M18CTID
Well-Known Member
I'm no big fan of IDS but it appears you're spot on: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...uncan-smith-george-osborne-living-wage-budget
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Motability - the farce
- Thread starter bluethrunthru
- Start date
I'm no big fan of IDS but it appears you're spot on: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...uncan-smith-george-osborne-living-wage-budget
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Tax evasion and avoidance
According to official figures quoted by the BBC last year, in the 2012/2013 tax year the shortfall of tax that should have been collected by HMRC versus what it actually brought in had risen to £34bn. This eye-watering figure includes £14bn in uncollected income tax, national insurance and capital gains tax, and £12.4bn in uncollected VAT.
Both points on actual fraud and the tax issues this country faces are the real issues here.
Firstly government has this way of getting segments of society to believe the other is at fault for everything, this I'll thought out policy introduced is loved and figures banded about believed despite the evidence proving otherwise.
Secondly, we are an incredibly rich country that could be eve richer if we all paid what we are due fairly and for the good of society as a whole but governments will never go for those as we all know.
The Google sweetheart deal is nothing more than sugar coated government propaganda aimed at making g us think they are on it when the truth is far from it and the tax hole will grow every year regardless.
Simplistic I know but I just want politicians to be honest and competent.
I Hart Man City
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 May 2010
- Messages
- 693
This thread is getting out of hand now. People are getting dangerously close to trolling in my opinion by making sensationalised claims they can't back up. I suggest everyone steps back from it before it goes any further.
Bluemoon in one sentence.
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
Both points on actual fraud and the tax issues this country faces are the real issues here.
Firstly government has this way of getting segments of society to believe the other is at fault for everything, this I'll thought out policy introduced is loved and figures banded about believed despite the evidence proving otherwise.
Secondly, we are an incredibly rich country that could be eve richer if we all paid what we are due fairly and for the good of society as a whole but governments will never go for those as we all know.
The Google sweetheart deal is nothing more than sugar coated government propaganda aimed at making g us think they are on it when the truth is far from it and the tax hole will grow every year regardless.
Simplistic I know but I just want politicians to be honest and competent.
I think we all do and we tax evasion is no doubt as big if not bigger then the Welfare Problem. The government are acting on that as well. A large number of Jersey tax breaks have been dealt with by the government, they have raised wages and are trying to rebalance an economy. PB allways argues that cuts cause more cuts and that austerity can never work. I prefer not to see it as austerity but promoting a better balance of the economy. I am no economist but surely if there is so much in the pot only so much can be taken out of said pot?
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
Well keep it civilised and on topic, with any claims supported by evidence and that'll be fine with me.
I have done throughout.
r.soleofsalford
Well-Known Member
Both points on actual fraud and the tax issues this country faces are the real issues here.
Firstly government has this way of getting segments of society to believe the other is at fault for everything, this I'll thought out policy introduced is loved and figures banded about believed despite the evidence proving otherwise.
Secondly, we are an incredibly rich country that could be eve richer if we all paid what we are due fairly and for the good of society as a whole but governments will never go for those as we all know.
The Google sweetheart deal is nothing more than sugar coated government propaganda aimed at making g us think they are on it when the truth is far from it and the tax hole will grow every year regardless.
Simplistic I know but I just want politicians to be honest and competent.
Saw an interesting programme a few weeks ago relating to the Dutch Sandwich tax avoidance scheme, mainly a process of shifting money from country to country to avoid paying tax. in one small office in Holland with 4 employees there were 4,700 companies registered.
Another one tonight on how the rich avoid tax should be an interesting watch
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
I think we all do and we tax evasion is no doubt as big if not bigger then the Welfare Problem. The government are acting on that as well. A large number of Jersey tax breaks have been dealt with by the government, they have raised wages and are trying to rebalance an economy. PB allways argues that cuts cause more cuts and that austerity can never work. I prefer not to see it as austerity but promoting a better balance of the economy. I am no economist but surely if there is so much in the pot only so much can be taken out of said pot?
I'm with PB in that cuts create cuts. An economy has to be stimulated, not stifled and for, your average man needs money over to spend on housing, cars and the high street without having to go into outrageous debt. I don't see much evidence where I live of a boom or feel good factor amongst fellow workers and the daily struggles continue. Yes a new living wage will be introduced but for me, ruthless employers will suddenly have no use for a workforce old enough to be paid it and will throw them to one side and take on younger workers they can pay far less to still under the legislation and a whole new benefits issue will arise out of it.
I'm also no economist and no expert but I don't for one second believe this or any other government has the first clue half the time how to solve real world issues as they have no experience of ever doing so.
Maybe top jobs should be given to neutral proven business leaders, experts in their fields who can formulate correct plans and implement them, cost effectively and for betterment of everyone?
