Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#41
Brian, I'm not sure what your point is, there will always be tax outstanding.
The irrefutable fact is successive govts have spent more money than they have collected, it has nothing whatsoever to do with banks.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#42
Brian - you just do not get it at all.
The privatisations done by Mrs T of what were heavily taxpayer subsidised industries and is nothing to do with the deficit now. It did help solve the spending deficit in the 80's though, it was part of the solution then.
Then your other point, what you are saying is that if you went out and spent £1200 per month while earning only £1000 a month you are doing no wrong because you should be earning the £1200. That is simply mad.
You need to spend to what is affordable and not to what you want to spend.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#43
Oh dear........Mr Micawber.............
The `few` will pick a certain item in many posts and `hammer away`at it in an effort to prove they are `right`
overall and to quell opposition in to submission..........eg the Brown factor .............
The fact remains the Banks caused the global financial situation...........QED............
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#44
Reg, at the time of the crisis in 2008 were we running a deficit?
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#45
David you prove the point.................your `item` on this occasion is the deficit........................
.....and once again that you should try ``Mastermind``in your strongest subject....``stating the bl...g obvious``
The fact remains the Banks caused the global financial situation.................QED.....
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#46
Reg Hansell wrote:Oh dear........Mr Micawber.............
The `few` will pick a certain item in many posts and `hammer away`at it in an effort to prove they are `right`
overall and to quell opposition in to submission..........eg the Brown factor .............
The fact remains the Banks caused the global financial situation...........QED............
That is your fig leaf.
The economy works in cycles of expansion and contraction.
During the expansion phase you balance any deficit to ensure that by the time the next contraction starts you can accommodate a deficit as tax revenues fall.
You cannot deny that Brown reversed the deficit reduction that was in place in 2000 and during that growth cycle increased it instead of reducing it so a structural deficit, one that could not be balanced in time for the next downturn, was firmly in place by 2005 and Brown kept on increasing it.
These are facts not opinion.
The economic downturn started in 2007 with the banks prudential weakness being exposed by that resulting in the banking collapse in 2008.
The reasons for the banking weakness in the UK itself has its roots in the Brown reforms of 1997 when prudential controls were loosened and the tri-partied regulatory regime was instigated.
In Europe the Euro significantly added to their problems along with the fact that many Eurozone countries made the same basic deficit spending errors Brown made. Their bank problems are more recent and stem from the length and depth of the crisis in those countries.
I could go on to the other actions of Brown that made the UK problems even worse than they should be.
The problem is that the coalition is not doing enough, fast enough, to correct the core problems with the economy.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#47
Cob Web answer exorcism required from the Brown stuff....................
Banks caused the `````global````` financial situation....QED.................
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#48
You keep repeating the lie Reg - as I said to Brian, repeating it does not make it true.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#49
I'm not sure if Reg is being deliberately obtuse.
We have been discussing what caused the deficit, the banking crisis is another topic altogether
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#50
i was just about to say something similar - the finance johnnies can only be held responsible for the banking crisis.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#51
Even then they're not 100% to blame Howard, politicians have got blood on their hands too.
Guest 904- Registered: 21 Mar 2013
- Posts: 312
#52
Reg, are you aware that quod erat demonstrandum only really applies to philosophical argument, not urban myth?
It is plain to anybody with half an ounce of intelligence that if expenditure exceeds income, deficit ensues. That applies to household income, charitable trust income, business income and government income. Whilst some debt is good, as it keeps credit circulating, excessive debt will destroy the systems set in place, based on previous experiences.
The only answer is to cut back spending to the quick and raise extra revenue through taxation.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#53
how would you raise the extra revenue paul?
one argument goes that by cutting top tax rates more money will be raked in by the treasury, others say by lowering taxes for the lower paid more money enters the economy through spending in shops etc.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#54
Both of those are true Howard. As I have said many times those at the equivalent of earning the minimum wage at a 37 1/2 week should be below the tax threshold - this is a moral issue as much as fiscal. Also the highest rates of income tax reduced to 37p (including NI). The latter will be particularly effective in increasing HMRC income. There is a mass of UK and international data that backs this up.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#55
to put a cat amonkst the pidgeons I would sugest respectfully of course.a course of insant action of the upmost eargency.
1,pass law to freeze bank accounts of those who owe tax/s.
2,take the exact amount plus 10% intrest plus costs.
3 when taxs are paid unfreeze the account with a direct debit inforced to pay there taxs on time.making they cant transfer to an off shore one.
problem solved.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#56
can't see that working in practice brian.
1 and 2) i doubt that the evaders/avoiders are silly enough to keep much in u.k. bank accounts.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#57
worth a try though.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#58
Brian No - that is not authorised by Parliament and would be an illegal action that would tie up the Courts for years and would result in massive compensation for those who had assets sequestered.
You first have to prove people have been guilty of breaking the law, tax evasion in other words and then you already have the sanctions to tax them and penalise them too. Without that it would be theft. In addition the response would be massive capital flight resulting in a run on the banks and a massive lost of investment in UK businesses. It would cause serious economic damage as no-one would trust the UK government. International business would certainly move their corporate headquarters elsewhere.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#59
mean while they are getting away with it.yet again.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#60
To reduce tax
All we need do is dump the EU , dump the restrictive bureaucracy suffocating the country and stop all benefits to non uk citizens
Sack all public sector workers over £25'000 a year and re employ on contracts that the taxpayers can afford.
Stop the tax and scams used by the rich to cheat the system.
This would be a start .