You can’t. One is £50bn of capital investments that the country desperately needs. One was a £30bn give away in tax breaks to people who didn’t need it and for the most part didn’t want it. You really can’t be this stupid that you don’t understand the difference between investment and a give away. You also don’t seem to understand that we haven’t actually borrowed an extra £50bn, the rules have been changed to allow us to borrow an extra £50bn should we need too for capital investment in much needed infrastructure. Truss actually did add at least £30bn to the national debt through one announcement in parliament.I can. 50bn is 66.7% greater than £30 bn
They fucked up from day one. Austerity stifled growth and directly grew the debt by every measure as a consequence. Then there’s the cost on everything else. Education, NHS, policing, etc etc. basically every institution in the country broke down effecting each and every one of us individually negatively in some way. Unless you’re supper rich in which case you’ve had a great time.
I can. 50bn is 66.7% greater than £30 bn
Austerity did stifle growth and negatively impact public services but it’s not really entirely fair to say it was the cause of the debt rising by every measure
There was already a massive increase in debt to gdp under Labour government/a spike after the financial crisis. Basically under Brown the debt to gdp doubled (35% to 70%). You can’t then physically turn that around immediately due to spending commitments unless you start slashing wages and projects. It was stabilised and was reducing a little until Covid. Same now, look at spike after Covid and trying to trim that back looks nigh on impossible. Where TF is all the money going now should be the question as public services are a shitshow ?!!
View attachment 40166
Ps ‘austerity’ is banded around pretty freely these days. If people want to look at serious austerity see what happened in Ireland and Greece around financial crisis and recently in Argentina. I’m not sure what government is proposing now is austerity (general comment - not responding to you Tony)
The debt grew under the Tories as both a total figure (acceptable and expected to a degree) but crucially as a percentage of GDP. Yes it started under Brown largely due to the banking crisis and bailing banks out but that hit was taken prior to the Tories. The Tory strategy pretty undisputedly failed and the slump in growth grew debt as a percentage of GDP. There is modelling out there based on other countries responses to the banking crisis that didn’t involve austerity or bailing the banks out to the levels we did that have proven that we would have shrunk the debt as a percentage of GDP simply because it would have encouraged growth not stifled it.Austerity did stifle growth and negatively impact public services but it’s not really entirely fair to say it was the cause of the debt rising by every measure
There was already a massive increase in debt to gdp under Labour government/a spike after the financial crisis. Basically under Brown the debt to gdp doubled (35% to 70%). You can’t then physically turn that around immediately due to spending commitments unless you start slashing wages and projects. It was stabilised and was reducing a little until Covid. Same now, look at spike after Covid and trying to trim that back looks nigh on impossible. Where TF is all the money going now should be the question as public services are a shitshow ?!!
View attachment 40166
Ps ‘austerity’ is banded around pretty freely these days. If people want to look at serious austerity see what happened in Ireland and Greece around financial crisis and recently in Argentina. I’m not sure what government is proposing now is austerity (general comment - not responding to you Tony)
Numbers are meaningless without including the share of the wealth those rich people have, I would guarantee it is far greater proportion of wealth than it is tax paid.The top earners, both corporate and individual, contribute huge amounts to the exchequer.
Amount UK's richest pay in income tax revealed - BBC News
There is some concern tax rises in the Budget could prompt an exit of the super-rich, hurting UK finances.www.bbc.co.uk
There’s always a tipping point; tax too much and corporations try to “flag out” abroad and use accounting tricks to supply goods and services into the UK with an unfair advantage.
Result: less tax revenue for uk.
Without getting bogged down, UBER, eBay, Amazon, Google, betting online companies etc. will base themselves in countries such as Eire / Luxembourg and avoid UK corp tax and historically VAT.
It was historically difficult to control this and one of, if not the biggest issue for me in the Brexit debate was the enabling of UK tax avoidance afforded by EU membership. Things have tightened a bit but we should be doing more.
