Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
David, as said, you are fundamentally right, but at the moment, the State needs to spend £50 billion a year on interest on the Public Debt. To do this, the State needs to increase tax, cut spending, axe jobs, print more digital money, sell more bonds and gilts, cut benefits, and all at the same time.
However, at the present rate, the Public Debt is set to double within about 12 years (give or take a year or two).
That means, in 12 years time, we could be spending £100 billion a year on Debt interest.
Greece has gone that road to the end, and if it were not for another bailout tranche coming within weeks, that country would be without enough money by December 2012.
They would have run out of money 2 years ago without a bailout.
Spain, Portugal and Ireland have all gone that same road. In each case, it is the public debt that sent them into bailout mode.
Italy is going down the same lane. Other countries are near the end of the same road.
We too are approaching the end, even if it takes a decade longer.
To cut tax now would be disaster, sheer and pure, especially as Barry wants it, where the mightily rich have a massive tax cut, and all the corporations which roll in money.
The Public Debt needs to be sorted out first, it needs to be cancelled while the financial assets are still there to do it.
Only then could we talk of tax cuts.
A public debt is not a private debt, it is there for all the Country, and those with massive financial reserves stacked away are part of the Public. They need to pay up a part of their financial assets to cover the Debt, else our Country will go the way Greece is in.
The Government will never cut taxes as Barry wants them to with the present Debt. If Barry were right, Gov. would have already cut taxes as he says they should.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You really do not understand a thing about this Alexander. It is not worth trying to explain any more to you because, as on so many issues, you prefer your own fantasy about how things work.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, the Government will not do as you advocate, regards tax cuts, it would be sheer economic catastrophe.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
looks like you have sussed out david could be another pack of cards to fall.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Sorry Howard I dont get that.
Alex, govts are incompetent, the reason we are in so much debt is because for decades they have spent more than they have collected, it is no more complicated than that. Their arrogance is amazing - "we know best" when actually they don't. Take overseas aid, quangos, special advisors, MPs expenses etc etc cut tax and take that waste out of the equation.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
It has been proven time and time again that when you cut tax rates, you improve the tax yield, and when you increase rates you reduce the revenues. Why then does this government not propose a gradual (say, over 7 years) reduction in income and corporation tax rates to a flat 15% on everything over £10k?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Many reasons Peter.
I'd make all taxes a fixed rate of 20%, income, VAT, CGT, IHT, corporation, we'd save a fortune in evasion and red tape. Subject to your £10k of course
IHT has always been a missed trick for me, tax all inheritance at 20%, its unearned income. When you bequeath me £100k (
) I'll be very happy to send Mr Osborne £20k of it.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Having the likes of Starbucks and their ilk in mind. I do not think they avoid tax because it is too high or misspent, but simply because they can.
There might well be an opportunity to jump with joy that in this new world of low and flat taxation less is being avoided, but this will only be because less is required, not because everybody 'gets-it'.
Perhaps the many here who laud the notion of paying absolutely no more than is unavoidable could explain why being asked to pay at a lower rate will make it any the less laudable to avoid wherever possible.
Why must 'tax' be spoken of in terms of 'amount' and not in terms of obligation?
What mind can conceive that on getting a wind-fall 20% is OK but 30% is not?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Obligation? You'd need to define that Tom.
It depends if you think govt wastes money, if you don't thats fine, but you'd need to explain why we are so much in debt.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
David, I do not need to define or explain anything. I do not answer to you.
Why else would 20% be OK other than that it equates to an obligation you can live with, and 30% does not.
Why are those on PAYE obliged to pay tax at a rate set by HMRC and 'companies' are not?
How on Earth could anybody seriously opine that any non-individualised entity would cease to avoid wherever they can by being asked to pay less from the get-go? [A sentence about TAX that does not mention TAX and yet makes complete sense.]
If a company today sees fit to trade within an economy and reap it's benefit from the results of all areas of tax spend within that same economy; health, education, infrastructure etc, and yet be content to work the system in such a way so as to not pay-in to that same economy and be roundly praised by you and others for so doing, are we to credit that this will change by lowering the 'ask' without adjusting the expectation of payment? And how is it that satellite TV is to be Rightly begrudged any in receipt of benefits they may not have paid into?
"A penny saved, is a penny earned." Makes no mention of upper or lower limit.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Tom, there is very little in life you NEED to do, for the benefit of this discussion it would help if you defined obligation. You see that obligation will vary from administration to administration, from budget to budget, it is an undefined figure.
Why are those on PAYE obliged to pay tax at a rate set by HMRC and 'companies' are not?
Starbucks and others operate within the law, they are not in any way avoiding their obligation (whatever it is)
How on Earth could anybody seriously opine that any non-individualised entity would cease to avoid wherever they can by being asked to pay less from the get-go? [A sentence about TAX that does not mention TAX and yet makes complete sense.]
That might make sense to you, I'd suggest its a load of pseudo nonsense.
If a company today sees fit to trade within an economy and reap it's benefit from the results of all areas of tax spend within that same economy; health, education, infrastructure etc, and yet be content to work the system in such a way so as to not pay-in to that same economy and be roundly praised by you and others for so doing, are we to credit that this will change by lowering the 'ask' without adjusting the expectation of payment? And how is it that satellite TV is to be Rightly begrudged any in receipt of benefits they may not have paid into?
I want EVERYBODY to pay less tax and for the govt to spend what it collects and no more. Its useless govt that has got us in this mess, its time they lived within their means.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"I want EVERYBODY to pay less tax"
What is less than zero?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Do you know anybody that pays ZERO tax?
Council tax, VAT, IHT, NI, PAYE, TV licence, to name several.
Of course, you may believe govt wastes nothing
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Even say American corporations who trade here and pay little or no corporation tax are providing jobs through employing people in the UK and those people in those jobs pay income tax/VAT etc. Indeed the business itself is very likely to be generating VAT revenues.
If we want these corporations to arrange their affairs here so they pay corporation tax here then we need to see how we can make the UK more attractive for them to do so.
But then it seems from this thread that there are people posting who resent their investment in this country and would risk sacrificing the jobs and salaries they provide and give up future investment potential in an attempt to pin them down to pay corporation taxes.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Barry, you sound like a father of fat ugly daughters. It matters not at all who they marry, or even if they are dragged off in the night. Just as long as they are no longer eating you out of house and home.
How can taxation levels ever be lowered while taxation plays no part in business?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Tom you're tying yourself in knots, why do you say taxation plays no part in business?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
if our taxation is so high why have elite high paid french people been moving to london in droves over the past 10 years?
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Because theirs is even higher Howard. Since Hollande came in the number has increased.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
According to BBC there are 400000 French living in London
