clint van damme
Well-Known Member
But if Brexit is going to be so beneficial why are some of it's main cheer leaders manoeuvring their business interests against a poor outcome?
I'm still waiting for someone to spell out some benefits.
But if Brexit is going to be so beneficial why are some of it's main cheer leaders manoeuvring their business interests against a poor outcome?No alarm bells for me. Rich money-grabbing bastards are doing what remain supporters are doing with the noise they make...Trying to protect their self-interest (hence NOT producing said articles that have little credibility on the actual outcomes)
I said along the very poor & very wealthy will be most affected. The former will probably have to sadly rely on charitable causes, the latter will have to risk devalued (or redistributed) accumulated wealth or work to protect it by finding & shifting it elsewhere.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
The revival of the wholesome pork batch, humble sausage roll, and proletarian porridge as staple foodstuffs.I'm still waiting for someone to spell out some benefits.
On a much smaller scale, I did it with the Trump election, I had a big chunk of pension based in North American. I'd had a decent year and wanted to crystalize that and I was unsure if he'd win. When he did, I thought I'd dodged a bullet moving them out but in hindsight they continued to rise.But if Brexit is going to be so beneficial why are some of it's main cheer leaders manoeuvring their business interests against a poor outcome?
I'm still waiting for someone to spell out some benefits.
On a much smaller scale, I did it with the Trump election, I had a big chunk of pension based in North American. I'd had a decent year and wanted to crystalize that and I was unsure if he'd win. When he did, I thought I'd dodged a bullet moving them out but in hindsight they continued to rise.
Because there will initially be a small downturn. I think we're all expecting that, my guess is they'll move in the short term and then by back in when they feel it's low and make even more on the way back up. Seems a sensible approach whether you're in Government or not. Wouldn't you?
No Tony it wasn’t in the manifesto and that’s the point. It resulted in a humiliating defeat in parliament which was the beginning of the end. If it was in the manifesto they’d never have been elected
And without any Diane Abbott maths, what do you propose they do to collect the shortfall?
But if Brexit is going to be so beneficial why are some of it's main cheer leaders manoeuvring their business interests against a poor outcome?
I'm still waiting for someone to spell out some benefits.
The revival of the wholesome pork batch, humble sausage roll, and proletarian porridge as staple foodstuffs.
Income tax generates 185bn in taxes. VAT generates 135bn in taxes. Therefore as most of it is generated by the standard tax bracket you'd hit low and middle earners the hardest with income tax likely at 35% to compensate. Personally I'd rather have that cash in my pocket and choose what and how I spend that balance.Abolish it and increase income tax proportionately and fairly. Unlike VAT.
Income tax generates 185bn in taxes. VAT generates 135bn in taxes. Therefore as most of it is generated by the standard tax bracket you'd hit low and middle earners the hardest with income tax likely at 35% to compensate. Personally I'd rather have that cash in my pocket and choose what and how I spend that balance.
VAT hits low and middle earners hardest proportionately to income. Proportionately it could be the higher earners who take the hit for a change. The government wouldn’t have to put it on the lower rates, they do have the choice of putting on the higher rates instead.
True (I think). But that’s a percentage of a percentage. Income tax only accounts for around 30% of tax collected in the country.What do you class as a higher earner? £50k+? So many - particularly those who have things like over-priced company cars now slip into that bracket. What incentive is there in progression if you increase their tax to eg 60%?
The highest 50% of tax payers already pay 90.3% of the total income tax collected.
I'm guessing you thought it was the best option for you? In which case yes you were right.I don't fall into either of those categories, so you agree that I was right to vote leave
The general consensus is that the UK will likely take a short term hit. Ironically, the more these selfish bastards do to protect their own self-interest instead of weathering it, the greater & longer the hit will probably be. But I believe the UK will prosper in time, & the overall outcome will be better in the longer (30-50yrs) term.But if Brexit is going to be so beneficial why are some of it's main cheer leaders manoeuvring their business interests against a poor outcome?
I'm still waiting for someone to spell out some benefits.
True (I think). But that’s a percentage of a percentage. Income tax only accounts for around 30% of tax collected in the country.