I understand the university common room derived solution of “tax the rich and the poor will have more money to spend which will grow the economy” but the reality is that it’s just not that straightforward.
One of my regular slogans when regularly debating a fella called Clegg was “Sell goods or services in the UK? Make profit in the UK?, pay tax in the UK”
Again, it’s a great slogan but difficult to implement, particularly with a global digital economy. We looked at a turnover tax in policy forums, but again, difficult to implement.
What is clear is that “Rach from accounts” is absolutely clueless. Sorry.
Anyway.
This is a Trump thread, not a socialist drug trip.
The majority of the public do think it’s reasonable and the voter ID for voting is free of charge. There is an option for someone is eligible to vote but doesn’t have ID or any kind.In a parliamentary democracy where photo ID is not mandatory or provided free of charge, it is unreasonable to make voting contingent on photo ID.
“Public spending is not dependent on tax”Numbers are meaningless without including the share of the wealth those rich people have, I would guarantee it is far greater proportion of wealth than it is tax paid.
Anyway, it's irrelevant anyway because public spending is not dependent on tax.
How could you collect tax before spending you idiot“Public spending is not dependent on tax”
Right.
I’ve learnt to not debate absolute headbangers.
You win.
Sorry Steve. I know this is your belief but I think the US post pandemic pretty much blows this theory out of the water. EU/UK did austerity and suffered. US did stimulus and thrived.
And the money is going the same place it is everywhere else: benefits and healthcare for an increasingly elderly population.
The answer to someone acting in a shitty, selfish way is not to turn a blind eye to it. If you saw someone take someones unguarded wallet but then took out a few coins and left them for the victim is that ok?The top earners, both corporate and individual, contribute huge amounts to the exchequer.
Amount UK's richest pay in income tax revealed - BBC News
There is some concern tax rises in the Budget could prompt an exit of the super-rich, hurting UK finances.www.bbc.co.uk
There’s always a tipping point; tax too much and corporations try to “flag out” abroad and use accounting tricks to supply goods and services into the UK with an unfair advantage.
Result: less tax revenue for uk.
Without getting bogged down, UBER, eBay, Amazon, Google, betting online companies etc. will base themselves in countries such as Eire / Luxembourg and avoid UK corp tax and historically VAT.
It was historically difficult to control this and one of, if not the biggest issue for me in the Brexit debate was the enabling of UK tax avoidance afforded by EU membership. Things have tightened a bit but we should be doing more.
I understand the university common room derived solution of “tax the rich and the poor will have more money to spend which will grow the economy” but the reality is that it’s just not that straightforward.
One of my regular slogans when regularly debating a fella called Clegg was “Sell goods or services in the UK? Make profit in the UK?, pay tax in the UK”
Again, it’s a great slogan but difficult to implement, particularly with a global digital economy. We looked at a turnover tax in policy forums, but again, difficult to implement.
What is clear is that “Rach from accounts” is absolutely clueless. Sorry.
Anyway.
This is a Trump thread, not a socialist drug trip.
The answer to someone acting in a shitty, selfish way is not to turn a blind eye to it. If you saw someone take someones unguarded wallet but then took out a few coins and left them for the victim is that ok?
I could just as easily say there's always going to be a bit of welfare fraud, but the cost of cracking down on it would be more than the fraud prevented so let it happen. Or a small businessperson doing a job off the books to avoid tax but again the cost of preventing it would be more than the tax taken. or kids stealing from a local shop and getting the authorities involved is inefficient so let them get away with it. What if everyone in the country found a way to avoid a huge swath of their tax? Would that be ok because you'd still be getting a bit of tax? And by right wing economic doctrine their untaxed earnings would then be spent in the economy thus creating jobs, and chances are that would be predominantly in our economy, not all around the world like the super-rich.
