Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Taxes rarely pay for a specific thing, they just go into the big melting pot....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
To an extent that is probably the case, Paul, but is it in the interests of businesses to be coughing up ever more tax to pay the cost of Public Debt?
Does this not lead businesses into bankruptcy?
Next year, the cost of the Debt may be around £55 billion. Surely the taxes that are being paid to cover this gigantic sum are draining those who run a business.
Barry always says: cut taxes! Cut public spending!
But Barry never explains how cutting taxes will bring up the 50 odd billion quid a year we need to pay interest on the Debt.
Oh don't get me wrong! I try to understand Barry's logic, but can't see where it adds up.
The spending cuts of 2011 were by far inferior to the interest paid that year on the Debt.
So Barry is not offering a solution when proclaiming spending cuts, is he? As these cuts do not remotely cover the massive cost of Public Debt.
So it is a flawed solution, and Barry has not really explained anything on how to save us spending each year tens of billions of pounds (tendency increasing) on the Debt to cover interest.
I wish Barry would come along and give an explanation, and if it were credible, I'd also give him the credit.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No Alexander - it is not in the interests of businesses to pay more taxes simply because the government has not properly controlled public spending for over a decade.
It is in the interests of businesses for government to get to grips with its own profligate spendthrift interfering ways and get off the back of business to leave them alone to do what they do best. The fact that you are unable to understand just how the burden of government holds back business is down to you. I have tried many ways to explain this to you but you seem unable to grasp what is a simple concept.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
But I do understand, Barry, that Government past and present has laid a burden on the Public, including free enterprises, with the Debt. And that the present Coalition has increased the Debt by 150 billion pounds in two years, notwithstanding the spending cuts.
And that Chancellor Osborne has pasted and plastered his way out of even further evident bankruptcy with the mass-printing of money in the form of QE.
Problem is, it's always you who sings lyrics to the Tory Party, and to every Tory figure that springs up in the lime-light.
So I'm wondering where the actual root of the problem is, if you get the gist.
When being spokesman of the Tory party, are you not actually giving us all the wrong advice? Or am I missing something here?
Because it's then always you who tells us all how "the Government" is to blame for everything!!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander.
1/ I am not a spokesman for the Conservative Party and I do not hesitate to criticise George Osborne when I consider it appropriate.
2/ It is the independent bank of England who determine monetary policy and decide on the ill-considered QE experiment.
3/ Of course debt has increased because the UK economy was placed in an appalling situation by Gordon Brown when the downturn started in 2007 and then he did nothing about it between then and when he left office except spend more and make the situation even worse. Even I could not see how his massive deficit could be closed instantly on the new government coming to office and it had to be done over a period.
4/ There is no choice but to make the cuts but they have not been deep enough to meet the 2015 deadline and to also do enough to relieve the burden on business. More action is needed to cut public spending and cut the more damaging taxes.
Government is the problem, too much of it. We need less government, fewer rules, less red tape, less interference, lower taxes and for it to keep its busybody nose out of our lives.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
The root of the problem is that government at all levels has grown far too large over the last 30 years, as a consequence it has spent far more too much money and has had to borrow this money on the world gilts markets.
Like all debt this needs to be repaid.
The first steps have to be to get government spending to be less than its income, thus allowing the repayment of not just the interest but also the capital element. There are two ways to do this either reduce spending or increase tax income. Ideally you do a bit of both and to be fair there is scope for increasing tax income by closing loopholes and ensuring everyone pays their taxes; but on its own this is not enough to reduce the deficit so we are therefore left with the need to cut spending.
Sadly this will invariably have a short to medium term social effect as civil and public servants jobs are cut and other government spending reduced. There will be, and we are seeing, a growth in private sector employment as state jobs diminish, but this invariably lags a little way behind the reductions. Government can mitigate against some of this social cost through targeted spending in key areas and proper tendering and contract management.
There is not however a magic wand to solve this and attacking the private sector is only going to worsen rather than solve the problem.
(As an aside - I would not have privatised the railways or the public utilities as they have not delivered lower costs to the consumer, have seen huge numbers of jobs shed, have transferred significant amounts of wealth outside of the UK and removed real control of strategic services from the UK)
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Interesting points, Ross.
Seems that Ross and Barry have rather differing views on economy, as Ross believes the Railway should have remained nationalised, and that the Government should do target investments in key areas, as well as introduce a measured increase of tax income.
This latter point would be the very least Gov. could do to reduce the Public Debt burden.
Only two people expressly believe we're on the way to economic recovery as policies stand now.
Ray believes that producing more products in Britain and importing less from China would lead to economic improvement, where-as Barry in the past has expressed his view that producing in China and importing it, such as we do at present, is a great investment.
Still leaves next year's Public Debt interest payments to be handed over, but never mind that, I'm sure Chancellor Osborne will have the BoE print another £50 billion on a paste and plaster job.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Alexander - yet again you read what you wish to read rather than what is written
I did not say any where in my post that I wanted an increase in income tax - I do want all loopholes and avoidance schemes closed and HMRC to stop doing cosy deals with multi-nationals.
I believe that the government should target expenditure where it will help stimulate economic activity and particularly the creation of real jobs etc. and use contract management to help create apprenticeships etc.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
OK, so Ross is in favour of all tax avoidance being stopped and the slimy loopholes closed.
Agree with you on that one.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander;
whilst i totally disagree with barryw in his views(not a spokesperson for tories, just a view)
on the economy and how to resolve, he has made it crystal clear on where and how he feels the cuts should come from
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - as always you misrepresent other people's views as it seems you cannot get your head around such matters. No wonder you come up with some strange and what would be very dangerous theories if they were acted upon. Ross and I come from very different ends of the political spectrum and have different views but these are informed differences and we can certainly agree on a lot of things including how to regard your mutterings.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I would like to ask 2 difficult questions?
How muched would be saved if "all tax loopholes and avoidance schemes closed"
How much will 4million un-employed, cost this country?
aprox.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - I do not think there is a proper answer to that. Some points:
What do you regard as tax avoidance schemes that should be closed? You say all schemes and that definition would include the following:
ISAs
Pensions
Ending separate taxation for husband and wife to prevent tax free transfers between them.
To somehow limit the ability of small businesses to incorporate
Ending taper relief and CGT allowances
Changing the tax status of a wide range of investment schemes.
To somehow restrict the freedom of businesses in respect of tax domicile etc....
Restrict the movement of people and capital
That is just a few off the top of my head. The problem is that changing any one of these has a cost to HMRC in the short or the long term as well as the potential for more tax revenues. In each case there is also a likely cost to the economy as well and in some instances would be devastating to businesses and to growth. Then there are issues of personal freedom and, dare I say it, fairness and human rights....
Now for tax evasion - this is the illegal kind and I certainly do not advocate people breaking the law. The problem here is that HMRC are always taking measures to combat evasion and when they do new counter measure are developed. It is an ongoing war.
It is also worth adding - the latter point is also true in respect of legal tax avoidance as well. It is like an arms race. It will always be the case for all the while we have a complex tax code and all the time it is getting more and more complex.
The answer is what Ross and I have been saying for a long time. Scrap the present tax system all together and bring in simple flat and low taxes. This eliminates a lot of the problems.
By focussing though on taxes and raising more revenue that way you are simply, with the present system, just compounding the problems we have.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
and the cost of putting over 4 million on the dole that garyc asked
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith - that is not even necessarily a cost. You are assuming it would all a one-way street, it is not as experience since 2010 has shown.
Equally you could ask the same question as a cost to not reducing the deficit with the appalling impact on the private sector of higher interest rates and the continued burden of a bloated state sector.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The cost of high unemployment can be unexpected: in the late 20s and early 30s, it led to a change of government in Germany.
However, if we went down Barry's road and reduced income tax on the rich and wealthy, and even on companies making reasonable profits, or on businesses in general, the Treasury would have no money left at all to pay unemployment benefits, housing benefits, and pensions would probably go through the bottom too, not to mention child benefits and other forms of essential benefits.
We'd end up in anarchy!
Fortunately the Government doesn't listen to Barry's mutterings
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Here you go again Alexander. Whether you deliberately misrepresent or misunderstand I really do not know. I suspect the latter or you would not come up with your crazed economic theories.
Let us get back to what actually does happen in the economy.
Do you realise why Brown, for all his many errors, was not daft enough to increase taxes on the rich until his last year of office? remember that increase was merely a political trap and nothing else.
Even he knew that doing so would reduce the amount of tax collected from the rich.
Why can you not get it into your head that tax rates and the levels of tax collected are not necessarily the same thing. That is specially true of the wealthier who have considerable control over their income and are the most financially mobile.
What I am saying is fact - not theory or opinion. The evidence is there in HMRC collection figure and you can go right back to the 1970's and 1980's to see the impact. It is even more so now with a much more global economy. You see the same thing in other countries too.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Alexander will never answer the question on whether is is being deliberately obtuse or really doesn't understand.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, by way of this thread, I've been trying to understand what Forumites think on the future of Britain's economy, and have noticed that you have not answered "yes" to the question in post 1, whether you think our economy is heading towards recovery.
Only 2 people have replied affirmative, Barry and Ray.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Yes
Now you answer #58....
Been nice knowing you :)