To simplify it if a lower tax earner and a higher tax earner go to Greggs and both buy a Cornish Pasty they both pay the same tax on it in the pound. However if the lower taxpayer earns a fifth of the higher taxpayer proportionately to his/her income they are contributing a larger percentage of their income on the tax on that pasty. That very simplistic example is how VAT hits the lowest earners harder. How is that a fair tax system?
The general consensus is that the UK will likely take a short term hit. Ironically, the more these selfish bastards do to protect their own self-interest instead of weathering it, the greater & longer the hit will probably be. But I believe the UK will prosper in time, & the overall outcome will be better in the longer (30-50yrs) term.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
The general consensus is that the UK will likely take a short term hit. Ironically, the more these selfish bastards do to protect their own self-interest instead of weathering it, the greater & longer the hit will probably be. But I believe the UK will prosper in time, & the overall outcome will be better in the longer (30-50yrs) term.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Variations in corporation tax are set to an agreed minimum with punitive actions for offenders so yes we are. We can not control fully our own VAT rates so yes we are. I don’t want Brussels to have any say thanks. That’s what we elect governments for.
The whole ethos of the Eu is for greater and greater integration - it’s part of its core values.
The original concept we voted for was purely free trade not an erosion of powers from member states. It also wasn’t about letting poverty stricken states who offer no tangible benefits into the club funded by us.
With your VAT example the guy has a choice whether to spend on a Cornish pasty at Greggs, through income they don't. Also the higher earner has already likely contributed more to the pot despite only using the same services. Should he go on being continually persecuted for being successful everywhere he goes? All systems will be fairer to some than others, so I do sympathise, but the alternative is to privatise everything and I think there would be a few more dissenters to that than anything else.
Fyi - in 2016 income tax collected was 12.5% of total (or 25% if you exclude Public sector receipts). Below table in £bn
Public Sector Current Receipts5,6 726.50
Income tax (gross of tax credits) 185.60
Value added tax VAT 135.40
National insurance contributions 125.90
Corporation tax 55.90
Public Sector Gross Operating Surplus 47.20
Council Tax 30.40
Fuel duties 27.90
Business rates 26.80
Other taxes on production 24.60
Other central government taxes 17.40
Stamp duty land tax 12.40
Alcohol duties 11.10
Tobacco duties 8.70
Misc tax inc. inheritance 7.50
Public Sector Interest and Dividends5 6.30
Other Public Sector Receipts 5.20
Stamp taxes on shares 3.70
Vehicle excise duties paid by households 3.70
Television Licence fee receipts 3.20
Bank levy 3.00
Vehicle excise duties paid by businesses 2.20
And without any Diane Abbott maths, what do you propose they do to collect the shortfall?
So no VAT hike has ever happened then as a result of it being in the elected governments manifesto then. Just like I said. Glad you agree with me. Not sure what ever made you suggest that a political party would put it in their election manifesto in the first place.
There shouldn't be a second referendum! The British public voted and the vote should stand. Having a second referendum would be like saying we didn't like the result, so let's just keep on having new votes until we get the result we want.
Based on what?
We don’t know if we like the product of the referendum result as we do not yet have agreement as to what it is. When we know what we are actually getting, then there should be a vote.
Yes Tony because I know any political party that did this would have not had it in its manifesto and would never be elected again
However Brussels could in the future very easily alter our fiscal strategy and with a pro European Parliament we’d lose those rights to change such ghastly policies forever
Which I guess is fine as long as people understand that if the deal is rejected in the vote the only democratic alternative is to leave with no deal
We would have to give up veto rights for that to happen. I would hope that the EU parliament is pro European. What do you want? A pro British parliament in Europe? I want a parliament that works for Europe.
Actually, seeing as that would probably wreck the economy for years to come and that members of the WTO who don’t like us,and the USA, are lined up to make life difficult for us in the WTO, there would have to be the option to remain.
We signed two political treaties with no say from the British public at all
A pro European government could make us join the euro and we couldn’t do a damn thing to stop it. A chilling prospect.
We have veto rights.
So what? What if an elected government ignored those rights and wanted a currency union which would in real terms be irreversible
There won’t be. Unlike Europe Britain is a decent country that believes in honouring commitments. We are leaving that’s happening
So what? What if an elected government ignored those rights and wanted a currency union which would in real terms be irreversible
There was literally zero prospect of that ever happening, stop scaremongering.
As you said earlier, it wouldn't in their manifesto and it would mean they'd never get voted back into power.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?