Do you agree with all those scenarios? I don't, because if you let that slide then the problem just grows and grows and people try to get away with more and more. The answer has to be stopping them getting away with it, and yes that's hard, but it's also right. And part of that is changing opinion from ones like yours which basically excuses the greedy fuckers because we get a tiny bit of tax to one which sees it for what is it - one of the biggest contributing causes of societal problems and injustice. But that's going to take time.
Nice attempt at deflection. Your Tory bosses will be proud.I find it amazing that those who say we should never turn a blind eye to people trying to avoid any little bit of tax say we should turn a blind eye to voter fraud.
Binman (sorry, refuse collection person) can’t stick a few tenners in their pocket at Xmas that are given to them by a householders? According to your mantra they have to declare the tax. It’ll be technically difficult - forms to fill in, cost of ink, maybe phone data, maybe a trip to a tax office.
You: “can’t let it slide else the problem grows and grows”.
Take Xmas out of it. Taxi driver. Give him a £20 for a £18 fare, expect a receipt? Expect it for the full £20?
You: “can’t let it slide else the problem grows and grows”.
Turning to voter ID. Most of the lefties on this thread “it’s not a problem, (how do you know? Without ID fraud is almost impossible to quantify) and, errr…paperwork and, errr….less well off ethnic minorities (who do cash in hand jobs with tips like Uber / food delivery) will find it hard to get so it’s racist. Yes. Voter ID is racist”
There was also some guy on here earlier that said, and I quote: “Public spending is not dependent on tax”.
Anyway.
Thanks for the laughs, lefty guys.
Nice attempt at deflection. Your Tory bosses will be proud.
Kind of missed off the point that we're talking billions of revenue and tens, if not hundreds, of millions in avoided tax by the super rich.
The super rich aren't the saviours of society, they're the destroyers.
Any thoughts on the Hull game today?The details are now coming out on the Biden clemency, ouch.
Actually you could do with explaining this - Trump’s plan is to lower the US corporate tax rate so countries like Ireland can’t offer a lower rate. How is this going to cost Google money?I really don’t need to explain why do I (perhaps I do for the lefty lot: Trump wants to stop the tax evasion that Google is doing in Ireland and bring the revenue back to the states.)
Where’s it say that?Actually you could do with explaining this - Trump’s plan is to lower the US corporate tax rate so countries like Ireland can’t offer a lower rate. How is this going to cost Google money?
It’s an article about the Irish government losing out on tax revenues - where does it say Google is going to lose any money?Where’s it say that?
Actually you could do with explaining this - Trump’s plan is to lower the US corporate tax rate so countries like Ireland can’t offer a lower rate. How is this going to cost Google money?
What does that article say? I’m not a subscriber to the Irish Times (surprised you are)Is Donald Trump chasing Ireland’s corporate tax boom?
It may be a little self-serving for Irish voices to be squawking about the potential threat to corporate tax take, but the worry is realwww.irishtimes.com
So, to get the picture one has to chess move a couple of places ahead.
It’s an article about the Irish government losing out on tax revenues - where does it say Google is going to lose any money?
Post the text of the article where it says thatGoogle based in Eire can supply into the EU tariff free (effectively- not that straightforward but anyway)
Google based in the US and supplying into the EU will leave them open to tariffs / fines etc. Indeed, the EU showed their intent by hammering Apple and Google recently.
Trump has openly declared against Google. Why would they want Thor profit centre back to a place under his control? Is he going to send them chocolate unicorns or hammer them. What do you think they think?
Anyway, I don’t want to get bogged down in lefty nit picky stuff.
Can you just post the text of the Irish Times article you linked to? It will only take you two secondsTrump has openly declared against Google. Why would they want Thor profit centre back to a place under his control? Is he going to send them chocolate unicorns or hammer them. What do you think they think?
Anyway, I don’t want to get bogged down in lefty nit picky stuff.
Can you just post the text of the Irish Times article you linked to? It will only take you two seconds
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?