Al talks sense shocker
#1
I note our PM today has talked of needing a Rooseveltian approach to help UK overcome the economic problems caused by Coronavirus.

I couldn't agree with him more. Let's hope he and his govt have the same levels of competence that the great man had.
Reply
#2
I'm all for that, as long as it's not just the usual soundbites and properly funded. And by properly funded I don't mean taking the money from the local authorities to make it look like it's Boris spending the same money that the LAs are told they can't. Get some proper taxation in place as well as we are nearly bankrupt apparently rather than use a bit of smoke and mirrors.
Reply
#3
I wonder who will get the contracts?
Reply
#4
Certainly time to think about the future economy.

Would you A) invest in a socially anarchic, economical failing due to lack of tax financing, organizationally challenged, and leadership weak British economy society rather than, say, B) a more socially cohesive, economically resilient due to a willingness to accept taxes, organizationally stringent, and well led option garnering a deep degree of support?

Developed countries will be chasing finance for their growth initiatives. Countries perceived as being weaker on a basket of indicators will pay higher bounties in their loans. Those extra costs will affect the success chances of the policies they fund. Being the unstable sick man of Eurp won't help.
Reply
#5
(06-29-2020, 10:03 AM)baggy1 Wrote: I'm all for that, as long as it's not just the usual soundbites and properly funded. And by properly funded I don't mean taking the money from the local authorities to make it look like it's Boris spending the same money that the LAs are told they can't. Get some proper taxation in place as well as we are nearly bankrupt apparently rather than use a bit of smoke and mirrors.

What's your definition of 'proper taxation' ?
Reply
#6
(06-29-2020, 03:56 PM)FenlandBoing Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 10:03 AM)baggy1 Wrote: I'm all for that, as long as it's not just the usual soundbites and properly funded. And by properly funded I don't mean taking the money from the local authorities to make it look like it's Boris spending the same money that the LAs are told they can't. Get some proper taxation in place as well as we are nearly bankrupt apparently rather than use a bit of smoke and mirrors.

What's your definition of 'proper taxation' ?

Increases in Income Tax and Corporation Tax to start with. I'd be looking at Dividend taxation as well - the amount of self employed that have been taking their wages through dividends has left them unstuck when it comes to business support but they will continue to do it.

Tbh Fen it's been a long time since I have had to look at taxation so I am very rusty. It's over 20 years since I studied and about the same since I was involved in using it in accounts.
Reply
#7
(06-29-2020, 05:34 PM)baggy1 Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 03:56 PM)FenlandBoing Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 10:03 AM)baggy1 Wrote: I'm all for that, as long as it's not just the usual soundbites and properly funded. And by properly funded I don't mean taking the money from the local authorities to make it look like it's Boris spending the same money that the LAs are told they can't. Get some proper taxation in place as well as we are nearly bankrupt apparently rather than use a bit of smoke and mirrors.

What's your definition of 'proper taxation' ?

Increases in Income Tax and Corporation Tax to start with. I'd be looking at Dividend taxation as well - the amount of self employed that have been taking their wages through dividends has left them unstuck when it comes to business support but they will continue to do it.

Tbh Fen it's been a long time since I have had to look at taxation so I am very rusty. It's over 20 years since I studied and about the same since I was involved in using it in accounts.

Dividend tax is effectively 26.5% for basic rate payers.  19% corporate tax on profits and 7.5% on the actual dividend. 

Not a lot of difference in it these days.  51.5% on higher rate payers.

For clarity I’m ignoring Employers NIC in the comparison. 

There has to be some incentive for business owners to take the risk.  The Chancellor talked about equaling up the NIC rate between employed and self employed. Ignoring Class 2 (3.05/week) there’s 3% difference.

For that 3% the self employed have no holiday pay, no pension, no company sick pay, no notice, no redundancy rights or HR protection whatsoever.  No protection or stability of work at all.

How many on here would give up all their rights, pension scheme and other benefits for 3% difference on their NIC liability?
Reply
#8
(06-29-2020, 05:34 PM)baggy1 Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 03:56 PM)FenlandBoing Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 10:03 AM)baggy1 Wrote: I'm all for that, as long as it's not just the usual soundbites and properly funded. And by properly funded I don't mean taking the money from the local authorities to make it look like it's Boris spending the same money that the LAs are told they can't. Get some proper taxation in place as well as we are nearly bankrupt apparently rather than use a bit of smoke and mirrors.

What's your definition of 'proper taxation' ?

Increases in Income Tax and Corporation Tax to start with. I'd be looking at Dividend taxation as well - the amount of self employed that have been taking their wages through dividends has left them unstuck when it comes to business support but they will continue to do it.

Tbh Fen it's been a long time since I have had to look at taxation so I am very rusty. It's over 20 years since I studied and about the same since I was involved in using it in accounts.

I run my own Business so putting up corporation tax back up would hurt my finances personally but as long as it doesn't put off Companies coming to the UK to invest and bring jobs, I wouldn't be against it as it seems fair. Dividends are taxed heavily these days and there aren't the benefits with them as there used to be - especially with directors of Companies previously using them as a bit of a tax loophole instead of having salaries.
Reply
#9
With Corporation Tax the issue isn't so much the rate (although personally I think it's about 3 or 4% too low), it's the ineffective and exploitable collection régime that needs addressing.

I don't see much enthusiasm these days for punitively taxing individuals, although the issue still surfaces now and again, probably because it's a convenient faux argument to distract attention from the laxity of other areas of taxation policy and its beneficiaries - multinationals, the landowning community, et al. If they can throw the old chestnut about the left wanting to take all our money and spend it on crackpot initiatives, that will occupy public focus for a while longer and the status quo is maintained.
Reply
#10
No cause for alarm it seems that Al's proposals are more Penn and Teller than FDR.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: