Terrorist sympathiser here....... (13 Viewers)

rondog1973 said:

the failure to pursue tax evasion by the heads of business (an area where the deficit could be sufficiently reduced).

Click to expand...

Having another flounce with unsupported rhetoric?

1) No, collecting evaded tax could not "sufficiently" reduce the deficit. The deficit currently stands at £88 billion and it's only come down from Brown's £153 billion because of the resurgence of growth and slow and careful reduction in public spending. The most ambitious estimate of the tax gap is £34 billion (Richard Murphy/McDonnell aside who are both financially illiterate IMO). It's not sufficient.

2) No government wants an evasion tax gap and none of them have successfully closed it to zero. Both parties have tried to do so and in percentage terms the Tories have reduced it from over 7% of total tax liabilities inherited from Brown in 2010 to 6.4% in 2014.

You have to understand that the country's spending is a zero sum game and we are stuck presently in a cycle of Conservative governments inheriting a cluster fuck of an economy from Labour and hence cutting spending to try and fix it and then Labour inheriting under-investment in public spending but over-spending and fucking up the economy again. We are presently near the start of the 'we have to fix the economy again' and to scream on about zero hours contracts at this point is disingenuous at best. The fact is that they are working! They are not claiming benefits and helping to get the country back on its feet. As the economy recovers then companies will feel more confident and these will be replaced with full-time contracts.

Try to look at the whole cycle without bias and the need to have a healthy economy. Without the work Osborne is doing now there'd be far worse consequences than some people having to work part-time - we'd be spending ever-increasing amounts on debt interest instead of public services. Without the Tories fixing the economy there'd be no money for the next Labour government to spend.

Ian1779 said:

Austerity is a choice - made by the few to force on the many.

Click to expand...

It's not a choice. There is no option. If we don't reduce public spending then debt interest piles up and reduces the amount to spend even further. You may argue that Keynes said to spend during recession to promote growth and save during boom to avoid bubbles building up that will burst. But you simply cannot spend when you inherit the Brown fuck-up.

What I'd really love to see is a government like Blair's first term. They managed borrowing sensibly and spent sensibly. It's too soon to judge Cameron against this as he's no option presently. I believe he's a moderate and would treat the country well in times of plenty but I cannot prove that and given that he's quitting in 2020 we'll never know. I just pray we don't get a repetition of Thatcher's last term as a replacement.

mrtrench said:

It's not a choice. There is no option. If we don't reduce public spending then debt interest piles up and reduces the amount to spend even further. You may argue that Keynes said to spend during recession to promote growth and save during boom to avoid bubbles building up that will burst. But you simply cannot spend when you inherit the Brown fuck-up.

What I'd really love to see is a government like Blair's first term. They managed borrowing sensibly and spent sensibly. It's too soon to judge Cameron against this as he's no option presently. I believe he's a moderate and would treat the country well in times of plenty but I cannot prove that and given that he's quitting in 2020 we'll never know. I just pray we don't get a repetition of Thatcher's last term as a replacement.

Click to expand...

It's where the austere measures are implemented that is wrong IMO. If we are in as bad a situation as it's made out then things like replacing Trident or HS2 should be postponed and that money go towards lessening the impact of austerity on Education and the NHS. Or if it has to be infrastructure then put it into these areas.

HS2 can piss off. Colossal waste of money. Do better making sure local commuter services run efficiently. Trident will be gone in a decade and given the increasingly pacifist nature of the people it would surprise me to see the armed forces around in 20. At least not in their current format

Ian1779 said:

It's where the austere measures are implemented that is wrong IMO. If we are in as bad a situation as it's made out then things like replacing Trident or HS2 should be postponed and that money go towards lessening the impact of austerity on Education and the NHS. Or if it has to be infrastructure then put it into these areas.

Click to expand...

Maybe; I can't decide on these. I understand the rationale for both: HS2 is part of the "Northern Powerhouse" initiative I believe - intended to bring prosperity to the North? And then there's the defence arguments...

I agree with you on Education and I disagree with the Tories' obsession with testing. The NHS is a money-pit; successive governments throw more money into it and it never seems to ever get any better. I'm coming round to the idea that something has to change but it's such an emotive subject which government would have the balls to do it?

rondog1973 said:

Drama Queening. Tizzy. Sweetie. Flounce.

