. Puts even more pressure on parents to get that stuff because the kids want to fit in, or at least not be teased.

It's an extra expense on top of normal clothing though. Ideally they'd be provided by the school for free (or at least heavily subsidised) if it were considered that important. In these days of be whoever you want to be I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged uniforms as a restriction of freedom of self expression.

If every school wore the same colour trousers/jumpers/blazers etc and only the badge and tie changed they should be able to be mass produced cheaply but if it was done via a centralised contract undoubtedly some mate of a minister's company would get it and each pair of trousers would end up costing £100.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I thought quite a few schools didn't have uniforms now?

The argument is that it makes everyone equal. What you're wearing becomes another potential bullying tool. Kids being made fun of because they don't have the £100 trainers or the right brands. Puts even more pressure on parents to get that stuff because the kids want to fit in, or at least not be teased.

It's an extra expense on top of normal clothing though. Ideally they'd be provided by the school for free (or at least heavily subsidised) if it were considered that important. In these days of be whoever you want to be I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged uniforms as a restriction of freedom of self expression.

If every school wore the same colour trousers/jumpers/blazers etc and only the badge and tie changed they should be able to be mass produced cheaply but if it was done via a centralised contract undoubtedly some mate of a minister's company would get it and each pair of trousers would end up costing £100.

It’s nonsense though isn’t it. Every uniformed school I’ve been at every kid knew who the rich and poor kids were and were never short of things to bully each other about.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
At that would provide an opportunity for another party to pledge and promise stuff and call the other out on being non-comital and wanting to swindle the country

Maybe. But I still reckon they'd give themselves as much leeway and wriggle room as possible. You'd just set every target over the course of the parliament to render the entire thing null and void.

One thing that I think would be useful is that after parliament has been dissolved for the GE every household should be sent a leaflet listing the outgoing parliament's manifesto promises and whether they've been kept or not, like an end of term report. Would make them loath to break any as it would be fresh in the minds of the electorate at the ballot box.

You'd have thought that maybe the opposition would do it already, but I imagine it'd be a bit expensive and if it had Labour/Conservatives written on supporters of the other party would just ignore it.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
It’s nonsense though isn’t it. Every uniformed school I’ve been at every kid knew who the rich and poor kids were and were never short of things to bully each other about.

Yeah, at school it was pretty clear who were the haves and have nots.

Thing is with your own clothes if you wear something decent someone may well try and nick it. When I was at school a kid came into school once with a brand new pair of Air Jordan's cos he wanted to show off. Someone jumped him on the way home and nicked them.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Yeah, at school it was pretty clear who were the haves and have nots.

Thing is with your own clothes if you wear something decent someone may well try and nick it. When I was at school a kid came into school once with a brand new pair of Air Jordan's cos he wanted to show off. Someone jumped him on the way home and nicked them.

Thats going to happen wherever they are thiugh. Every kid brings £500+ of electronics with them these days.

Im actually a fan of uniform generally but the new “buy this specific overpriced thing from one specific store” can get bent.

I’ve said before but my ideal system would have three schools: primary (Y1-5), middle (6-9) and secondary (10-13) and I feel then you could do away with uniform in secondary.
 
Last edited:

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
I thought quite a few schools didn't have uniforms now?

The argument is that it makes everyone equal. What you're wearing becomes another potential bullying tool. Kids being made fun of because they don't have the £100 trainers or the right brands. Puts even more pressure on parents to get that stuff because the kids want to fit in, or at least not be teased.

It's an extra expense on top of normal clothing though. Ideally they'd be provided by the school for free (or at least heavily subsidised) if it were considered that important. In these days of be whoever you want to be I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged uniforms as a restriction of freedom of self expression.

If every school wore the same colour trousers/jumpers/blazers etc and only the badge and tie changed they should be able to be mass produced cheaply but if it was done via a centralised contract undoubtedly some mate of a minister's company would get it and each pair of trousers would end up costing £100.
Schools should have standard blazers, shirts trousers etc along with PE kit. If they want personalised badges or embroidery, the school should cover the cost.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Thats going to happen wherever they are thiugh. Every kid brings £500+ of electronics with them these days.

Im actually a fan of uniform generally but the new “buy this specific overpriced thing from one specific store” can get bent.

I’ve said before but my ideal system would have three schools: primary (Y1-5), middle (6-9) and secondary (10-13) and I feel then you could do away with uniform in secondary.

I agree entirely about the having to buy from specific suppliers. Another way private enterprise and a profit motive has worked its way into public services.

Although it was all on one site my primary was 'split' into infants (R,1,2,3) then juniors (4,5,6) but I think yours probably makes more sense, especially now education goes up to Y13.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I agree entirely about the having to buy from specific suppliers. Another way private enterprise and a profit motive has worked its way into public services.

Although it was all on one site my primary was 'split' into infants (R,1,2,3) then juniors (4,5,6) but I think yours probably makes more sense, especially now education goes up to Y13.

I just think Y6 is too old for primary and Y7/8 too young for secondary. Y9 is a difficult one as a bit of a transition year but when I’ve seen it in Leicestershire it stops them growing up too quickly and acting like 18 year olds when they’re 13.
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
The tories in coventry have tabled a motion to privatise the waste collection .

Labour are to vote against it

Memo we got today
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
They do not. The treasury doesn't get on the phone to HMRC to ask them to transfer across tax receipts before issuing a department with a budget.
Nor is it rational to just print whatever cash it wants.

Seriously, it's absolutely crazy to assume you can just devalue your currency by printing what you feel like, in a global economy. If you're suggesting the treasury just pluck a figure out of the air when setting a budget, then that is absolute madness too (well, tbf maybe not under this lot!). There are enough examples of that failing spectacularly to show it's naive at best, totally irresponsible at worst.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Nor is it rational to just print whatever cash it wants.

Seriously, it's absolutely crazy to assume you can just devalue your currency by printing what you feel like, in a global economy. If you're suggesting the treasury just pluck a figure out of the air when setting a budget, then that is absolute madness too (well, tbf maybe not under this lot!). There are enough examples of that failing spectacularly to show it's naive at best, totally irresponsible at worst.

For somebody who purports to be a bit of a thinker, you're not reading what I am saying. I am saying that public spending is not dependent on tax income. Your post agrees with that. I haven't said that it means the government should just print money.

Tax has a function but it is not to fund public spending. As I've said, read the book I've mentioned and open your mind a little.
 

COV

Well-Known Member
Finally something interesting in polictics

The Labour minister for climate change, Juliet James, is the sister of the Aphex Twin :)
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Finally something interesting in polictics

The Labour minister for climate change, Juliet James, is the sister of the Aphex Twin :)

I saw this. This is the kind of politics that will get Labour back in government. Cool Britannia 2.0
 
  • Like
Reactions: COV

Users who are viewing this thread

Top