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
I'm with PB in that cuts create cuts. An economy has to be stimulated, not stifled and for, your average man needs money over to spend on housing, cars and the high street without having to go into outrageous debt. I don't see much evidence where I live of a boom or feel good factor amongst fellow workers and the daily struggles continue. Yes a new living wage will be introduced but for me, ruthless employers will suddenly have no use for a workforce old enough to be paid it and will throw them to one side and take on younger workers they can pay far less to still under the legislation and a whole new benefits issue will arise out of it.
I'm also no economist and no expert but I don't for one second believe this or any other government has the first clue half the time how to solve real world issues as they have no experience of ever doing so.
Maybe top jobs should be given to neutral proven business leaders, experts in their fields who can formulate correct plans and implement them, cost effectively and for betterment of everyone?
So you think I should be pm?
So by yours and pbs argument, where is the dividing line? When the whole country is not n benefits? Would your economic theory work then?
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Saw an interesting programme a few weeks ago relating to the Dutch Sandwich tax avoidance scheme, mainly a process of shifting money from country to country to avoid paying tax. in one small office in Holland with 4 employees there were 4,700 companies registered.
Another one tonight on how the rich avoid tax should be an interesting watch
It's a huge issue.
Non action excused by claiming big business will leave Britain which is absolute rubbish as profits to be made here are enormous and no business would walk away from them, same goes for the banks.
Scare tactics again and propaganda.
I get no option on PAYE so why should they?
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
So you think I should be pm?
Not on today's evedince and certainly not in charge of the DWP lol
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I always thought it was the Tories who started the move to putting more people on sickness benefits, particularly when the mines were shut down. In that way, they were kept off the unemployment figures.I think we all do and we tax evasion is no doubt as big if not bigger then the Welfare Problem. The government are acting on that as well. A large number of Jersey tax breaks have been dealt with by the government, they have raised wages and are trying to rebalance an economy. PB allways argues that cuts cause more cuts and that austerity can never work. I prefer not to see it as austerity but promoting a better balance of the economy. I am no economist but surely if there is so much in the pot only so much can be taken out of said pot?
The government haven't raised wages though. Public sector salaries have been largely frozen and have fallen in real terms. All they can do is encourage the private sector to raise wages and the best way to do that is to stimulate growth in the economy, create demand, increase output and therefore increase demand for labour. But, as I've said before a few times, that has to be part of a complementary cycle involving demand and productivity. The problem is that productivity hasn't increased and wage growth is noticeably slowing. I argue that cuts slow down growth because it's a well-proven part of economic theory that cuts in private expenditure have a proportionate impact on public expenditure (the multiplier effect) although the actual numerical impact is open to debate.
I've never argued against the need for governments to ensure expenditure is within acceptable limits and that public spending and overall net debt is proportionate to our economic growth. But sometimes you have to increase that spending to take up slack in the private sector. That's economic orthodoxy until the private sector picks up the reins again, the economy starts growing, tax revenues increase and the gap between revenue and expenditure falls (and ultimately is eliminated). As an example, my current mortgage is ten times what my first ever mortgage was and that sort of debt would have been unthinkable all those years ago. But it's about the same ratio to my income as it was back then and actually represents a lower proportion of the value of my property than it did back then.
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
I always thought it was the Tories who started the move to putting more people on sickness benefits, particularly when the mines were shut down. In that way, they were kept off the unemployment figures.
The government haven't raised wages though. Public sector salaries have been largely frozen and have fallen in real terms. All they can do is encourage the private sector to raise wages and the best way to do that is to stimulate growth in the economy, create demand, increase output and therefore increase demand for labour. But, as I've said before a few times, that has to be part of a complementary cycle involving demand and productivity. The problem is that productivity hasn't increased and wage growth is noticeably slowing. I argue that cuts slow down growth because it's a well-proven part of economic theory that cuts in private expenditure have a proportionate impact on public expenditure (the multiplier effect) although the actual numerical impact is open to debate.
I've never argued against the need for governments to ensure expenditure is within acceptable limits and that public spending and overall net debt is proportionate to our economic growth. But sometimes you have to increase that spending to take up slack in the private sector. That's economic orthodoxy until the private sector picks up the reins again, the economy starts growing, tax revenues increase and the gap between revenue and expenditure falls (and ultimately is eliminated). As an example, my current mortgage is ten times what my first ever mortgage was and that sort of debt would have been unthinkable all those years ago. But it's about the same ratio to my income as it was back then and actually represents a lower proportion of the value of my property than it did back then.
Great points. Surely moving several hundred ? thousand people claiming sick benefit into work will help as well? More paying into the pot. I don't think your points really address welfare benefits directly however. Please correct me if I am wrong?
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
I always thought it was the Tories who started the move to putting more people on sickness benefits, particularly when the mines were shut down. In that way, they were kept off the unemployment figures.