Maybe you could throw in a "Rant" or "Hissy fit" in your next patronising dismissal.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. My excuse is that I'm totally fed up with people saying untrue things on social media. But I can see I was wrong and I apologise.

rondog1973 said:

However, don't kid yourself that this government - aided and abetted by the press - doesn't put the onus of deficit reduction on 'benefit scroungers' and cuts to the welfare state.

The pursuit of tax from those who evade isn't nearly as aggressive enough in my opinion whilst the wage increases of FTSE 100 Directors has risen by as much as 14% in these times of Tory austerity.

Furthermore, many of those on zero hours contracts tend to be paid in or around minimum wage rates allowing little or no disposable income with which to spend and help regenerate the economy.

Don't share your optimism in big business reducing zero hours contracts once the 'good times' return either.

Click to expand...

1) They are putting the onus on everyone. As well as reducing tax evasion they are addressing tax avoidance. Look at the Dividend tax: from 2016 you will be limited to £5k dividend income tax free then pay the remainder at your income tax rate -> this addresses people with their own companies paying themselves minimum wage and taking the rest in dividends. Look at the changes in Buy To Let, he's repealing the Brown tax breaks (both wear and tear allowance and interest expense allowance). I believe we'll see a Starbucks tax coming in soon also to address all the offshore tax avoiders.

2) I understand what you are saying about tax evasion. It's abhorrent and I also don't understand why it's so difficult to redress. However they are trying and successive governments of all parties have tried and failed to get it below 5%. The person who finds the magic way to solve the problem will be a national hero.

3) They will offer contracts, that's just economics. They can get away with it when there's more unemployed than jobs but when the country prospers it puts power back into the hands of the employee. If you try to outlaw it it would cause:

a) Some jobs disappear
b) No casual labour for those people who actually want it: students, pensioners who just want a few hours to get them out of the house...

mrtrench said:

we are stuck presently in a cycle of Conservative governments inheriting a cluster fuck of an economy from Labour and hence cutting spending to try and fix it and then Labour inheriting under-investment in public spending but over-spending and fucking up the economy again.

Click to expand...

This is a myth. The data just doesn't back it up at all.

If you look back through history you will only find two Labour governments who have ever left office with the national debt higher than when they came into office. All other Labour governments have lowered the national debt (as a percentage of GDP).

So what about those two occasions. Well the first was the Ramsay MacDonald, now getting on for 100 years ago. Their time in office coincided with the Wall Street Crash causing a global financial crisis. The other is of course the Blair Brown government and again there was a global financial crisis.

Now lets looks at the idea that Osborne's plan is working. Well first and foremost he has managed to miss every single target he has set himself. That's a hell of an achievement, to be in a job where you set your own targets for success and still miss them all. How about the deficit? We were told that after a term of Conservative government the deficit would be eliminated.

In reality Osborne borrowed more in the first term than every Labour government in history combined. Its increased both in actual size and as percentage of GDP. In fact there's only 3 previous occasions where the debt as a percentage of GDP has grown at a higher rate, the conservative government of 1812-1823 and during both World Wars. We're told the last Labour government was out of control with the economy. During their time spending as a percentage of GDP rose 11%, mostly at the end of their government during the global financial crisis - if you look just before the global crisis it was a lower figure than that which Labour inherited from the previous Tory government. Osbourne has managed a 26% rise in 5 years!

The tories bang on about the economy having recovered to pre-crisis levels yet wages are stagnant. Why is that? It's because those at the top are taking the money. This government has overseen the huge transfer of wealth from poor to rich. There's record numbers of people in work needing benefits, food bank usage is at an all time high - these aren't signs of a well balanced, well performing economy.

You are right, as a measure of GDP. Debt as a percentage of GDP has of course fallen dramatically since 1945 for almost every government as the economy grew. However you must take the global economy into account. I didn't mention McDonald before because it wouldn't have been fair in the post-Wall Street Crash situation. I also acknowledged that both Heath and Wilson failed in the 70s (even though Callaghan presides over double-digit inflation, the Winter of Discontent and massive unemployment - Britain was called "The Sick Man of Europe") . Even so, there have only ever been 5 periods of Labour government - so 40% ain't a great record is it? There's only Attlee who's done a good job with the economy.

Is Osborne's policy working? Quoting the deficit during his tenure is disingenuous as he inherited the worst economy and global outlook since the 20s. Sure, he missed his targets but then did anyone expect the global recession to last this long? You have to look at performance against external factors. We'll never know what would have happened if he hadn't cut spending but I believe we'd be in a similar situation to Greece now. What he has done is returned the UK to growth (albeit weak) and reversed the direction of the deficit.

I just don't know what you mean by 'those at the top are taking the money'. If you mean the reduction in taxation rates then:

1) For individuals that is across the board and designed to reduce tax evasion and avoidance (which is working - see previous note on tax gap).
2) For companies it's designed to bring more companies to the UK, to increase take income and create more jobs. Which in turn will reduce welfare costs, increase tax income and reduce the deficit.

The reform of tax credits was intended to try and address low wages, along with the new living wage. You may not agree with the choices he is making and we'll neither of us know if he's right - but he is trying to address the issues you raise.

mrtrench said:

1) They are putting the onus on everyone. As well as reducing tax evasion they are addressing tax avoidance. Look at the Dividend tax: from 2016 you will be limited to £5k dividend income tax free then pay the remainder at your income tax rate -> this addresses people with their own companies paying themselves minimum wage and taking the rest in dividends. Look at the changes in Buy To Let, he's repealing the Brown tax breaks (both wear and tear allowance and interest expense allowance). I believe we'll see a Starbucks tax coming in soon also to address all the offshore tax avoiders.

2) I understand what you are saying about tax evasion. It's abhorrent and I also don't understand why it's so difficult to redress. However they are trying and successive governments of all parties have tried and failed to get it below 5%. The person who finds the magic way to solve the problem will be a national hero.

3) They will offer contracts, that's just economics. They can get away with it when there's more unemployed than jobs but when the country prospers it puts power back into the hands of the employee. If you try to outlaw it it would cause:

a) Some jobs disappear
b) No casual labour for those people who actually want it: students, pensioners who just want a few hours to get them out of the house...

Click to expand...

How is tax compliance enforced?

fernandopartridge said:

How is tax compliance enforced?

Click to expand...

HMRC has an investigations team. It's a criminal offence.

fernandopartridge said:

How is tax compliance enforced?

Click to expand...

With me..... The taxman uses various methods of checking my turnover. The buzz words being "big data" and "data-analysis". The customs also use "big data" tests by checking all the imports in a certain branch - if a company has a lower import declaration of machinery than it's competitors, then the customs look more closely. In my branch they look at my percentages and compare them with other firms or other time periods. This "big data" is shown by graphics in their software and they can see if anything suspicious is happening. Anderson is an expert in "big data" and will probably being using big data comparisons for CCFC in relation to other clubs. Anderson also claims to be able to asses the value or potential of players by big data. So,funnily enough, our club are using - imo - big data to get the best out of our finances in the same way taxmen are trying to squeeze money out of firms to enforce tax compliance.

Is Donald trump the biggest arsehole in the world?

Sky Blue Pete said:

Is Donald trump the biggest arsehole in the world?

Click to expand...

Only in America
Stranger danger
What a paranoid society

Sky Blue Pete said:

Is Donald trump the biggest arsehole in the world?

Click to expand...

Nope, not at all. I think he's right and his policy will work!

Immigration control at US border:

Officer: Are you a Muslim?
Visitor/immigrant 1: No.
Officer: Okay, welcome to the United States, you can go through.

Officer: Are you a Muslim?
Visitor/immigrant 2: No.
Officer: Okay, welcome to the United States, you can go through.

Officer: Are you a Muslim?
Visitor/immigrant 3: No.
Officer: Okay, welcome to the United States, you can go through.

Officer: Are you a Muslim?
Visitor/immigrant 4: No.
Officer: Okay, welcome to the United States, you can go through.

Officer: Are you a Muslim?
Visitor/immigrant 5: No.
Officer: Okay, welcome to the United States, you can go through.


Officer: Are you a Muslim?
Visitor/immigrant 6: No.
Officer: Okay, welcome to the United States, you can go through.


Several hours later. Officer turns to senior official.

Officer: It's a bit weird this isn't it, we've let 300,000 people in from the Middle East and not one of them is a Muslim.

Sky Blue Pete said:

Is Donald trump the biggest arsehole in the world?

Click to expand...

Not quite

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary

Macca said:

Not quite

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary

Click to expand...

Not a nice chap is he!

eastwoodsdustman said:

Not a nice chap is he!

Click to expand...

I think he needs to chill a bit