Trump is my favourite comedian of the year already (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter tisza
- Start date
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
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 ?!!
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)
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Why haven’t the markets responded like they did with Truss? That’s your answer.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
What Malcolm also seems to have forgotten is that Hunt as chancellor tightened the rules on borrowing stifling investment in the UK. The fact that Reeves has taken these measures is partly to undo the Tories playing politics ahead of the general election and partly because it’s needed due to the Tory legacy.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Public debt is private surplus, why would you want to reduce it? It just represents all the money created that hasn't yet been taxed out of existence. It is nothing like private debt.
If you're that bothered about debt to GDP, it's not even high by historical standards. In the post war period it was more than twice as high for a long period while the country built all of its modern infrastructure. Sadly, that infrastructure has largely been left to rot since then so it is necessary to spend significant amounts to bring it up to the standards needed today.
If you're that bothered about debt to GDP, it's not even high by historical standards. In the post war period it was more than twice as high for a long period while the country built all of its modern infrastructure. Sadly, that infrastructure has largely been left to rot since then so it is necessary to spend significant amounts to bring it up to the standards needed today.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
The top earners, both corporate and individual, contribute huge amounts to the exchequer.
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.
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 Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Awful behaviour:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Anyway, it's irrelevant anyway because public spending is not dependent on tax.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
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.
A lot of comments on here are around it being a solution for a false problem… I don’t think there’s a big fraud issue in this country’s elections but still agree with the principle of voter ID.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
“Public spending is not dependent on tax”
Right.
I’ve learnt to not debate absolute headbangers.
You win.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
How could you collect tax before spending you idiot
I was responding to Tony saying that’s austerity caused a worsening of government debt by every measure. I was saying it’s not as clear cut. Public services and GDP, austerity would’ve had negative impacts obviously.
FWIW I’m pretty sure USA debt to gdp is a lot higher than pre pandemic, trended upwards and is forecast to continue to increase even though they’ve run a deficit of trillions (cumulatively). USA is a totally different beast to us anyway really. World reserve currency etc means they can run big deficits without being punished as severely as we would be. Also gdp helped by having all of the biggest and best tech firms in the world
Whether people see the spending decisions have been worth it…the electorates will decide that I guess
Last edited:
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
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.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
And btw, I’m in no way advocating tax evasion - just being a realist and pointing out hypocrisy.
Bringing the debate back to subject, Trump; it was Trump who advocated dropping the tax on tips rule - quite possibly in light of the above. The issue is the line between nominal amount and tax avoidance scheme.
Bringing the debate back to subject, Trump; it was Trump who advocated dropping the tax on tips rule - quite possibly in light of the above. The issue is the line between nominal amount and tax avoidance scheme.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
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.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
That’s great. Not sure what your point is other than something about the super rich being evil.
Look, hiking the tax rates up on “super rich” corporations sometimes has a negative effect
Closer to home, Ireland has more favourable tax rates than the UK.
As a direct result, Google, MS and Apple base themselves there.
These three alone pay ONE THIRD OF THE TOTAL CTAX RECEIVED in Ireland. Also, many tech jobs are provided as a downstream, which creates equivalent PAYE revenue and economic growth. Would Ireland be wise in taking the economic bubbling spouted on here and raise taxes that would see those big 3 corporations reconsider their base? By losing that tax revenue the poorest in society would have to take up some of the slack and pay more tax to pay for services. Or, tax the remaining industries in Ireland more so that they leave or fail?
The point I’m making, which I hope is quite clear, is that raising tax rates on super rich corporations is quite often self-harm economically.
Indeed, if the UK wanted to be a bit more edgy, (Brexit allows things like this which is why the Establishment were browning their pants and getting the feeble minded to support Remain) it could play Eire at their own game and offer the big 3 tax status in the UK at 10% and use the EU - UK free trade situation to supply digital services. This would swell the UK tax coffers, create high paid digital jobs, reduce the tax burden on the poorest on society like the BAME community.
So, I could easily say right now, that the raising of taxes is racist. (Of course it’s not, but I might pen an article on under an assumed name and send it to the Guardian “Tax is racist, and we need we need to start drinking our own urine to save the water companies”. Most of the lefty loons on this thread would probably believe that. Hmm. Tempting.)
Of course, tax evasion needs to be clamped down on. As I’ve repeatedly stated.
What I’m actually trying to show, with sensible and accurate and reasonable examples, is that taxing the “super rich” corporations doesn’t always have the desired effect that “Dreamers” think it will.
It’s lefty coffee house economic illiterate dribble.
Sorry Dreamer
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Ireland prices corporation tax loss from Trump policies at €10bn | International trade | The Guardian
Figure costed for three multinationals repatriating to US after nomination for commerce secretary hits out at Ireland’s tax regime
The more intelligent on this thread might deduce (from this Guardian article) that Google et al didn’t want Trump.
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.)
Try Googling Trump in the run up to the election. Try finding positive articles.
Lots of people swallow the nonsense “Trump bad”.
Again,
For those that understand how these things work no explanation is necessary. For those that can’t work it out no explanation is possible.
Any thoughts on the Hull game today?
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?
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
It’s an article about the Irish government losing out on tax revenues - where does it say Google is going to lose any money?
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
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 real
So, to get the picture one has to chess move a couple of places ahead.
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.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Post the text of the article where it says that
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Lmao remember when @The Philosopher claimed to have uncovered a Google conspiracy against Donald Trump over tax revenues that only he was smart enough to understand, only to change the subject a few minutes later because he couldn’t even open the only article he claimed backed up his point?
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
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.
Anyway, I don’t want to get bogged down in lefty nit picky stuff.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You started the discussion to be fair!
Can you just post the text of the Irish Times article you linked to? It will only take you two seconds