The government haven't raised wages though. Public sector salaries have been largely frozen and have fallen in real terms. All they can do is encourage the private sector to raise wages and the best way to do that is to stimulate growth in the economy, create demand, increase output and therefore increase demand for labour. But, as I've said before a few times, that has to be part of a complementary cycle involving demand and productivity. The problem is that productivity hasn't increased and wage growth is noticeably slowing. I argue that cuts slow down growth because it's a well-proven part of economic theory that cuts in private expenditure have a proportionate impact on public expenditure (the multiplier effect) although the actual numerical impact is open to debate.
I've never argued against the need for governments to ensure expenditure is within acceptable limits and that public spending and overall net debt is proportionate to our economic growth. But sometimes you have to increase that spending to take up slack in the private sector. That's economic orthodoxy until the private sector picks up the reins again, the economy starts growing, tax revenues increase and the gap between revenue and expenditure falls (and ultimately is eliminated). As an example, my current mortgage is ten times what my first ever mortgage was and that sort of debt would have been unthinkable all those years ago. But it's about the same ratio to my income as it was back then and actually represents a lower proportion of the value of my property than it did back then.
A skilled voice eloquently saying what I think.
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
A skilled voice eloquently saying what I think.
A slightly less skilled one - where is the dividing line. At what point does people taking from the pot via the public sector and welfare state stifle our economy? Or is that impossible?
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Great points. Surely moving several hundred ? thousand people claiming sick benefit into work will help as well? More paying into the pot. I don't think your points really address welfare benefits directly however. Please correct me if I am wrong?
Is there evidence to prove several hundred thousand will be moved off and into work or is it just a mythical figure plucked to justify a policy decision?
Are there jobs Sat waiting for several hundred thousand?
I stayed off topic with my post so apologies for that as the economy in general was being discussed.
r.soleofsalford
Well-Known Member
I think we all do and we tax evasion is no doubt as big if not bigger then the Welfare Problem. The government are acting on that as well. A large number of Jersey tax breaks have been dealt with by the government, they have raised wages and are trying to rebalance an economy. PB allways argues that cuts cause more cuts and that austerity can never work. I prefer not to see it as austerity but promoting a better balance of the economy. I am no economist but surely if there is so much in the pot only so much can be taken out of said pot?
It's a huge issue.
Non action excused by claiming big business will leave Britain which is absolute rubbish as profits to be made here are enormous and no business would walk away from them, same goes for the banks.
Scare tactics again and propaganda.
I get no option on PAYE so why should they?
I heard the argument made for Cafe Nero. The number of people it employs and the amount of tax paid by those worker as a justification to let Cafe Nero carry on paying minimal tax.
The fact that if Cafe Nero shut all its shops tomorrow there would be rush by large and small business`s and individuals alike to fill the void.
Now that would be a free market economy. not this cartel of multi nations we have now
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
Is there evidence to prove several hundred thousand will be moved off and into work or is it just a mythical figure plucked to justify a policy decision?
Are there jobs Sat waiting for several hundred thousand?
I stayed off topic with my post so apologies for that as the economy in general was being discussed.
1 applicant for every 2.7 vacancies in Manchester at present says yes. And no it is not mythical. Thousand of previous long term mobility claimants now working.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
A slightly less skilled one - where is the dividing line. At what point does people taking from the pot via the public sector and welfare state stifle our economy? Or is that impossible?
I'd say it's impossible mate. Again the numbers bounded around and their actual impact are negotiable in the grand scheme of things as far as I'm concerned and pale into insignificance when put against others like tax evasion/avoidance.
Just this week we pledged over £2B in aid to Syria. Does that not seem strange given how poor we are and there is nothing in the pot?
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
I'd say it's impossible mate. Again the numbers bounded around and their actual impact are negotiable in the grand scheme of things as far as I'm concerned and pale into insignificance when put against others like tax evasion/avoidance.
Just this week we pledged over £2B in aid to Syria. Does that not seem strange given how poor we are and there is nothing in the pot?
Seems an absolute joke. Wouldn't give them 2p.
law74
Well-Known Member
Great points. Surely moving several hundred ? thousand people claiming sick benefit into work will help as well? More paying into the pot. I don't think your points really address welfare benefits directly however. Please correct me if I am wrong?
If those in work have more disposable income, then they spend more in the high street, increasing the need for retail staff, spend more in cafes bars and restaurants increasing the number of people employed in the service sector, these newly employed people are then paying tax into the pot not taking out in unemployment benefits.
The working class spend a greater proportion of their wages than the upper middle class, so instead of tax cuts for the wealthy, improve the quality of life for those at the bottom.
On the issue of tax evasion, how many are employed in Boots Swiss headquarters?